Newsaic ®

FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board

By Stephen Lee

Issues

Cases

Resources

FootnoteTV ® No Frames

Footnote Comics™

Mirror Law™

Site FAQ | Search B.B. | Shop

Author FAQ

In the News Home   What's This What's New Search Mobile/PDA Recommend this site     Best viewed on a 800x600 screen, with text size set at smaller Corrections Fine Print E-mail

FootnoteTV (TM) : South Park Examining the issues behind your favorite TV shows, episode by episode. More info here. Season 7 (Frames) | <--- Season 7 ---> Red Man's Greed (an Indian tribe with a gaming operation tries to build a superhighway through South Park by buying it; the tribe reverses an old scheme by giving the South Park residents blankets infected with SARS) New! Lil' Crime Stoppers (the kids pretend to be detectives) Fat Butt and Pancake Head (Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck) I'm a Little Bit Country (war with Iraq, flag-burning; read the Declaration of Independence and some background information here; 100th episode) Toilet Paper (references to Silence of the Lambs and the Godfather) Krazy Kripples (stem-cell research, Christopher Reeve was paralyzed from the shoulders down in a 1995 accident, the Crips and the Bloods are two gangs that started in Los Angeles around the 1970s and have spread to other cities) Cancelled (Earth as a reality show) A badly-drawn homage. Indian Gaming (last updated May 1, 2003) (back to top) Federal law allows American Indian tribes to run gaming operations as a "means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments," but some say that the law has not helped the overall American Indian population and instead has only helped some tribes profit by creating largely unregulated casinos run by outside investors. There were 290 gaming operations operated by roughly 200 tribes in 2001, according to statistics by the National Indian Gaming Commission, a small federal agency that some say is not capable of regulating Indian casinos properly. Some of these operations bring in far more than $100 million a year, but many barely break even. Moreover, while some individual American Indians and some tribes have done very well through gaming, American Indians as a whole have not. Despite the rise of gaming, American Indians (along with Alaskan natives) have high poverty and suicide rates as a group. About 24.5 percent of American Indians were considered to be poor from 1999 to 2001, and there were about 41.8 suicides per 100,000 American Indian men aged 15-24 in 1998, almost twice the rate of all men in that age group. Indian tribes began establishing bingo operations in the 1970s as a way of raising revenue for tribal-government expenses, and the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 1987 case that states could not regulate such gaming unless Congress expressly authorized regulation or there were exceptional circumstances. Congress then passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, which established the current framework for regulating Indian gaming. By the way, only two tribes operated casinos in Colorado as of a 1997 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office : the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Sources: The National Indian Gaming Commission is on-line here and has data on gaming revenue and the tribes that have operated a gaming facility. Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Wheel of Misfortune, Time (December 16, 2002). General Accounting Office, Tax Policy : A Profile of the Indian Gaming Industry (GAO/GGD-97-91) (May 1997), available through the GAO's web site on-line here. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (on-line via Findlaw.com here. Poverty data taken from the Census Bureau's Poverty in the United States : 2001, available on-line here. Suicide data taken from the National Center for Health Statistics' Health, United States, 2001 (table 47), available on-line here. SARS (last updated May 4, 2003) (back to top) A previously unknown respiratory illness known as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was first recognized in late 2002 and about 6,200 cases had been reported as of early May 2003; cases have been reported primarily in China but some have also been reported in almost 30 countries in Asia, North America and Europe. There have been 435 deaths worldwide attributed to SARS, with the vast majority in China, 22 in Canada, and none in the United States, according to reports by the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. There were 56 probable cases and 233 suspect cases of SARS reported in the United States as of early May 2003, according to a CDC report dated May 2, 2003. Of the 56 probable cases, 37 were hospitalized and two required mechanical ventilation. Nearly all of the patients had traveled to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi or Toronto; one was a health-care worker who had treated a SARS patient, and one was a household contact of a SARS patient. About half of the probable cases and a fifth of the suspect cases were reported in California; New York reported nearly a tenth of the probable and the suspect cases. SARS appears to spread through close person-to-person contact, and the CDC reported in an April 30, 2003 fact sheet that "most cases of SARS have involved people who cared for or lived with someone with SARS, or had direct contact with infectious material … from a person who has SARS." In order to contain the spread of SARS, the CDC has advised travel advisories recommending that people consider postponing