Waterboarding:Illegal by Law but Legal by Cirumstance?

Controversy over waterboarding has surfaced in recent years. There are two different techniques when referring to waterboarding. The first involves pumping water directly in the stomach. “This creates intense pain. It feels like your organs are on fire,” says Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College. The other technique which is most commonly used involves lying the suspect in an incline position and pouring water on their face. The face is usually covered by a towel or cloth. This creates instant fear of drowning for the suspect. Proponents of waterboarding will argue that it is a legitimate method of interrogation that has saved lives in our war against terrorism while opponents insists it violates United States law as an inhumane form of torture.

The debate over waterboarding is new, but the interrogation technique is not. “Its use was first documented in the 14th century, according to Ed Peters, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania. It was known variously as "water torture," the "water cure" or tormenta de toca — a phrase that refers to the thin piece of cloth placed over the victim's mouth.” In the 14th century it was normal  to use water to provoke confessions. "The thing you could not do in torture was injure the body or cause death," Peters says. Waterboarding causes both mental and physical pain while leaving no marks on the body. That is why it is such a popular interrogation technique. Many countries banned waterboarding as an acceptable interrogation technique around the 1800s but the practice never completely disappeared. It surfaced again in the 20th century. “The interrogation method was used by the Japanese in World War II, by U.S. troops in the Philippines and by the French in Algeria. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rogue used waterboarding against its own people. The British used it against both Arabs and Jews in occupied Palestine in the 1930s. In the 1970s, it was widely used in Latin America, particularly under the military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina”  There has also been uses of waterboarding on American soil. “In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions.” Serious debates over waterboarding did not surface until the 21st century during President George W. Bush’s term in office.

In 2002, President Bush’s lawyers advised him to approve the use of enhanced interrogation techniques to question terrorists suspected to be linked with the 9/11 attack on the United States. “In 2005, Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibited the ‘cruel, inhumane, or degrading’ treatment of prisoners. However, in signing the bill, President Bush issued a statement implying that, under the Constitution, he was not bound by this provision of the Act.” There have been three major treaties that the United States has signed and ratified which prohibit the United States’ usage of waterboarding on terrorist suspects. The first, ratified in 1955, is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Second, ratified in 1992, is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Third, Ratified in 1994, is the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. “The United States has enacted statutes prohibiting torture and cruel or inhuman treatment.  It is these statutes which make waterboarding illegal.The four principal statutes which Congress has adopted to implement the provisions of the foregoing treaties are the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act, and the laws entitled ‘Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the United States Government’ and ‘Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.’” The Bush administration has admitted that the CIA used waterboarding on  only three terrorists suspects. These suspects include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaydah, and Abd Al Rahim al-Hashiri. Even though waterboarding is clearly illegal by the statutes against torture, CIA Director Michael Hayden defended the use of waterboarding as legal because of the outrage over the 9/11 attack on the United States. “‘We used it against three detainees because of extraordinary circumstances at the time,’ Hayden said. ‘There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we have had limited knowledge about al Qaeda and its workings.’” Statements have been released that suggest the United States has conducted many more interrogations including waterboarding other than the three that they have admitted to. “Human Rights Watch recently released a report detailing the accounts of 14 Libyan men who claim they were detained and, in some cases, subject to harsh interrogations by the U.S. before being transferred back to Libyan prisons.” Also, it has been revealed that the CIA has destroyed evidence of waterboarding terrorist suspects. “The Justice Department disclosed that the CIA had destroyed 92 videotapes of harsh interrogation sessions made in 2002.” This indicates that even though they approved of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, they knew they were unlawful. This also suggests that there could have been many more terrorist suspects who were subjected to waterboarding. 

The reason the Bush administration thought that waterboarding was a lawful form of torture is that they believed it would lead them to Osama bin Laden. “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed what many have believed since the death of Osama bin Laden: Our waterboarding of top Al Qaeda operatives in the wake of 9/11 ultimately led to the whereabouts and killing of the terrorist mastermind.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was said to break very quickly under the technique of waterboarding. Michael B. Mukasey stated, “He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” Another member of al Qaeda, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. “When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. ‘Do this for all the brothers,’ he advised his interrogators.” Not only did the information that was provided during these interrogations lead to bin Laden, it also led to the capture of many other important personnel associated with bin Laden.

After taking office, Obama and his administration have vowed to not use waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects. “Waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “We cannot ask other nations to stand by us in the pursuit of justice if we are not viewed as being in pursuit of that ideal ourselves.” Waterboarding is in fact illegal by law. The United States holds themselves to a higher standard than other countries which is why Obama has banned waterboarding. However, it remains a sensitive issue.  If it saves American lives and if it protects an attack on the homeland then waterboarding should at a minimum be considered.

