Posted on 20 March 2011.
Habeas corpus, the right to go before a court to plead a case, is a right enshrined in the American psyche. But should it be sacrificed in the name of security? The U.S. Constitution specifically includes this procedure in Article 1, Section 9. It states that: the “privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Therefore we are placed in a dilemma. Living in an era of global terrorism, national security is a top priority among the American people, giving pause about trying terrorists in an area anywhere near civilians. However, would it not be better to hold the trials like any other procedure as an act of bravery and a testament to show that no American values are being sacrificed? You decide.
Posted in Domestic Affairs
Posted on 04 February 2011.
With the War in Afghanistan overtaking the Vietnam War and the American Revolution as America’s longest continuous conflict, a debate rages on about how to declare victory in central Asia and bring our troops home. While the United States has a longstanding policy of not negotiating with terrorists, direct negotiations with certain “reconcilable” factions of the Taliban is gaining ground in some circles as the best hope for success in Afghanistan. Proponents say that talking to the Taliban is the best (and last) hope for a lasting peace; supposedly, most of the Taliban is willing to renounce al-Qaeda style terrorism in exchange for political power. Opponents argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted and that talking will show weakness and embolden the terrorists. Should the United States try negotiating with the Taliban, or does doing so weaken America’s position and resolve to fighting terrorism abroad? Is displaying resolve to fighting terrorism–and actually stopping terrorism–two separate paths?
Last edited by KS on FEB 2011
Posted in Domestic Affairs, International Affairs, Military
Posted on 02 January 2011.
Background: Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Nidal Hasan. These people are grouped together because of their terrorist actions. They are “homegrown” terrorists, people that have been raised in the U.S. and decided to commit acts of terrorism against their home country. Other more recent homegrown terrorists, such as Nidal Hassan Malik, a Muslim raised in America known for his attempted bombing of Times Square, have come to the forefront of our media cycle. The U.S. Chief of Intelligence Dennis Blair publicly recognized that “homegrown terrorism is a growing threat.” Now, the government is challenged with the task of how to deal with these traitors.
Posted in Domestic Affairs
Posted on 10 December 2010.
After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, there has been a growing fear about terrorism and as a result there have been efforts to prevent it. In a study at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina, several professors have found that building Mosques deter Militant Muslims and terrorist actions mostly through youth groups that sponsor anti-violence forums. However, acts of terrorism are not limited to the Muslim population; most are from intolerance in one form or another. Many of the number of steps we could take in the prevention of terrorism are in plain sight, others in places you’d least suspect. But, can we take them correctly and effectively?
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted on 04 December 2010.
In the United States, all prisoners of war have the opportunity to stand trial in a special military
court. However, terrorists are denied access to the American legal system because they are not
considered to be foreign soldiers or POWs but, instead, enemy combatants and thus can be detained
without trial. Many critics of this policy state this policy is unjust and not in keeping with American
principles. Every prisoner in the US has a right to a fair and speedy trial, but terrorists do not.
Others argue that radical extremists should not be given the same rights as others because of
their danger to society, but critics of the policy cite examples of innocent men detained for years,
unable to prove their innocence in a court trial. Some argue that terrorists cannot be allowed in to
stand trial in civilian courts because they will be acquitted based on technicalities, for example, the
arresting soldier not reading the terrorist their Miranda rights. Also, in such a chaotic environment
as a warzone, evidence may be hard to find. Should the US government play by the rules and risk
releasing guilty terrorists?
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted on 02 December 2010.
Today, threats can be instantly triggered around the world, over the Internet or over the phone, yet our own information-gathering systems still rely on often time-consuming methods. The War on Terror and other conflicts in the current Information Age have led to calls to lift or weaken the ban on torture in the United States. While most disapprove of torture in normal cases, many support a “Jack Bauer exception”: The use of torture in the face of an obvious, real, and imminent threat. The effectiveness of torture has never been concrete; guilty persons have been known to be more likely to give false information under duress than with other techniques. Additionally, innocent victims have also given false information in acts of self-preservation. But in the face of read and impending danger, is torture an acceptable resort? When does moral conduct conflict with national security?
Posted in "Road Less Traveled", Hot Topics, Military, Philosophical