nonessential trips to China, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore until further notice. The CDC has also issued travel alerts for Hanoi, Vietnam and for Toronto, Canada; travel alerts indicate health concerns about a given area but do not necessarily recommend postponing a trip. Initial SARS symptoms include a fever along with a headache, discomfort, body aches, or mild respiratory symptoms. Within a week, SARS patients may develop a dry cough that could prevent enough oxygen from getting to a person's blood; about 10-20 percent of patients may require mechanical ventilation. Scientists as of early May 2003 reported that a previously unrecognized coronavirus was the leading candidate for the cause of SARS. Sources: The Centers for Disease Control has information about SARS on-line here, including a May 2, 2003 surveillance report on-line here. The World Health Organization has information about SARS on-line here, including a definition as of May 1 here and a summary of worldwide cases here. Iraq (last updated April 6, 2003) (back to top) The United States began military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003; the military campaign began with bombing campaigns but has continued with armed forces' advance to the capital city of Baghdad. As the war progressed into early April, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has stayed largely out of sight and rumors continue that he may actually have been killed during the first bombing attack. Shortly before launching the invasion, the United States abandoned a yearlong campaign to build international support at the United Nations to force Iraq to comply fully with disarmament obligations imposed after the 1991 Gulf War and re-iterated in November 2002. The United States withdrew a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution on March 17, 2003 and began bombing Baghdad just hours after the deadline for Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq. Bush has justified the military action against Iraq largely on three principles that are based in international law and politics, though arguably stretched further than in the past. Anticipatory self-defense based on the threat Iraq poses due to its possession of weapons of mass destruction and its potential to use such weapons, either directly or via a terrorist organization. Countries have the right to defend themselves against an attack, and arguably have the right to launch a pre-emptive attack when an attack is imminent. However, the State Department itself said as late as early 2002 that Iraq had not taken any action against the United States since 1993, when it was linked to an assassination attempt against former President George H.W. Bush while visiting Kuwait; Iran is generally considered the most active state in terms of sponsoring terrorism. U.N. Security Council resolutions promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not fully comply with its disarmament obligations, which Iraq has not done. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, did demand greater compliance with weapons inspectors and it did imply some kind of threat, but it deliberately did not include the language typically used in the past to authorize military force. The Bush administration sought such authorization in early 2003 but abandoned such efforts in mid-March rather than have it rejected by customary allies France, Germany or Russia. Humanitarian reasons, namely, the removal of a dictator who has oppressed the Iraqi people. However, the United States has not removed other dictators from power and had more international support when it directed attacks against the Serbs for humanitarian reasons in 1998. Many countries have criticized the United States for its actions. France, Germany, Russia and China opposed the United States' action, Turkey's Parliament initially rejected a measure that would have allowed the United States military to use the country as a staging area to invade Iraq, and many countries that Bush has declared part of a "coalition of the willing" have disagreed with their inclusion therein. Background Led by Saddam Hussein since 1979, Iraq fought two wars in the 1980s and 1990s over territorial boundaries. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and neighboring Iran were at war over territorial boundaries. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait but was ousted by a US-led coalition acting under UN resolutions in early 1991. The United Nations required Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, and U.N. weapons inspectors began seeking access to Iraq in 1991. They faced difficulties throughout the 1990s, were forced out of the country in 1998, and did not return until late 2002. Inspectors have reported that Iraq had a biological weapons program (which Iraq says was destroyed in 1991), chemical weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have reported that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program as of late 1998, but that the program had not produced a nuclear weapon at that time. For more on Iraq's weapons, go here. During the 1990s, the United States and the United Nations took various measures to limit Hussein's power and, ideally, to bring about an internal change in regime. First, the international community imposed economic sanctions and took military actions such as Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 for Iraq's lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Even with the limited access provided by Iraq, inspectors issued reports concluding that