Political issues in Air Talk Show

In the radio show, “ArtTalk show,” Larry Mantle discussed an issue regarding whether or not terrorists should be afforded the same interrogation rights as other alleged criminals. In the AirTalk show, Mantle talked with Richard Parker, a Professor of Criminal Justice at Harvard, and Cully Stimson, a Senior Legal Scholar at the Heritage Foundation. According to AirTalk show, Mantle shares that President Obama is open to limiting Miranda rights for terrorist suspects. Republicans have criticized the administration for reading the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square would-be bomber, Faisal Shahzad, their rights. Richard Parker agrees with the Congress because terrorism is a dangerous crime in the nation and it couldn’t go free. For some safely reasons, Parker believes that the United States government made the right decision because the dangers of terrorism is more dangerous than any other groups of criminals. On the other hand, a lady’s call from the audience represents that the United States government should give Miranda rights to those suspected terrorists because they could be innocent. Moreover, she believes the government should protect the people who are innocent in the suspected terrorism. However, Stimson believes people want to focus on the safety of United States and the people around them. Therefore, the Congress should not give the Miranda rights to those people who are involved with terrorism. In my opinion, the suspected terrorists have the right to remain silent because the innocent people’s lives will be ruined if they don’t have Miranda rights. People who are going to talk are going to talk, and people who are not going to talk, are not going to talk. Therefore, the court needs to find more evidences to prove the suspected terrorists of being guilty. In short, the more terrorists that are proved correctly, the safer the United Stated of America will be. Another political issue on the show AirTalk hosted by Larry Mantle, it discussed about the controversial event whether Elena Kagan is worthy for the selection of Supreme Court. In Larry Mantle’s broadcast, he talked about this issue with his guests: David Savage (Supreme Court Reporter for LA Times), Mark Tushnet (Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School) and James R. Copeland, Director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute. On Monday May 10, 2010 President Barack Obama officially nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. She replaced retiring Justice John Paul Stevens’ position and became the Court’s youngest member with the age of fifty. She is considered as the fourth female Supreme Court justice in US history and the third on the Court’s current bench. Playing the important role in the U.S. Government, Ms. Kagan has been received a lot of public opinions about her personal backgrounds. Despite of the fact that she was a former Dean Harvard Law school and a professor of Chicago University Law School, critics claim that she does not have any prior experiences as a judge and the possible charge of sexual harassment. However, according to the reporter David Savage’s opinion, her outstanding academic performance during the past years, she will be a terrific justice in the Supreme Court. He said people inside the Democratic Party know that she is a smart and charming person, easy to get along with people. Therefore, she will be a fairly conventional democrat for all of the most public’ issues. I agree with him that what people actually can do is more important than their personal’s lives. The nomination is nothing to bear with Ms.Kagan’s private life. It is unappreciated to have a negative view about her ability as a Justice when people have not seen her future performance.