Perhaps the most notable of the Nuremburg Trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals.  Like the recent Al-Qaeda most wanted deck of 52 playing cards, the Allies had their top 25 list of war criminals, among them Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels, each of whom had committed suicide before the trials began.  Of those that remained, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging for crimes including conspiracy to commit a crime against peace; planning, initiating and waging a war of aggression; war crimes; and crimes against humanity.

Most anyone who has even the slightest awareness of the holocaust that killed millions of Jews would recognize that the Nuremburg Trials were a desperately needed attempt to bring justice and order back to the world and that the people responsible for such egregious crimes needed to be punished.  And yet, as the water-boarding procedure that garnered the information that led to the eventual death of Osama Bin Laden was crticized, so were some of the legal aspects of the Nuremburg Trials.

Critics disapproved of the fact that the Allies chose the judges in the Nuremburg Trials and the defendants were unable to affect or appeal those decisions.  They also felt that charges were defined as crimes only after they were committed, thus turning the trial into a sort of “victor’s justice” where rules were made up as the game went along.  While even Justice Robert Jackson, a major participant in the trials, agreed that it would be difficult to perfectly handle the legal aspects of the Nuremburg Trials because of extenuating circumstances, and while we may be able to learn from some of the mistakes that were made, history will show that justice was served in the punishment of Nazi war criminals.

In 1969, as cable outlets expanded over the nation, the FCC’s right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine came under scrutiny.  Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s right to enforce the rule, but deemed it largely unneccesary in light of the many outlets that individuals and groups then had to express their views on radio and television.

Finally, in 1987, FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick abolished the Fairness Doctrine because he felt that it violated America’s First Amendment Freedom of Speech Laws.  In other words, Chairman Patrick felt that broadcasters should have “journalistic freedom”.  At the time, members of the Reagan Administration had concerns that rescinding the Fairness Doctrine would give the Big Three networks – still the most viewed television in the United States at that time – license to fill their airwaves with attacks on Reagan.  Knowing this, President Reagan still supported the abolishment of the doctrine because he felt that doing so upheld Constitutional freedoms.

In the mid-2000′s, when conservative radio shows enjoyed much success and liberal efforts to match it failed, there were several movements in Congress by Democrats to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  It’s just not fair, they claimed, that conservatives are allowed to dominate the airwaves.  And this despite the existence of CNN, PBS, and late-night comedians, not to mention the plethora of progressively dominated morning talk shows that abound all over the television airwaves.

But age discrimination cases are getting harder to prove.  Despite the fact that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal to base hiring, promotion, salary or firing decisions on age, a 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. has moved the potential plaintiff’s burden from proving that age was a “motivating factor” in the decision to dismiss him to proving that it was an instigating cause.

Since proving age discrimination in employment has become more difficult, many older workers opt to expend their energies in the search for a new job, rather than spin wheels in the potentially futile effort of litigation.  In these cases, the best offense may be a good defense.

Rather than waiting until they’ve been fired to take action, people over 40 who suspect they may become the next victim of age discrimination should be proactive in keeping the job they have.  Keeping up-to-date on new trends in the industry and technology will, when added to their experience, make older workers a more valuable asset to the company.   And – looks do matter.  Employees should maintain professionalism even to the point of keeping dress and hairstyle on trend. 

While many companies will seek to be rid of older workers because of health or physical limitations or because they make too much  money, the best companies value older workers for their experience and strong work ethic.  The best working environment will certainly be one in which the worker – no matter their age – is valued.

The first drug court was established in Florida in 1989 when Janet Reno was State Attorney there.  There are now around 2,500 drug courts across the nation in which certain eligible defendants may choose to have their case handled outside of the normal justice system.  According to the current model, drug courts afford defendants with the opportunity to stay out of the penal system.  Instead, they receive prolonged treatment, accountability, and drug testing.  They make frequent court appearances where specially trained judges review their cases. 

The NADCP says that drug courts are valuable because they keep non-violent offenders out of the penal system.  People are healed instead of punished and families are kept together.  Additionally, recidivism rates are much lower and drug courts are more cost effective than the traditional justice system.

At first glance, drug courts would appear to be the panacea for drug addicts worldwide; however, there has been some criticism.  One former drug court judge says that recidivism and cost statistics are greatly exaggerated.  Cost studies do not account for rehabs and transitional living costs.  And, with less fear of serious consequences, people are more apt to experiment with drugs.  Also, police are more likely to make arrests when they think that the offender may not go to jail.

Concerns about victims’ rights, however, are allayed in that victims of drug-related crimes must agree to the offender going to drug court and any restitutions must still be paid.

Like other consumer protection laws, Internet censorship laws are helpful when they block pornography, bullying and other offensive Internet intrusions.  However, new Internet censorship bills such as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) have some factions concerned about government overstepping its bounds into free speech territory.

According to supporters of the bill, the purpose of CISPA is to prevent “cyber threat intelligence.”  This type of internet censorship would prevent sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com from posting classified information, as they have done in the past.  Opponents of the bill are concerned that passing CISPA-type legislation would give the government freedom to review every e-mail that passes through the portal of the average American’s laptop.

Though Internet censorship might mean losing personal privacy, the real danger is in any government limiting the right to free speech.  Free speech is the vehicle to human liberty, and countries who engage in Internet censorship do so in order to keep their citizens “under control”.  For instance, China, one of the worst offenders, retaliates against those who would dare to speak out on the Internet about topics such as Tibetan independence, police brutality, or even freedom of speech.

While it is treasonous and unethical to leak classified governmental information to the general public, legislative acts such as CISPA can be dangerous as they open the door to acts that further limit personal liberty and freedom of speech.

