As somebody who is a vocal supporter of the Global Zero campaign (an initiative working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons), I don’t entirely believe Iran, or anybody for that matter, should be allowed to go nuclear. However, as my youthful idealism diminishes, I am slowly starting to believe that Iran has all the right in the world to develop a nuclear program, even if that means Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has control of a nuclear bomb. Would a nuclear Iran lead to a safer world? That is debatable, but completely irrelevant.

The world does not want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb because it has repeatedly expressed its desire to attack Israel (not with nuclear bombs, but still). That, to me, makes perfect sense. You don’t want a ridiculously aggressive country with something as catastrophic as a nuclear bomb since that can only mean destruction. But why the double standards? If we look at countries with nuclear weapons today, most of them are quite aggressive. Israel has repeatedly expressed its desire to attack Iran, and senior lawmakers have discussed the likelihood of such an attack. Likewise, the United States of America has carried out military operations in several parts of the world. Pakistan and India have constantly been bickering and they have history against them, having fought three wars in just 65 years.

By hindering Iran from developing its civil nuclear program, even if it does in fact result in Iran having a nuclear bomb, what the international community is in fact doing is stopping those countries who are playing it by the rules. On one hand, we have countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India, who actually have nuclear weapons despite not having signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). These countries are running with the help of international aid, rather than sanctions. Meanwhile, Iran, a signatory of the treaty, is being prevented from exercising its right to develop a civil nuclear program. If the international community is truly afraid of nuclear weapons going into the wrong hands, shouldn’t it impose economic sanctions on countries that have not even agreed to further the goal of nuclear disarmament? Do we really want a world in which those who play by the rules are sanctioned and those who violate them are rewarded?

I would like to see a world with no nuclear weapons. I don’t buy the argument that the world is a safer place with nuclear countries because their presence usually prevents wars. The world has matured enough to prevent wars through diplomacy, even without nuclear weapons in the peripheral vision of countries. The Global Zero program is one that is not expected to make much headway any time soon. Some countries have actually destroyed their nuclear weapons, but  it is not expected that any more will follow suit in the near future. There is absolutely no ground under which Iran should be deprived of a civilian nuclear program. The five members of the Security Council of the United Nations, all nuclear powers, should get themselves in order before getting others to comply with stricter rules on global safety.

About the author

Human. Pakistani. Law Student. Muslim.

View the Original article

On Friday, Federal Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled that an American who was convicted of fighting with the Taliban should be allowed to pray in congregation everyday within the premises of the high security prison. John Walker Lindh joined a suit initiated by two other prisoners against the prison authorities, arguing that not allowing him to pray violated a federal law that disallowed the government from limiting religious speech without showing a compelling interest.

Although the court accepted the argument that such arrangements for daily prayers five times a day were only possible in cases where security was not a concern, they said that the government had failed to prove that allowing prisoners to leave their cells to pray was causing a reasonable security concern. Other inmates were permitted to pray in congregation on special religious events, and no incidents of trouble had ever been reported.

The losing party intends to appeal the decision, claiming that Judge Magnus-Stinson’s verdict would have a massive impact on prison security all over America. Joe Hogsett, the legal representative of the prison facility argued, “This case deals with critically important issues that have significance both inside and outside the walls of our federal prison facilities. Our concern continues to be the safety and security of both our federal prison system and the United States of America.”

Lindh argued that Islam requires him to pray five times a day in congregation, and the prison’s ban was interfering with his right to practice his religion freely. Praying alone in his cell, he argued, was not permitted according to the school of Islam that he adheres to. Although officials from the prison facility said that such a verdict would have to be extended to all prisoners, the court was not in favor of curtailing the right of prisoners to practice their religion. One of the arguments brought forward by the state in the trial was that Muslim inmates use religion as a cover to carry out gang-like activities. The court rejected this plea on a lack of evidence.

Even though people in prisons in the United States do not have all rights guaranteed by the constitution, they are guaranteed a number of rights by the Constitution as well as federal and state laws. Judge Mangus-Stinson’s verdict is not the first protecting the religious freedom of convicts in the United States. In Mayweathers v. Newland, the court sought an injunction to stop a corrections facility from disciplining a Muslim inmate who missed work because he was attending Friday prayers.

About the author

View the Original article

San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency has a policy against political ads on its buses, but an ad being displayed now comes pretty close. The ad says, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

The pro-Israel ad was purchased by the American Freedom Defense Initiative run by Pamela Geller.

The bus message didn't sit very well with the city system in New York. They refused to run them and Gellen took the transit authority to court. "And interestingly enough, the day that I won, was the day that San Francisco approved my ads that are currently running on your buses," Geller said.

A coincidence? Not according to Muni's spokesman Paul Rose. "In this specific case, litigation was brought to this organization and the transit agency lost," he told ABC7 News. So, the buses with the signs will continue to roll for at least the next four weeks.

Asked how this particular ad is not considered political in light of Muni's no-politics policy, Rose struggled to answer. However, the legal action and the fact that the New York MTA has already lost in court have had an impact.

ABC, 10 August 2012

View the Original article