On 22 March 2016, three large explosions happened in the Belgian capital Brussels. Two bombs exploded at Brussels Zaventem Airport and one exploded at Maalbeek metro station. According to the Belgian Health Ministry, there have been at least 31 confirmed deaths and over 250 reported injuries. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack. There are three suspects. Two were suicide bombers and Belgian police are currently searching for the third one.
Belgium is part of the war on ISIL in Iraq. About 500 foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq are Belgian. The fighters mostly come from immigrant families.
Belgium has been under attacks in the past. In May 2014, a gunman attacked the Jewish Museum of Belgium, killing four people. In January 2015, Security men stopped a group maybe planned a second "Charlie Hebdo" shooting. The operation resulted in the deaths of two members of the group. In August 2015, a man shot and stabbed people on a train in Brussels, before being stopped by passengers.
The attackers that were part of the November 2015 Paris attacks were based in Molenbeek, and the city of Brussels was closed for five days to search for people. On 18 March 2016, Salah Abdeslam, who possibly was part of the Paris attacks, was caught, and at least one other suspect is still free.
Two explosions took place in the airport's departure hall.
At least 31 people were killed and more than 230 others were harmed. Three Americans, Mormon missionaries, were seriously injured, as well as a member of the U.S. military and his family. The U.S. Embassy in Brussels asked U.S. citizens not to use buses and subways.
Two men used bombs to kill themselves at Brussels Airport. The police is looking for a third man seen with them in CCTV photo from the airport. ISIL said it was behind the attack.
Hours after the attacks, police went into a home in Schaarbeek, a north of Brussels, where they found a nail bomb, chemicals, and an ISIL flag. One man was arrested, but then released.
Belgian authorities said two brothers, Khalid and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, both Belgians with criminal records — were among the three suicide bombers who attacked the Brussels metro and airport.The brothers are believed to have links to last year’s Paris attacks, and to Salah Abdeslam. There third man who appeared on the cameras is still free after he ran away when his bomb didn't explode.
After the attacks in Brussels, European leaders said terror will not scare them. In Belgium, officials declared three days of national mourning. Belgian Prime Minister said that Charles Michel sent a message to the people behind the attacks, saying, "to those who have chosen to be barbarous enemies of freedom, democracy and fundamental values ... we remain united as one."
In its message claiming responsibility, ISIS noted in a twitter post that "What will be coming is worse."
People shared cartoons and showed sadness in black, yellow and red, the colors of the Belgian flag. Others put messages of solidarity with #JeSuisBruxelles, or "I am Brussels," an ode to a similar outpouring with #JeSuisCharlie after the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015. Some people invited tourists stuck after the airport was shut into their homes using #OpenHouse.
French cartoonist Jean Plantureux, who goes by Plantu, drew an emotional cartoon for French newspaper Le Monde. A crying person wrapped in a French flag hugs a crying person with a Belgian flag, suggesting solidarity between the two countries.
People in Brussels and elsewhere brought flowers and lit candles to show how sad they are after the attacks.
Vacco v. Quill
Vacco v. Quill, , was a landmark court decision about the right to die. New York had made physician-assisted suicide illegal. A group of doctors challenged this law. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1997, the Supreme Court decided that New York's law against physician-assisted suicide was constitutional and legal. They ruled that the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee the "right to die."
The state of New York had made physician-assisted suicide illegal. This law made it a crime for a doctor to give a patient medications that would kill them. It also made it illegal for a doctor to do anything else that would end a patient's life. These things were crimes even if the patient was terminally ill, wanted to die, and was competent (able to make decisions).
A group of doctors filed a lawsuit in federal court. They argued that this law was unconstitutional. They said the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause says that every state must give everyone "the equal protection of the laws." The doctors argued that because of the law against physician-assisted suicide, terminally ill people did not have equal rights under the law. They pointed out that terminally ill patients could refuse treatment, which would lead to their death. However, these same patients did not have the right to give a doctor permission to end their lives. Basically, they were arguing that refusing treatment in order to cause death, and asking a doctor to help cause death, were the same thing.
First, the case went to the United States District Court. This court ruled that New York's law was constitutional. It said that the state of New York had a good reason to care about keeping its citizens alive and protecting people who might need protection.
Next, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It reversed the District Court's opinion. The Court of Appeals said that the law did not treat all competent patients equally when they wanted to end their lives. For example, if a patient were attached to a life support machine, like a ventilator, they had the right to have a doctor disconnect it. This would cause their death. However, a person in the same situation, on a life support machine, could not ask a doctor to give them medications to cause their death instead. The Court agreed that asking doctors to remove life support devices (which was legal) was the same as physician-assisted euthanasia (which was not legal). They ruled that this was not equal treatment, and that New York's law against physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that New York's law was legal and constitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, but five other Justices wrote separate concurring opinions.
As legal scholar Susan Stefan writes: "Justice Rehnquist's short, curt opinion reversing "Quill" is almost angry." Rehnquist writes that assisted suicide is completely different from allowing a patient to refuse treatment. The difference is that with assisted suicide, the doctor means to cause the patient's death. When the doctor gives the patient medication that will kill them, they are "causing" the patient's death. When a doctor lets a patient refuse treatment, they are letting the patient's "disease" cause their death.
The Court also wrote that there is no "fundamental" right to die in the Constitution. Because of this, laws that make physician-assisted suicide illegal do not violate terminally ill people's Constitutional rights. The Court added that the law allowed everyone to refuse treatment, and banned everyone from assisting suicide. This was equal treatment, and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the decision said.