The Truth About Pearl Harbor

 

     Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Many lives were lost along with naval vessels, battleships, and fighter jets. This is known as a very tragic surprise attack. But the question I have come across after doing research is was this really a surprise attack? 

     I would have never thought that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise and could have been prevented. But in fact, it was not a surprise and it could have been prevented. Hawaii commanders were in fact surprised by the attack but that was not the case in Washington, D.C. James Perloff states, "Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the 'surprise' attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II." The majority of the public and congress were opposed to entering into the war so FDR saw this as his way to get the nation's support.

     Before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt sent Harry Hopkins to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. James Perloff also said in his article, "Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not", that Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." Roger A. Stolley wrote an article "Pearl Harbor Attack No Surprise" also giving proof that FDR anticipated the attack and made no steps to prevent it. Stolley worked with a man named Clifford M. Andrew, a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer. Clifford once told Stolley, "Five men were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbor. I am one of those five men ... We knew well in advance that the Japanese were going to attack. At least nine months before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, I was assigned to prepare for it." I cannot begin to wrap my head around the fact that at least 5 men knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and made no effort to stop it. 

     Roosevelt's intentions were almost exposed in 1940. A code clerk at the U.S. Embassy in London, by the name of Tyler Clerk, found letters between Roosevelt and Churchill. These letters showed that Roosevelt intended to engage America in the war. Kent tried to smuggle the documents out of the embassy but before he was able to he was caught. He spent time in prison until the war was over.

     Pearl Harbor is the Mother of all Conspiracies. Not only did FDR know the attack was coming, he provoked it. Patrick J. Buchanan states before Japan attack Pearl Harbor, the U.S. "froze all Japanese assets in the United States, ending all exports and imports, and denying Japan the oil upon which the nation and empire depended." FDR provoked the attack, knew about it in advance, and did not warn anyone just so he could get the public's support of the war. This shows how much that the government hides from us. I am sure there are many disgusting secrets the government is hiding from the public as of today. Roger A. Stolley states, "Pearl Harbor is an example of how a small group of men in control of government has the power to destroy the life, property, and freedom of its citizens. How can this nation, or any nation, survive when its electorate is uninformed, that government hides the truth, labels it top secret, and destroys it." I view FDR as a traitor for provoking Japan to attack and forcing us to enter into war. He sacrificed American lives and until the full truth is told about this event, the men who were killed and their families continue to be dishonored.

United States Hypocrisy

Some of the most disturbing news stories that we see on television today are the threats of chemical weaponry. Most recently, Syrian troops were accused of using chemical weapons on their own civilians. Joby Warrick states more than 1,400 Syrian civilians have been killed. The Syrian government has denied these allegations; however, the United States threatened action against the government in retaliation. The United Nations is now overseeing that the chemical weapons in Syria be destroyed. I have heard discussions about the United States being hypocritical about wanting to take a hard stand against Syria. How could taking a stand against chemical warfare be hypocritical? After doing research I have found information that is very shocking to me and is very evidential that the United States is being quite hypocritical. According to the Washington’s Blog, “the U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran … which was the largest use of chemical weapons in history. While the number of people killed in the August 21st chemical weapons attack has been estimated at between 350 and 1,429, 20,000 Iranians and 5,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam’s chemical weapons attacks with full U.S. support and backing.” After doing further research I came across a substance called Agent Orange that was used by the United States in the Vietnam War and what I found was shocking. Chemical weapons are defined as “chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants.” They can be dispersed in gas, liquid, or solid form and often affect more people than just the intended target. Was the United States guilty of using chemical warfare in Vietnam? During the Vietnam War, the United States sprayed a powerful mixture of chemical defoliants known as Agent Orange in the jungles of North Vietnam. The U.S. program of defoliation “sprayed more than 19 million gallons of herbicides over 4.5 million acres of land in Vietnam from 1961 to 1972.” The intent was to thin the dense jungles where the Viet Cong were so effective in fighting the American troops. Unfortunately, the method of distribution allowed the chemical to contaminate the water supplies and vegetation consumed by not only the North Vietnamese, but also the U.S. troops fighting in Vietnam.
The herbicide Agent Orange “contained the chemical dioxin, was the most commonly used of the herbicide mixtures, and the most effective.” The effect on humans is equally toxic causing birth defects, muscular dysfunction, nervous system disorders, and numerous forms of cancer. It was not until Vietnam veterans began complaining of numerous health conditions including skin irritations, miscarriages, type-II diabetes, cancer, and birth defects did the United States began recognizing the link to Agent Orange. A class action lawsuit on behalf of 2.4 million Vietnam veterans that were exposed to Agent Orange was filed in 1979. A settlement of over 240 million dollars has since been reached. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Agent Orange Act. This law mandated that some diseases associated with Agent Orange be treated as a result of wartime service. “In addition to the massive environmental impact of the U.S. defoliation program in Vietnam, that nation has reported that some 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. In addition, Vietnam claims half a million children have been born with serious birth defects, while as many 2 million people are suffering from cancer or other illness caused by Agent Orange.” Also, another way the United States is being critical about Syria is how they are trying to expedite the process of eliminating the chemical weapons so quickly. I have discovered the United States itself has been very slow in eliminating our own chemical weapons but yet we demand Syria to do it in such a short amount of time. Dave Lindorff states “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has referred to Syria as having one of the largest chemical stockpiles in the world. But the US and Russia both still have stocks of chemicals many times as large. The U.S. caches, at 3100 tons, are three times as large as Syria’s reported 1000 tons.” History will state that the intent of the United States to employ Agent Orange during the Vietnam War was not as a chemical weapon by definition. It was used as a defoliant to thin the dense jungles of Vietnam in an effort to aid our soldiers. Unfortunately, the argument does not stand today knowing what we have learned about Agent Orange in the years since the war. Agent Orange clearly was a chemical weapon that has caused long-term damaging effects on millions of innocent lives. As we continue to fight the battle against chemical weapons, let’s hope we don’t lose sight of the fact that we too were guilty of using chemical warfare

