President Bush and his administration made use of an authorization by Congress that was granted to the President a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001 to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons, he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks…” He considered that authorization as a permission to activate his unilateral emergency and wartime powers in order to conduct a war against terrorism in Afghanistan, fighting Al Qaeda, Taliban and their allied fighters and detaining thousands in custody for interrogation at different locations, some of which are still classified. The Bush administration claimed that those militants are not military combatants; therefore they are neither covered under the Geneva Conventions nor the procedural protections of the criminal justice. In other words, the administration allowed both its intelligence and defense apparatuses to hold the prisoners indefinitely at undisclosed locations, to subject them to harsh means of interrogations and to even try them before military commissions in absence of a proper or fair representation.
This paper is not going to discuss the constitutionality of Afghanistan war that was conducted without the Congress’ declaration of war because of the following reasons. First, we simply consider the Authorization of Military Force mentioned above as consent of the Congress’ support to President Bush to activate his wartime and emergency powers as the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy as the Constitution grants. Second, the authorization literally allowed the President to use “United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United St...
... middle of paper ...
...pus petition on behalf of the British Citizen Shafiq Rasul who was detained in the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, challenging the U.S. government’s practice of holding foreign nationals indefinitely. Rasul claimed that afore getting captured and apprehended during the U.S. incursion of Afghanistan he was taken captive by Taliban and he was being held at their camps. The District Court held that the Judiciary had no Jurisdiction and could not grant the habeas corpus to Rasul and his fellow detainees. Rasul appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court accepted the case in November 2003. The main distinguishment between the case of Rasul and the case of Hamdi is the Hamdi dealt with the right of diminutive handful U.S. citizens held by the regime, while the case of Rasul concerned the detention of aliens, which comprise the majority of those in custody in Guantanamo Bay.
“Over the past century, Canadian attitudes towards the use of force and the exercise of military power in support of national aims have fundamentally shifted”. This is a quote written by Major Todd Strickland in his article, titled, “From the Boers to the Taliban: How Canadians Attitudes towards War Have Changed”. This article reviews Canada’s history within the wars and also Canadian’s thoughts on war. The Afghan war began in 2001 and is still ongoing today. The war began due to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11. The purpose of this war was to invade Afghanistan and to disassemble an organization, known as the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Another objective was to dismantle the Taliban government. The Taliban government was simply to blame for the deaths of so many Americans on 9/11. The leader, brains and financial support behind this organization was one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Because his country did not surrender him, the United States made the decision to declare war on Afghanistan and fight for those who lost their lives in 9/11. Canada became involved in the Afghan War very quickly after the attacks of 9/11. Because the Afghanistan war is a war that is constantly covered by the media, it makes the information overwhelming. To narrow the topic down, this paper will focus mainly on the Canadian’s involvement in the Afghanistan war. Violent political wars have been reoccurring for as long as anyone can remember, and the intensity of this violence continues to rise. The magnitude of political violence involved, the main interpretations on the causes of political violence, and the prospects for conflict resolution are all topics that will be covered...
During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will analyze: the expanding role and use of power of the President; weak Congressional legislative policies that empower the executive; and the Supreme Court’s role legitimizing the autonomy of Presidential war making.
Ms. Vanklausen relies on primary and secondary sources with strong credentials in the realm of the constitution, law, public policy, and Americans’ right to freedom (Cato Inst., n.d.; Wikipedia, 2010) to support her argument. The authors have been published in a variety of respected periodicals as well as writing books on these topics. Her sources cite the expert opinions of Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia (“Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants”, Reinking & von der Osten, 2007, pp. 228, 231-233), who are entrusted with the ultimate responsibility to interpret our nation’s constitution and apply this standard to arguments brought before the Court when the rule of law is in question. Ms. Vanklausen also employs excerpts from the Bill of Rights to clarify the protections these individuals are not permitted in this situation. She provides a quotation by Thomas Jefferson, and notes decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Circuit Court, and Federal Court Judge Mukasey. She also refers to established truths upon which Americans depend as signs of their freedom, such as “The foundation of liberty has always rested on the resistance to the idea of arbitrary imprisonment by an executive. (Reinking & von der Osten, 2007)
John Yoo’s defense of the Military Commission Act of 2006 is an implicit commentary on the Hamdan versus Rumsfeld decision of 2006. The case of Hamdan expresses unilateral executive power as unbounded in a very tangible manner. In this decision and defense it is evident that the unilateral powers the president holds seem to be unbounded. Yoo’s promotion and defense of the MCA of 2006 neglects the moral costs of prohibiting habeus corpus rights, the treatment of the detainees, and the danger of unilateral executive power.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
The US military base in Guantanamo Bay, which was used as detention facility and interrogation activities of suspected terrorists apprehended by US sequel to 9/11 attack in 2001, during the period, terrorist suspects witnessed a wide range of coercive interrogations and inhuman acts ratified by US government and termed “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. The joint armed forces and both intelligence agencies of US (CIA ad FBI) where deployed to Guanatanmo with the mandate of coercive interrogation techniques in other to ensure captured terrorists reveal actionable intelligence to unmask the 9/11 perpetrators and Al Qaeda gang, and also to prevent future attacks. During this period which was Bush administration, US became listed among countries that legalized torture and assumed the lead position among those using coercive interrogation techniques in combating terrorism and had bad popularity to the point Canadian government (US crony) stated that its has included US in list of nations that use torture against the international convention.
