The War On...

The War On...

Yesterday, Politico's Arena asked its contributors whether or not the phrase 'war on terror' mattered. The phrase was frequently used by President Bush and recently by President Obama. Could a simple choice of words have ramifications at home and abroad? 

Internationally, the phrasing may, unintentionally, having an unwanted effect upon those to 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." 

Yousef Munayyer of The Jerusalem Fund argues that the term creates political consequences within the US. "The problem with declaring a war on anything ( other than states ) is that if the war is not clearly won, you have failed. Terrorism is not going away and has been around for millennia, so declaring a war on it is political disaster." 

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 Afganistan 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 fasade for the government to hide behind when dealing with detainees, it needs to go. 

Read more »

2010

2010

2009 was filled with accomplishments and failures by Congress, but America's work is far from over. In 2009, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed individual health care reform bills. In 2010, Congress needs to find consensus in a bill that will provide affordable healthcare to ALL Americans. 

Last year, President Obama made plans to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and Attorney General Eric Holder took preliminary steps towards prosecution of war crimes committed during the previous administration. This year, the President must follow through and truly work for human rights. In 2010, we as a country need to work for a healthy economy, and a healthy ecosystem. 
There is so much left to do to fix our country's problems. We are nowhere near where we need to be, but if we focus on bipartisanship and results, we can get there.

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 »