Help or Hurt the Economy?

Many people believe war is good for the economy. At first glance, one could easily argue the economy is stimulated when we enter into a war. Let's suppose that the economy is in a recession. The unemployment rate is high and production is down. But then the government decides to enter into a war. This calls for workers to supply the soldiers with clothing, vehicles, weapons, and military supplies which creates jobs for people who did not have jobs before, therefore lowering the unemployment rate. With the unemployment rate down, people have more money to spend creating a boost in the economy. I am surprised to say that the idea of war helping an economy is actually a myth. 

The question many people have is how could war actually hurt the economy when so many say that it stimulates the economy? World War II came directly after the Great Depression, so war must have been the driving force to pull the economy out of a depression. However, more current history describes a different scenario. There was substantial economic growth during the 1990's when, with the exception of the Gulf War in 1991, we were at peace. Former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan warned that a prolonged conflict in war in the Middle East would hurt the economy. He explained that "you risk consumer confidence deteriorating" if involved in war for a long period of time. This in turn would effect financial markets and consumer spending. 
But if there is economic spending on the military during war, how does that affect consumer confidence? The New Republic states, it is "because of what economists call the 'broken window fallacy'. Specifically, if a window in a store is broken, it means that the window-maker gets paid to make a new window, and he, in turn, has money to pay others. However, economists long ago showed that – if the window hadn’t been broken – the shop-owner would have spent that money on other things, such as food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or recreation, which would have helped the economy as much or more. If the shop-owner hadn’t had to replace his window, he might have taken his family out to dinner, which would have circulated more money to the restaurant, and from there to other sectors of the economy. Similarly, the money spent on the war effort is money that cannot be spent on other sectors of the economy." During war, there is economic growth in the military sector, but shifts resources away from consumer and investment spending that would actually grow the economy. Defense spending has accounted for almost all job creation in the economy over the last decade. However, Michael Mandel states, "between 1999 and 2009, private sector employment grew only 1.1% which is the slowest growth in a post-depression period."

While a war can provide a short-term boost to the economy, it has an adverse effect on the economy in the long run. Mike Moffatt states, "The extra money spent on the war is money that will not be spent elsewhere. The war can be funded in a combination of three ways: increasing taxes, decrease spending in other areas, or increasing the debt." All three of these options will negatively affect the economy in the long run. Increasing taxes reduces the amount of money consumers have to spend. Decreased spending on social programs funded by the government reduces the benefits to recipients thereby reducing the money they have to spend in other areas. Increasing the government debt assures that taxes will have to be increased or spending reduced in the future. 
Therefore, war is not beneficial to the majority of Americans. They find themselves with fewer dollars to spend and less confidence that the money will be there in the future. With less money circulating in the economy, there is less economic growth in the long run.