Democracy is a type of government or philosophy that asserts that all citizens should have an equal voice in determining the policies and laws of a country.  In its ideal, this applies to all adults who are in good standing within the nation, regardless of income, education, race, sex, or any other social determinant.

Since any mention of the word “democracy” connotes ideals of equality and freedom, religious freedom within a democratic society would necessarily entail the individual’s freedom to practice his religion with regard to worship, observance and teaching; the freedom to leave that religion at any time; or the freedom to have no religion at all.

Unfortunately, some constituents of the population are under the mistaken notion that democracy means the freedom to do anything one wants to do.  Obviously, that type of “freedom” would result in chaos and no government at all.  The major function of any government is to protect its citizens and ensure domestic tranquility.  So what happens when ideals of religious freedom clash with someone else’s domestic tranquility or pursuit of happiness?

In April 2011, President Nicholas Sarkozy of France outlawed the wearing of burqas in public.  Actually, the law did not specifically mention burqas or the Islamic women that wear them.  The illegal action is to have one’s face covered in public.  France is not the first country to inact this law, as having the face covered in public might present security problems.  Think bank robbers and ski masks.  Some of the Islamic women that wear these facial coverings feel that this is an expression of their religion and that they should not be denied the right to freedom of religion in a democratic society. 

Another object of conflict has been the ceremonial kirpan carried by practicing Sikhs.  The kirpan is required under the Sikh religious law to be worn at all times and is to be used as an instrument to prevent violence.  However, a steel or iron blade, 3.5 inches long in it’s most modest form, does seem a controversial item to have in public in a day where letter openers, nail files and old-fashioned mathematics compasses are considered deadly weapons.

When religious freedoms and the democratic society conflict, there are no easy answers.  Multiculturalism hits a roadblock and the mantra of “freedom to do as one pleases” goes out the window.  However, where public security is involved, it seems counterintuitive and downright impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

To distinguish civil liberties from civil rights, it is helpful to understand that civil rights are more specific to the citizen’s participation within the public sphere.  In other words, civil rights allow a citizen to participate freely and equally in public affairs and insure equal opportunity within the public realm.  An example of advancing the cause of civil rights is the controversial Affirmative Action Law.

With both civil liberties and civil rights being highly valued ideals, why then does even the mention of the American Civil Liberties Union immediately draw ire from much of the American populace?  Perhaps it is a case, like many others, where an entity that started out with a good cause has become drunk with power and seeks ever more opportunities to wield that power, relevant or not.

On the main page of the website of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is a statement against the bill passed by the Tennessee General Assembly on March 19, 2012, that calls for evolution to be taught for what it is – a theory.  The ACLU of Tennessee, by asserting that there is no debate among certain scientific organizations, seems to state that evolution is a proven fact and should be taught as such in the public schools.  It would seem that, once again, the ACLU has not only overstepped its bounds, but is working against itself.  Being allowed to learn about all theories, and not just the one supported by the government, is a civil liberty that the ACLU should stand behind.

The Bill of Rights is ten amendments that collectively serve to protect the property and liberty of American citizens.  These protections should be carefully guarded as they serve to limit the powers of a government which might otherwise become oppressive.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution alone contains within its one sentence five major protections from government abuse.  The first provision contained within the Fifth Amendment is that a suspect of a capital crime will be brought up before a Grand Jury of his peers for indictment, rather than at the whim of government officials. The second clause of the Fifth Amendment - the double jeopardy clause - prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same crime.  Without this protection in place, governments or any powerful entity or person could continue to harass a citizen without mercy to bring about the desired end of the powerful.

Subsequent clauses of the Fifth Amendment include protection against self-incrimination; the accused has the right to remain silent.  This law prevents torture and other unsavory means of eliciting confessions.  The accused may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, and the final provision of the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain, states that a citizen’s property may not be confiscated by the government without just compensation.

A basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution, as declared in its Preamble, is to protect the rights of the citizenry.  This includes victims and would-be victims of crimes, but it also includes citizens who may have been unfairly accused.  The VI Amendment protects the rights of the accused by harnessing the power of a government that could become corrupt.

Among the rights of the accused included in the VI Amendment are the right to a speedy and public trial and a judgment by an impartial jury in the vicinity where the alleged crime occurred.  These rights are to protect citizens from having to live under an accusation for an indeterminate amount of time, and also to prevent the accused from being incarcerated unjustly for long periods of time.  The vicinity clause insures that the accused will not be tried in a foreign jurisdiction, away from any access to aid for his defense.

Other rights of the accused included in the VI Amendment are the right to be informed of the nature of the crime, to be able to cross-examine witnesses, to obtain favorable witnesses and to secure the aid of counsel.  All of these rights insure “domestic tranquility” when the citizenry of a free country do not have to worry about being snatched up secretly in the night and held without reason by a cruel and unjust government.

There are many categories of tort law such as negligence, duty of care, nuisance and breach of contract, but perhaps the issue most alive in current news reports has to do with tort reform as it applies to health care.  With the health care reform tug-of-war going on in the United States, opponents of national health care do admit that health care costs in the United States are too high.  Rather than give free health care to everyone though, they suggest tort law reform as a possible solution, or at least as a good start in lowering healthcare costs.

The theory is that because medical professionals fear being sued by patients and incurring gargantuan punitive damages, they order unnecessary tests and screenings just to be on the safe side.  These arsenals of sometimes unnecessary tests cause insurance premiums to sky rocket, and medical professionals have to charge higher rates so that they can afford their malpractice insurance.  Advocates of tort reform say that caps on punitive damages and procedural limits in the tort law will help costs of health care decline.