"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

"War on Terror" and Bin Laden

“And a war will be won,” concluded CIA Director Leon Panetta’s email to the CIA last Monday, following the capture and deadly shooting of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and a man considered by some to be the most dangerous extremist of the 21st century, The raid on Bin Laden’s million-dollar compound in Pakistan by US forces concluded the longest and most expensive manhunt of all time.
Panetta’s email mirrored the language of President Obama and other top national security officials, all of whom focused on the idea that America can and will win the so-called “war on terror.” Some even said that American troops will not leave Afghanistan or Pakistan until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.
Simply, that is not going to happen. Unless American troops are willing to spend decades more fighting the terrorist network and its affiliates across the world, Al-Qaeda as an organization is not going anywhere.
And the “war on terror” is even more of a problem. Firstly, a war against terror can never be won; terror will always exist. No matter how many terrorists US forces track down and kill, terror will still be there.
Secondly, since the Obama Administration and the American intelligence groups have created a war that is, simply, impossible to win, they have essentially doomed themselves politically. Sure, it was the Bush Administration that started both the war and its nickname, but the Obama Administration is trying to end military engagement in the Middle East. And while US forces may leave Afghanistan and they have nearly entirely left Iraq, this does not equate to winning a war on terror.
Finally, in addition to the impossibility of winning a “war on terror,” internationally, the phrasing may unintentionally have an unwanted effect upon tto whom the words are directed. Joseph Nye Jr, professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, noted that “[w]hen British MI-5 interrogated arrested terrorists, they found that the words “war on terror” were heard as “war against Islam” and that helped terrorist recruiters.”
Beyond our allies or enemy’s feelings internationally, and even beyond our own countries opinion, using the phrase “the war on terror” allows the American Government to make an excuse. An excuse for still being in Iraq, an excuse for weak Afghanistan policy, but mostly an excuse to house long-term detainees at Guantanamo Bay and perform possibly illegal interrogation techniques upon them. If by eliminating “the war on terror” from our national vocabulary, we eliminate on more facade for the government to hide behind when dealing with detainees, it needs to go.
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of the United States is a triumph for the Obama administration. It makes the administration seem more legitimate on foreign policy, and it is an enormous gain for national security. However, his death does not signify the end of the war on terror. It may weaken Al-Queada’s operational ability, but even if his death meant the end of Al-Quaeda, it still would not mean the end of the war on terror. Simply, a war on terror cannot be won, since terror will always exist.

Read more »

Siding with Big Business

Siding with Big Business

Wiretapping. By the very nature of it, we are putting national security over indvidual privacy rights, putting the governement over the people. Last week, officials from the Obama administration pushed for greater enforcement of wiretapping laws, forcing corporations including AT&T to reestablish means for the government to wiretap their lines even if it means downgrading their technology, according to the New York Times.
In America, government is usually well-meaning. Ronald Reagan's 'government is the problem' is simply not true. Government has a real role in the economy. It can protect, insure, and provide for the struggling. It can stop the crushing of the individual by giant corporations. But wiretapping goes beyond regulations and tariffs, past what is beneficial and infringes on individual's rights to an extreme extent.
Sure, there are real national security reasons for wiretapping. But given the history in America of warrantless wiretapping, it shouldn't be so easy for the government to trample on privacy rights.
It is the role and responsibility of the government to protect the people. It is not the role of the government to destruct privacy rights. So, maybe, being against the expansion of wiretapping programs is, for once, siding with big business. But maybe it's just siding with the individual.
It is imperative that the Obama administration does not venture down the warrantless wiretapping path forged by its predecessors. Any feasible national security benefits by listening though phone lines without a warrant are seriously outweighed by the destruction of rights it causes.
Assuming any activities would be done with a warrant, there are other cons. Wiretapping is expensive and becomes even more so with changing technology. In order for phone service companies to comply with the government wiretapping abilities, they will have to downgrade their systems. With the current programs, the government simply cannot keep up.
There were no public, tangible results from Bush wiretapping. The Obama administration must act legally and with great thought as to the program's actual benefits if they truly plan to pursue wiretapping.

Read more »

Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

It is traditional in America for a former president’s mistakes to be essentially forgiven the moment he leaves office, mostly out of respect for the position but also from a slight inclination to forget bad sections in American history. From Hoover to Clinton to Bush Sr. to even Nixon, once the president is out of office and is writing their nearly guaranteed book deal and doing PSAs for whatever the day’s crisis is, Americans tend to forgive whatever discrepancies- moral or political- happened under the prior administration. The same is true for the George W. Bush administration. As with many other previous presidents, the Bush administration has been essentially romanticized in the mind of Americans. Once considered an abject failure by most of left-wing America, the media and moderates in the country and a mild embarrassment by right-wing America, who worked throughout the 2008 campaign to keep Bush out of the public eye as much as possible, the actions of the Bush administration are becoming generally accepted, if not lauded.