Iraq has been developing chemical and biological weapons, and that it had made major steps towards building a nuclear weapon though it had not done so by December 1998. Aside from the inspections, the embargo and sanctions have been controversial, with many critics, especially in the Middle East, blaming such measures for ruining the Iraqi economy and creating a massive public health crisis; US officials put the blame instead on Iraq, noting that there is no embargo on food or medicines. For more on weapons inspections, go here. For more on sanctions, go here. Problems over inspections loomed large in 1998, which ended with US and UK military strikes against Iraq. Over the course of 1998, Iraq and the UNSCOM had many conflicts, with Iraq denying full access to monitors. In August 1998, UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter resigned in protest, saying that the US and UK were putting pressure on UNSCOM to abandon planned inspections so as to avoid new confrontations with Iraq. By October 1998, Iraq refused to provide full cooperation until the embargo was lifted. Finally, UN inspectors left the country in December, and then on December 16, 1998, the United States and Britain initiated four days of air strikes against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). According to the US Department of Defense, the 100 sites attacked were military targets, with only one economic target, a pumping station used in illegal oil exports. Second, a UN coalition led by the United States and Britain has maintained no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq. These operations were initially justified as ways to protect Iraqi minorities such as the Kurds from attack by the regime, and have also been used to monitor the regime's activities. The UN also maintained a no-drive zone in southern Iraq to prevent a military build-up that could again invade Kuwait. For more on no-fly zones, go here. Bush's Campaign to Build an International Coalition President George W. Bush spent much of 2002 campaigning for military action against Iraq as part of the United States' extended "war on terror." In his Jan. 29 State of the Union address, Bush described Iraq as one of several states constituting an "axis of evil" because of its search for weapons of mass destruction (see text here). He then took his case to the United Nations in a Sept. 12 speech demanding compliance with weapon inspections and other policy changes. Within days, Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Iraq would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions," according to a Sept. 16 letter addressed to and publicly released by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Iraq's government "based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction," Minister Naji Sabri wrote. The Bush administration cast doubt on the validity of Iraq's decision, saying that Iraq was merely seeking further delay, and continued to push for Congressional authorization to use force, which it received with a resolution approved on October 10 and 11. Under that resolution, Bush was given authorization to use force as he deems "necessary and appropriate" to defend the United States and to enforce U.N. resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament. The Bush administration also continued to push for a stronger U.N. resolution. The U.N. Security Council resolution thus approved on Nov. 8 was the result of negotiations between the United States and several other countries such as France. During these negotiations, the United States dropped its insistence of calling for "all necessary means" to enforce the terms, and agreed to the two-stage process in which the Security Council would meet to decide what to do if Iraq does not comply with the resolution. For a timeline, go here. Sources: A U.N. press release of the Feb. 14 briefing is on-line here. The U.N. Security Council resolution approved on Nov. 8, 2002 is on-line here. The CIA's World Factbook entry on Iraq is on-line here. The State Department's December 2001 country background note on Iraq is available via the State Department's website, located here. President Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations is available on-line here. Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger, Powell says US is weighing ways to topple Hussein, New York Times, February 13, 2002. Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, U.S. envisions blueprint on Iraq including big invasion next year, New York Times, April 28, 2002. Steven R. Weisman, How Powell lined up votes, starting with his President's, New York Times, Nov. 8, 2002. The International Atomic Energy Agency has made press information on its inspections available on-line here. Julia Preston, U.N. Inspectors criticize Iraqis over arms list, New York Times, January 10, 2003. Eric Schmitt, U.S. force in Gulf is said to be rising to 150,000 troops, New York Times, January 12, 2003. Flag-burning (last updated August 27, 2001) (back to top) Political battles over whether the desecration of the United States flag is a protected act under the First Amendment first arose in the 1960s and 1970s, but did not become a hot-button issue until after a controversial Supreme Court opinion in 1989. The next year, Congress passed a flag-protection law which was struck down as unconstitutional; some continue to push for a constitutional amendment that would overrule the Supreme Court's decision and thus make it permissible for states or the federal government to criminalize such acts. The Supreme Court first dealt