The Unknown War

I have never heard of the Battle of Mogadishu until watching the film Black Hawk Down and I suspect there are many other people have never heard of it either; but why? Was it an insignificant military mission or an embarrassment to American foreign policy?  American soldiers went into Somalia and saved many innocent lives yet not many people have heard about this heroic act. The reason for this is probably because the majority of citizens did not view the operation as being a success. Dominic Tierney in his article "Black Hawk Up: The Forgotten American Success Story inSomalia" claims, "The mission in Somalia became widely seen as one of the greatest military disasters since Vietnam. In October 1993, 66 percent of Americans thought the operation to provide humanitarian relief in Somalia was a failure. Congressmen angrily demanded U.S. withdrawal." Hollywood movie makers in Black Hawk Down depicted the humanitarian mission as a failure.  Consequently, the Battle of Mogadishu shaped U.S. policy going forward and has limited our involvement in humanitarian crises.  However, a deeper understanding of the events leading to the mission and the aftermath could present a different opinion of something other than a failure.

After the Cold War ended, Somalia suffered widespread famine and fell into clan-based warfare.  Thousands of innocent Somalians were being murdered or dying of starvation. President George H. W. Bush sent American troops to deliver humanitarian relief, arriving in December 1992.  The troops rebuilt roads and repaired schools.  It is estimated that 100,000 Somalian lives were saved and the number of refugees was cut in half.  There were plenty of journalists on hand to report to the world the success of this U.S. humanitarian effort. 

Public opinion took a drastic change for the worse in October, 1993.  American troops turned their efforts toward eliminating the warlord, General Aideed, who was blamed for attacking international troops.  The mission was supposed to be swift with a few military helicopters flying into the region to arrest or neutralize their targets.  However, Aideed and his militants were waiting for the attack and shot down two military helicopters. The battle ended with 18 American soldiers dead and hundreds of Somalians.  The press coverage of the humanitarian mission in Somalia suddenly became a tragic story with images of mutilated American soldiers.  The media ignored the pro-American demonstrations in Somalia and the accomplishments already made to restore order in the region.  Osama bin Laden was quoted in Tierney’s article, “You left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.”  His comment reinforced the perception of failure and embarrassment among the American public. The American troops left the region shortly after the tragic mission.

The consequences of the Battle of Mogadishu were pronounced.  The U.S. government was shocked at the outcome and demanded that numerous officials in President Clinton’s administration explain how a humanitarian effort could become such an embarrassment.  Alexander Burns, in his article “The Battle of Mogadishu: Why It Still Matters” states “the immediate lesson drawn by the United States was of the need for humility in international affairs.”  Foreign policy changed towards a more cautious involvement in international humanitarian efforts.  Burns also reveals that the 9/11 Commission following the terrorist attacks on the United States uncovered that Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network were involved in the attack on the American military in Mogadishu.  He states, “When President Clinton swiftly drew back from Somalia, he hardened Bin Laden’s dim view of American resolve.”  Calling the efforts in Somalia as a total failure may be short sighted.  Yes, American lives were lost but thousands of Somalian lives were saved.  Perhaps by standing our ground and continuing our mission in Somalia, the perception of America as a strong and worthy force would have been maintained.  However, by being so quick to withdraw and admit defeat, one could also conclude that our admitted weakness led the way for a more costly price to be paid later, most notably September 11, 2001.

Dehumanizing Effects of War

    

     Being involved in war changes a soldier’s life forever. A soldier experiences gruesome realities of war that may haunt them for the rest of their life. Once out of the war it is, in many cases, very difficult for a soldier to transition into living an ordinary life. Because of the events of war that these soldiers have endured, it makes the simplest things in life a difficult task. But why is it so hard for soldiers to transition from warfare to ordinary life? Soldiers are so conditioned to be prepared for enemy attacks that this fear and stress causes some soldiers to view everyone around them as an enemy. It is disturbing to know that these young men enter war in order to protect this country but if they are lucky enough to be alive after the war they may never be the same. It is as if they become dehumanized.

      As we read in The Things They Carried, Norman Bowker could not find a meaning for himself outside of fighting in combat. He didn’t know how to function in society which resulted in him committing suicide. According to News21, "Veterans are killing themselves at more than double the rate of the civilian population with about 49,000 taking their own lives between 2005 and 2011. Nearly one in every five suicides nationally is a veteran — 18 to 20 percent annually — compared with Census data that shows veterans make up about 10 percent of the U.S. adult population." Another big problem that veterans face besides suicide is a disorder known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a disease in which people experience flashbacks, bad dreams, or frightening thoughts. PTSD is caused by a traumatic or terrifying event. "At least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or Depression." According to RAND, “among those who do seek help for PTSD or major depression, only about half receive treatment that researchers consider ‘minimally adequate’ for their illnesses."
Soldiers experience the terrifying events of war for our freedom and they are not even given the proper treatment for this terrible disorder. This is a problem that needs to be solved. If you want to help Soldiers with PTSD, go to the website Soldiersbestfriend.org. Soldiers fight for our freedom, so it is right for us to help them out when they are in need.