Ex-president George W. Bush asserts, “Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information.” Abu Zubaydah was a high-ranking Al Qaeda official who was water boarded (Luban, 1). Water boarding is a form torture that simulates drowning. Through this form of torture, the US was able to receive vital information that led to the prevention of a bomber decimating a bridge. Moreover, the CIA was able to extract this information and incarcerate the criminal. Though many lives were potentially saved, Bush was criticized for allowing the action of torture. He se...
1. Can the government indefinitely detain, refuse legal counsel, and judicial trial to United States’ citizens, under the assertion that they are “enemy combatants”?
Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was established in the year 2002, when Donald Rumsfeld was the United States secretary of defense. Rumsfeld stated that the main intention of building the Guantanamo Bay Prison was to detain prisoners of war and to try criminals accused of odious crimes (Rose, 32-33). Moreover, was turned into a full-fledged ultra-modern detention camp for the criminals guilty of extra-ordinary crimes (Smith, 21). Although Rumsfeld had said during the opening of the Guantanamo Bay Camp that the aim of the detention camp would be to detain criminals convicted of crimes of very high magnitude, it later proved that the camp was actually just a political tool.
Welch, Gruhl, Rigdon and Thomas (2011) assert that, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the executive power is granted solely to the President of the U.S. This clause of the constitution has continued to draw significant constitutional debate since the ratification of the Constitution. For example, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in 1793 questioned whether the clause affords residual power to the President outside the enumerated powers stipulated in the Constitution. This debate is still significant in the contemporary times because it has a direct impact on the power of the President, and also, as an essential insinuation, it impacts on the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizenry at home and in foreign countries. In this context, Pika and Maltese (2004) argue that, it is essential to mention a number of prominent Supreme Court cases that involve the outline of executive powers that have transpired, informed by in the perspective of foreign affairs, as well war. Therefore, it is not unforeseen that today, in the War on Terror, the...
Since the year 2001, Afghanistan’s history with the United States has been very rough and destructive due to the Afghanistan War. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then-President George W. Bush signed a joint law resolution authorizing the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attack (“U.S. War in Afghanistan”). On October 7th, 2001, the US launched missile strikes against Taliban military starting the official “War of Afghanistan” (Afghanistan Profile - Timeline). Twelve days after the airstrikes, the first wave of conventional ground forces arrive in Afghanistan (“U.S. War in Afghanistan”). In August 2003, two years after the start of the war, there are now over 10,000 American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan (“U.S. War in Afghanistan”). A few years passed by without any major events during the war, until September of 2008 when President Bush sent an extra 4,500 troops to Afghanistan (Afghanistan Profile-
Our military campaigns in Afghanistan eliminated a regime that supported terrorism and other violent groups. Today in Afghanistan there is no regime and the country is rebuilding it self from the ruins of Soviet war. John Ashcroft who is now the famous man on TV is probably the only one who takes the problem seriously. He said that he wants to check for people who have connections with the Alquida and its cells. But some people say it’s unconstitutional to do that, but in 1700’s or even 1800’s terrorists did not attack America. That means that our finding fathers did not had to deal with Ottoman Empire nor their attacks because we were protected by oceans. Even in the old days constitution was not a factor for some people to do something immoral or illegal.
Guantanamo Bay, a US naval base on the southern point of Cuba, has long been a source of controversy for it’s alleged interrogation tactics and torture. The sitting President, Trump, has made it clear he wants to revive the use of waterboarding, and other extreme practices. On the other hand, General Mattis, White House Chief of Staff, commented, “Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I can do better with that than I do with torture” (Cooper). With terrorist attacks becoming more common events in American life, many have called to continue the questioning of the top jihadists at Guantanamo. The US should continue using Guantanamo Bay as a detention center that is necessary to national security.
How did George Bush’s war on terror effect terrorism as a whole. The year is 2001 on a beautiful September day in the early morning an event that would change the nation occurred when four planes were hijacked on September 11th by the al Qaeda terrorist group and were flown into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. They all succeeded in killing thousands of people along with multiple more attempted bombing during the late 90’s. By September 20th the president responded with a speech stating he declared an all out war on terror. From this point on Bush increased military spending, sent troops to Iraq and the Gulf, and also gained the support of millions in his mission. Bush also achieved varying amounts
Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, granting a prisoner of war a separate hearing to determine whether or not they were a prisoner of war prior to being tried in a military court as an unlawful enemy combatant. However, Congress followed this decision by legalizing military commission as fair trials when it came time to trying the Gitmo detainees. While Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld provided few other protections such as barring any testimony that appeared to have been taken through coercive tactics, prisoners were still forbidden to challenge their imprisonment and the right to request a re-evaluation of the evidence brought against them. These policies displayed an obvious self-interested, power seeking system that is a core principle of the realist theory. They undermined international order and created disorder due to the overarching sense of fear from the 9/11