with flag-desecration cases in the late 1960s and early 1970s but managed to avoid dealing at the time with First Amendment issues. Instead, the Court overturned criminal convictions under New York, Massachusetts and Washington State laws on grounds of vagueness and factual specifics. Such laws remained on the books and 48 out of 50 states had some kind of flag-protection law by the time the Court finally dealt squarely with First Amendment issues in the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson's case arose five years earlier, when he was one of many protestors at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. At the end of one demonstration, Johnson displayed an American flag, doused it with kerosene, and then set it on fire. As he did so, protesters chanted, "America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you." Afterwards, a witness collected the flag's remains and buried it in his background. Johnson was the only protestor charged with a crime, and the only crime he was charged with was desecration of a venerated object, specifically, the U.S. flag. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. This conviction was overturned by a Texas court, and prosecutors appealed the case up to the United States Supreme Court. Texas tried to justify the law under two interests, first preventing breaches of the peace, and second preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. The Court, in a 5-4 majority, held that (1) the state's interest in maintaining order was not actually relevant to Johnson's particular case and that (2) the law unconstitutionally suppressed free expression. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable," Justice Brennan wrote for the majority. "To conclude that the Government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries ... To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do." On the other hand, Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion in which he held up the flag as "not simply another 'idea' or 'point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions [of] Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have." Rehnquist distinguished flag burning from free speech, calling it more of "an inarticulate grunt or roar that [is] most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others." The decision was extremely popular with the general public, and sparked outcry. In response, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (some politicians had wanted to try for a constitutional amendment but decided to try a more carefully-tailored statute first). The law was immediately tested and declared unconstitutional in the case of United States v Eichman by another 5-4 vote. Again writing for the majority, Brennan said that the new law still suppressed the content of free expression. "Government may create national symbols, promote them, and encourage their respectful treatment. But the [Act] goes well beyond this by criminally proscribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative impact. We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures," he wrote. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." With the vote so close both times, a change in Court dynamics could allow a more carefully designed flag-protection law to stand. But proponents have looked more to a constitutional amendment that would carve out an exception to the First Amendment and thus make the Supreme Court uphold laws subsequently. If adopted, such an amendment would be the first to amend an original provision of the Bill of Rights and only the fifth to overrule a Supreme Court decision. Amending the Constitution is done usually by Congress proposing by a 2/3 vote amendments for ratification by 3/4 of the states (another method is for 2/3 of the states to call for a constitutional convention for such a purpose). In 1990, Congress narrowly failed to send such an amendment proposal to the states, with the House coming up 34 votes short and the Senate 9 votes. In 1995, the House did approve such an amendment by a 312-120 vote, but the Senate fell three votes short with a 63-46 vote. Sources: Gerald Gunther and Kathleen B. Sullivan, Constitutional Law (Foundation Press, 13th edition, 1997). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). Stem Cells and Cloning (last updated February 6, 2002) (back to top) Embryonic stem cells have been controversial in recent years, first because of their derivation from aborted fetuses, and in late 2001 because of their connection with a particular kind of human, non-reproductive cloning. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that can self-renew indefinitely and that can develop into more mature cells with specialized functions, and embryonic stem (ES) cells, which are derived from an early-stage embryo, are especially promising because they potentially could be developed into a wide variety of tissues for transplantation into patients with diseases such as Alzheimer's. What first made ES cell lines so controversial is that they have generally been derived from sources such as aborted fetuses and embryos resulting from in-vitro fertilization, thus raising questions as to whether such embryos are alive and should be used for such research. Whether the federal government should fund the development of such cells grew into a major policy question in recent years, culminating with President George W. Bush's decision on August 9, 2001 to allow federal funding for research on then-existing stem cell lines as long as the lines were derived from embryos that