Environment

Programs which aim to develop efficient, inexpensive, and environmentally safe forms of industry, transportation, and energy should be explored and funded. Such funding should be provided to public and private institutions of higher learning to develop technologies and systems which help to protect the earth's natural resources. Funding in the form of meritorious awards should also be made available to private entities. Scientifically proven means of improving transportation and energy should be implemented whenever possible within the assets of the government. Private corporations that choose to adopt such measures can be eligible for certain exemptions from taxation. Harsh penalties, including criminial, should be imposed on anyone who unreasonably wastes natural resources or causes harm to the environment.

Capital punishment

I support the abolition of the death penalty for capital federal offenses. I also support the end of capital punishment at the state level, however, I believe it is the right of the states, and their duly elected representatives, to decide this issue for themselves. I do not support a Constitutional amendment to sanction nor prohibit the use of the death penalty among the states.
An often cited arguement in favor of capital punbishment is that the punishment should fit the crime. The obvious penalty for the taking of a life is the loss of the life that took it. There can be no dispute in the logic. Logic, however, does not make right any more than might would. The notion of retaliating in kind has not worked for thousands of years in the Middle East relations, and it does not work in the American justice system either.
My opposition to capital punishment is not on 8th amendment grounds. I only feel that it is cruel when it is applied to the innocent. The main fault I find with state ordered execution is its ineffectiveness. Capital punishment does not deter violent crime. Murder rates of states that impose the ultimate penalty are consistently higher than in states that do not. In fact, they have been higher every year since 1999, without a single exception. This doesn't necessarily indicate that murder occurs more frequently because of the death penalty. At the same time, it would be extremely difficult to argue that it serves as a deterrent.
Despite numerous legal safeguards, in the form or mandatory appeals and jury trials, to ensure that only the truly guilty are condemned, innocent people are often mistakenly executed. Unfairly, these victims are usually the poor who can not afford the best legal counsel available. The death penalty can simply not be administered fairly and accurately.
No legal system can be completely accurate and mistakes are unfortuantely inevitable. Alternate forms of sentencing, such as imprisonment for life, are equally susceptible to error. These failings of the legal system, as with the death penalty, are unfair to the disadvantaged. However, alternatives to execution can be rectified when an error is discovered and proven in a court of law. The true tragedy of the death penalty is that once it is administered and an injustice is subsequently realized, it can't be undone.
Crimes that are subject to imposition of the ultimate penalty are serious and should have serious consequences. The severity of the penalty should be both effective and fair. To some, death is preferable to confinement. A sentence of life in prison can be corrected, should an injustice occur, but it is also actually a harsher punishment than death. Most importantly, it serves the same goal of removing dangerous criminals from society.

Israel and Palestine

Theoretically, the solution to the endless struggle between Palestinians and Israelis is simple. In reality, the crisis is so deep rooted and emotionally charged, that simplicity is not enough. In simplest terms, both sides of the conflict must lay down their arms and abandon the practice of retribution. The struggle has lasted as long as it has because few hostile acts have gone unavenged. This cycle of violence has not only begat more violence, it has created a culture of perpetual strife.
The largest obstacle to progress in the area, in my opinion, is the tragically illegitmate legal status of the Palestinians. Enjoying a certain degree of autonomy withing Israel, legal coexistence for these peoples has proven to be ineffective. The first and most important step toward peace in the region is the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. Speaking as a person of Jewish heritage, the establishment of the Israeli state from lands that belonged to Palestinians, was the right thing to do. It was the world's way to right the wrongs suffered by the most oppressed people in our history. In doing so, though, another people has been wronged and it is time to make amends.
I urge universal recognition of a Palestinian state, with clearly defined borders. The gesture alone will serve as the catalyst for peace. Certain areas would remain contested, but I firmly believe that once there are boundaries that both parties can agree to, they must be honored.
The United States should remain the ally of Israel. Surrounded by hostile, ideologically different neightbors, Israel is vulnerable. For that reason, Israel should have the support and protection of western governments committed to her continuing sovereignty. However, I feel this support should be conditional. No unjustified act of aggression perpetrated by Israel should be condoned by our government. The U.S. should be open to withdrawing all support to Israel if the nature and severity of Israel's aggression warrants it. The spectre of withdrawn western support is sufficient to ensure that Israel behaves responsibly. I do not anticipate that the complete withdrawal of support to Israel would ever be necessary.
American support should be limited in most cases to the sharing of intelligence, defensive weapons systems, and the full breadth of economic options. In the event of a significant escalation of violence across borders, the U.S. should be prepared and authorized to use air strikes and short range non-nuclear weapons. Ground troops would most certainly not be justified without overwhelming support from the world community.