But we are forgetting the reasons the Bush administration was considered a failure in the first place- and not for the reasons usually mentioned. Yes, the post-Hurricane Katrina cleanup and rescue was a complete disaster and a disgusting example of federal irresponsibility. Yes, the lies told to the American people after 9/11 about the situation in Iraq were truly heinous and led to shocking overreach by the executive branch, including the disregard for the rule of law seen throughout the presidency. Yes, the international relations that had taken years and many administrations to carefully build were essentially destroyed- but these are not the only major, crippling shortfalls of the Bush administration, nor are they the oversights that impacted the nation most in the long term.
The Bush administration set a reckless and shocking precedent for executive power in America. From the overwhelmingly political motivations of the Bush advisors to the president’s increasing trust in and funding of corporations and special interests, the entire presidency was political in a way that had never been seen in the White House before. Although plenty of past administrations have been political and made political deals- as it is nearly impossible to operate in Washington without being political to some measure- never before had a presidency dealt so much in politics instead of ideology. The administration was very conservative except when that ideology conflicted with the special interests they had financially promised to protect.
While it may seem superfluous to dwell on past mistakes of a former president, it is actually important that these trials are remembered and used as a lesson. The quicker that the bloating of executive power that occurred under George W. Bush is forgotten, the more likely any future president will be able to return to such unprecedented power. President Obama seems to have taken a very expected ‘forgive and forget’ policy when it comes to dealing with the prior president. However, Bush’s policies that last today are, therefore, being ignored rather than repudiated. President Obama needs to gain the political courage to take firm stances against Bush administration policies- both politically and legally. If he cannot or does not do this, there is nothing, no precedent to stop future administrations from acting in the dangerously unbalanced manner of the executively control-crazed former administration.
(Photo credit: newsone.com) 

Read more »

National Security Nightmare

National Security Nightmare

The United States is currently in control of hundreds of long-range 'minute-men' missiles, which can practiaclly fire from the US to any point in the world in aproximately an hour. They are equipt with nuclear weaponry, so firing these missles would be both disasterous to for the country reached and for humanity as a whole. A few years ago, the Bush Administration had the brilliant idea yo remove the nuclear capabilities on these weapons and re-equipt them with conventional bombing abilities, which sounds great in theory- being able to conventionally bomb any location worldwide without starting a nuclear war, but the program is much more sinister. As Russian officials pointed out to the Bush Administration, other nations would not be willing to docilely sit by as a missile- potentially conventional, potentially nuclear- soared towards them from a country with nuclear capabilities, rather, they would react as though it was a nuclear weapon. Quite simply, by unintentionally disguising a conventional missile as a much more dangerous one, we would be starting an international nuclear crisis, if not an international war. Now, the Obama Administration is re-proposing this idea, seemingly either in an attempt to appear strong on defense or as a compromise for nuclear-friendly military officials who are unhappy with the impending nuclear reductions.
Returning to this problematic plan is hardly a good idea. It may seem like a super-protective national security measure to further the American ability to fire missiles of any time upon any world nation, but the disastrous ramifications would outweigh any superficial feeling of protection from Americans. While some may see allowing this program to go un-fulfilled would as an act against the protection of our nation, the continuation of the idea would do just that.

Read more »

Quote 1/18/10

Quote 1/18/10

Former President George Bush

"Rebuilding is a long-term project."

Read more »

Legality of Bush Torture Techniques

Legality of Bush Torture Techniques

Starting no later than August 2003, the Bush Administration’s CIA employed ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on detained suspected terrorists that included, but were not limited to; beating, waterboarding, beating with collar, exposure to extreme heat, exposure to extreme cold, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, denial of solid food, placement in claustrophobic situations, exposure to insects, exposure to unpleasant substances, threatening, sexual harassment and sexual commentary of a derogatory nature, religious commentary of a derogatory nature, personal commentary of a derogatory nature, stress standing, and threats. These techniques were authorized for use by Justice Department lawyers, and most, if not all, top level Bush Administration officials knew of the use of these techniques. These ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are illegal, were known to be illegal by those who authorized them, and have caused and will cause many negative ramifications in the United States and around the world.
The techniques authorized for CIA use at detention centers like Gitmo at Guantanamo Bay, Bogram Air Base in Afganistan, and Abu Ghraib in Iraq include many different illegal techniques. Waterboarding alone is illegal under many international treaties and agreements. The ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are illegal under the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, the Torture Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Article eight of the US Bill of Rights (and the manner in which they are carried out is against articles five and six). The United States has agreed to act lawfully under those treaties and laws along with several other countries. So, the techniques that are known to have been authorized and employed in the United States are illegal under both national and international law and break several key wartime treaties. Looking at past precedent, the United States successfully prosecuted Japanese soldiers who authorized and employed similar techniques, most notably waterboarding, after World War II. The other part of the use of these techniques that constitutes as an illegal act is the time when Congress what notified about their employment. There still is debate about when and how sufficiently Congress was informed, and, depending on the outcome of the debates, the information could constitute another legal charge.

Read more »