were already destroyed and that had not been created specifically for research. "We should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made," Bush said in his first major public speech since his inauguration. "Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life." As of February 2002, the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, which is run by the National Institutes of Health, counted 72 stem cell lines at 11 laboratories (five in the United States, including a Wisconsin-based group that had patented several lines, two in Sweden and India each, and one in Australia and Israel each) as meeting the criteria that Bush established. Still, some scientists have criticized Bush's order for limiting the development of more and better-quality stem cell lines. In any case, Bush's order did not go so far as to ban private research that did not meet his criteria; such research simply has to go on without federal funding. The debates over stem cells became intertwined with that over cloning in November 2001, when a Massachusetts-based company, Advanced Cell Technology, announced that it had attempted to create ES cells through nuclear transplantation, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. This process involves taking an egg and replacing its nucleus with one taken from an adult subject. This reconstructed cell is then stimulated to begin dividing and will produce a pre-implantation embryo, what is called a blastocyst. All known successful cloning attempts have started this way, but what happens next depends on the ultimate purpose behind the cloning. In reproductive cloning, the blastocyst is then implanted into a uterus so that it can form a fetus, which then can develop into a genetically identical match to the adult subject that provided the implanted nucleus; this is how the sheep Dolly was created in 1996. In therapeutic cloning, however, cells from the blastocyst are isolated and then used to make a stem cell line for further research and clinical applications; the blastocyst is not implanted into a uterus and does not ever become a fetus. Advanced Cell Technology's hope was that scientists could use cloned human embryos to create ES cells that could develop into tissues that would perfectly match the person who was cloned, thus ensuring that the person's body would accept such tissue transplants and not reject them as foreign. Advanced Cell Technology reported that it had successfully transplanted a human nucleus into a human egg, but that the most successful resulting embryo still did not grow enough to produce a blastocyst that could yield stem cells, stopping growth after dividing into only six cells. Advanced Cell Technology also tried creating cloned embryos through another method called parthenogenesis, by which eggs are stimulated to divide into early embryos. Of the 22 eggs chemically induced via parthogenesis, all died, and none developed the inner cell mass that yields stem cells. Nevertheless, even these limited results set off a new wave of controversy over cloning. "The use of embryos to clone is wrong. We should not as a society grow life to destroy it," Bush said in a ceremony soon after the announcement, and he quickly established a bioethics commission headed by University of Chicago professor Leo Kass to make recommendations on the subject. That commission met for the first time in January 2002. Bush has called for a ban on all cloning. The House of Representatives passed such a bill in July 2001, which would ban cloning of any kind and subject violators to criminal penalties such as prison and fines. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) has introduced a measure that would also ban cloning for any purpose, though the Senate has not yet considered it. Scientists and politicians have generally supported a ban on human reproductive cloning, but many scientists have opposed a total ban on all kinds, urging legislators to distinguish between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. The National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, for example, recommended public funding of stem cell production in September 2001 and then recommended in January 2002 a ban on human reproductive cloning for at least five years. Sources: President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission did a report on cloning in September 1997, available on-line here, and a report on stem cells in September 1999, available here. The National Academies did a report on reproductive cloning in January 2002 and a report on stem cells in September 2001; both are available via the Academies' website, on-line here. President Bush's August 9, 2001 speech announcing his decision on stem cells is on-line here. The National Institutes of Health maintains information on stem cells and on the stem cell registry here. Advanced Cell Technology is on-line here, and a January 2002 Scientific American article describing their research is on-line here. Gina Kolata with Andrew Pollack, A Breakthrough on Clining? Perhaps, or Perhaps not Yet, New York Times, November 27, 2001. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Bush denounces cloning and calls for ban, New York Times, November 27, 2001.

DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained. (C) Copyright 2002, 2003 Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Mirror Law and Footnote Comics are service marks of Stephen Lee. More information available here. Comments or suggestions to the Site Editor.

Newsaic ®

FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board

By Stephen Lee