Intelligence

While in the Army, I served in the Military Intelligence Corps. There, I worked for the now maligned National Security Agency, the largest intelligence gathering organization in the U.S. My experience there has given me a unique perspective. There are many details which I'm not at liberty to discuss, so I can not provide supporting evidence, but here are my views on intelligence.
Intelligence gathering and analysis is extremely vital to our leaders who formulate national security policy. To effectively guard against a threat, it is important to know that the threat exists, its source and target, and its strengths and weaknesses. For the former, it is imperative that intelligence gatherers operate in all parts of the world, peaceful or not. A threat to our security can arise anywhere and the earlier it is known, the easier the remedy. To ensure access to intelligence in the more hostile areas, to which we have little or no diplomatic ties, it may be necessary to rely on allies for intelligence, at least to some extent. As such, it is also very important that we forge and strengthen good relationships with allies, sharing intelligence for mutual benefit.
Knowing the origin of a threat,its likely targets, and how to combat it, requires dilligent and competent analysis. Modern technological advances have greatly enhanced our ability to conduct sound analysis of gathered information. Effective analysis of seemingly benign, yet potentially siginificant, evidence of a threat absolutely depends on qualified expert advice on an endless variety of topics. Mechanisms should be in place to compel secret testimony from our nation's most distinguished scholars, when properly justified. Similarly, the various intelligence agencies must share information freely.
Those who wish to do us harm do not usually announce their true intentions in advance. They may make idle threats designed to intimidate, confuse, or divert attention, but they usually operate within the cloak of darkness. For them, one of the best places to hide and plot their schemes is right here within our borders. In fact, as Timothy McVeigh proved, the threat can come from an American. We must not be blind to their activities. However, we also must not sacrifice the right to privacy enjoyed by all Americans.
There is a delicate balance that must be struck between the right to privacy and sensible vigilance. Our various investigative and intelligence bodies should be empowered to collect information on anyone, including American citizens. Such collections should be made with legally prescribed and constitutional safeguards. Searches should always require a warrant. Suspicion of threats which could have a significant effect on national security should satisfy the legal standard for the issuance of a warrant in a secret emergency court. This court should be capable of being summoned at a moment's notice.
The events of September 11 prove the crucial importance of not only good intelligence, but also accurate, timely, and unfettered analysis and response. Our three main intelligence agencies, the FBI, CIA, and NSA should not be required to operate in a bubble or with proverbial tied hands and should have liberal access one to the other. The right to privacy should always be considered. Yielding too many of our rights in protection of our democracy constitutes a surrender to the enemy. It is a very difficult balance, but there are sensible ways to protect both our nation and our civil liberties.

Defense

The word Defense is probably the most misused word in American governance. Rightly or wrongly, it is used to justify actions by the government that are anything but defensive. Pardon the pun, but they are downright offensive at times. My view of national defense is exactly that, the defense of our nation against all enemies foreign or domestic. I do believe I've read that in a very important document somewhere.

Some will argue that the best defense is a good offense. There are indeed merits to that arguement, but only in a limited sense, not as a part of a broad ideology, in my opinion. Strategically, a good offense takes the form of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and the negotiating of alliances and treaties, never military force. Tactical operations, by definition, involve the use of military assets, and should only be used offensively when an attack on American assets is imminent and substantiated by unambiguous, reliable intelligence. The President of the United States has the implied power to order such offensive operations and should be obligated to brief Congress of the justifactions and consequences of such actions, at the earliest possible opportunity. In summary, I accept the idea of preemption in principle, however in only in the rarest of occasions and with significant limitations. Almost certainly, preemptive use of force should not be used repetitively or to justify any operation that resembles war. I strongly believe that only Congress can authorize war, to include any operation that can loosely be defined as war.

Any budgetary considerations for the Department of Defense should be directed toward defensive means. This includes protecting the human resources charged with defending our borders and citizens. Toward that end, I support the investment in and development of strategic weapons systems to guard against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Ideally, these missiles would prevent their targets, whether armed with conventional or nuclear warheads, from reaching American soil. Furthermore, if scientifically possible, a project should be lauched to devise a way to counteract the devastating effects of nuclear weapons should they ever be used against us. Nuclear non-proliferation attempts are important and should not be abandoned, however, it is critcal that we now take steps to deal with the growing likelihhod that they will be used.

Given the current burden on our soldiers and sailors it has become necessary to increase troop levels. National Guard resources have been overused in my opinion. Active duty military personnel should be recruited to levels which relieves most Guard and reserve units from duty overseas. There are a few reserve units whose specific skills would be in need to their active duty counterparts and should continue to be used in the current conflicts. With few exceptions, National Guard and reserve units should be expected to be dployed no more often than once every 4 years and for no more than one year at a time. Active duty troops should expect to be deployed no more often than once every 2 years for no more than a year at a time. However many troops such rotations would require to be maintained, considering retirements and enlistment terms, should dictate the target recruiting levels. In peacetime, the troop levels should be 75% these proposed levels.

Unmanned reconnaissance and weapons systems have proven their mettle in recent conflicts. I support increased funding for their improvement and expanding their training and use for future conflicts. There should also be better funding for body and vehicle armor of a quality to withstand the use of improvised explosive devices or IEDs. I also support research and development in non-lethal weapons capable of effectively neutralizing the enemy. War is always tragic and loss of life is a certainty, but with advanced technology, it can be waged in much more humane terms. The use of force, of course, should alwayts be a last resort.

Economy

I have some very radical ideas about the economy. After reading the Green party platform, I realized that many of my ideas are shared by the Greens. Currently, the U.S. economy is based upon market forces and the law of supply and demand. It makes more sense to me that the economy be based on effort and need. The economy should be organized through careful and frequent statistical analysis. This would require considerable resources and should be undertaken by the government because it has these resources.
I'm not an economist and have no formal educational background on economic policy beyond my own casual observations. Certain key principles appear to make sense to me. Low unemployment means more people are earning a living, which is good on its own. More people earning a living means more people capable of purchasing goods and services. More goods and services being bought and sold means there are more jobs available to decrease unemployment. Obviously, there is a cyclical and symbiotic relationship between the consumer, the worker, and the goods. It seems evident to me that a successful economy works best that encourages employers to hire as many employees as possible and workers to reinvest in the economy through consumption.
The law of supply and demand is flawed. It fails to provide the basic necessities to all citizens. By its very nature, it is vulnerable to the financial woes of depression, inflation, stagflation, and unemployment. It often exacerbates the differences between rich and poor. It encourages poverty and fosters instability. Supply and demand fails because of the lack of a tangible relationship between the actual cost of a good or service and the needs of the citizenry. The two are dependent upon each other and must be considered. Life under a capitalist system of supply and demand, whose market valuation is not always appropriate or functional, is uncertain for millions of us, where many of us are on the brink of financial ruin.
The goal of economic reform should be socialism. Unlike the bolshevik style Communists, I do not advocate immediate revolutionary implementation. Rather, I suggest gradual incremental steps toward socialism. Catastrophic upheaval to the current economic system could be destabilizing and counterproductive, regardless of its aims. After allowing these steps to take root and bear fruit, it may be realized that abolute socialism is unnecessary.
I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit, intent, and approach of the Greens. I do have a few divergent and unique ideas about the details. My plan for economic reform starts with a policy of consumer empowerment. I call for the establishment of an agency, either an extension of the government or publicly funded in the private sector, to which all employers must report vital statistics. This agency will also compile facts and statistics from other governmental bodies, such as the Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Dept. of Energy, EPA, and the Dept. of the Interior. The primary mission of this new agency is to provide tools to better inform the American consumer.
Well informed consumers will be better positioned to offer their patronage to businesses that have earned it. Corporations doing business in America which reinvest profits in their work force deserve recognition for upholding their civic responsibility. On the other hand, corporations who renege on this important obligation should be held accountable to the American consumer. Also included in the government's reporting should be reports of workers' rights violations, environmental law violations, consumer complaints, and animal rights abuses. These are issues that are important to many Americans. They should be able to decide which companies best reflect their values and deserve their patronage. Armed with this information, I feel that the American consumer can take a more active and tangible role in maintaining a sound economy.

Marijuana

I'm not a member of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), however, I am in favor of efforts to decriminalize marijuana. The impairment of one's judgement as a result of marijuana use is proven to be less than that of alcohol. While alcohol is legal and its use more widespread, there seems to be little justification for the criminalization of marijuana.
There is also evidence that suggests that marijuana has some therapeutic properties and is helpful in the treatment of glaucoma, cancer, and other maladies. Short of full legalization, marijuana should definitely be made available by prescription to help treat disease. With so few harmful, or potentially harmful, side effects when compared to other legal prescription drugs, legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes should not be controversial.
Beyond its medicinal merits, there are very practical reasons for decriminalizing marijuana. Among them is the problem of prison overcrowding. Correctional facilities are expensive to operate and maintain, and even more expensive to build. A considerable proportion of the prison population has been incarcerated for criminial offenses, directly or indirectly, related to marijauana. By making marijuana a lesser misdemeanor, punishable only by a fine, the prison population can be decreased immediately and significantly, saving taxpayers' money. Full legalization and the resulting deflation of marijuana's street value, would accomplish the further goal of reducing the number of thefts committed in order to obtain the drug.
There are also economic benefits of legalizing marijuana. The legal sale of marijuana would be subject to applicable sales taxes, providing a new source of revenue for government. Like cigarettes, special additional taxes can be imposed creating even more revenue. Since the price of marijuana would drop dramatically upon its legalization, it could be taxed at an extremely high rate without presenting a burden to its buyer.
Marijuana is not without its problems, though. While its side effects pale in comparison to other current legal drugs, it use can lead to lung cancer, emphysema, and other complications effected by smoking. Many studies also indicate that marijuana use can lead to more dangerous drugs. The same may be said of alcohol. Probably the most compelling arguement against legalization is its use with motor vehicles. Driving under the influence of any controlled substance jeopardizes the lives and well being of other motorists, passengers, and pedestrians. Again, this danger is no more prevalent with marijuana than with alcohol.
Marijuana offers many possibilities with medicne and should be decriminalized at least for that reason. Given the legality of alcohol and the many practical benefits of legalizing marijuana, full legalization appears to be justified as well. One must realize, however, that marijuana is, in fact, a hallucinogen and should be regulated as a controlled substance. Its posession, sale, and use should be legal, however, its misuse should remain illegal just as it is with alcohol.