NPR had a worthwhile segment today over the recently released "torture memos." These memos laid the legal framework for the Bush administration's policy of permitting so-called "enhanced interrogation." One memo in particular made interesting assertions. The memo in question, written by former assistant attorney general, current federal judge Jay Bybee, states that enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, slapping, and stress positions can not be labeled as torture because they do not cause prolonged psychological harm.
Bybee backs up his claim by pointing out that over 26,000 U.S. servicemen and women have been subjected to the exact same interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evade) school. One of the purposes of SERE school is to help members of the military learn to resist enemy interrogation should they be captured. Bybee believes that because these service members have not shown signs of prolonged psychological harm, detainees who are subjected to the same interrogation methods must not suffer from long-term ill effects either.
The flaw in Bybee's logic, as the NPR piece points out, is that attendees of SERE school ultimately have control over their situation in that if the interrogations becomes too much for them to handle, they can quit. Detainees have no such luxury. And it is a stressful situation coupled with a lack of feelings of control which typically lead to prolonged psychological harm. The two interrogation scenarios are thus not as comparable as Bybee thinks.
It will be interesting to see what if anything results from the Bush administration's attempt to codify and legalize torture. Already President Obama has specifically not ruled out prosecution of those former officials who had hand in promoting the use of torture, saying that the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.
Other countries are even considering the prosecution of Bush administration officials for crimes against humanity. Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge famous for his investigations and attempts to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in Spain, Chile, and Argentina, has expressed interest in trying six Bush administration officials for their work in creating a legal system which permitted torture in violation of international law. Will we see Americans on trial someday for crimes against humanity? Do we want to see Americans on trial in an international court? Good questions. Not sure of the answers yet.
Showing posts with label Domestic Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Politics. Show all posts
21 April 2009
15 February 2009
Consequences of Obama closing Guantanamo
Last week, Interpol released an Orange alert at the request of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom wants assistance gathering intelligence and/or capturing 85 terrorists with known links to al-Qaeda. Nothing too newsworthy about the alert, except that 11 of the 85 had been recently released from American custody at Guantanamo Bay.
This only adds to the debate over what to do with the detainees when the base closes. In the long run, a few dozen released terrorists won't do much harm; at least not as much as would be done by leaving Guantanamo open. The detention camp has hurt this country, both in reputation and by fueling a new generation of terrorists. But there is no need to let obviously dangerous individuals roam free.
President Obama was understandably under a lot of pressure to close the detention center following his campaign rhetoric, and he was right to make it a high priority. But perhaps he should have had a plan first.
This only adds to the debate over what to do with the detainees when the base closes. In the long run, a few dozen released terrorists won't do much harm; at least not as much as would be done by leaving Guantanamo open. The detention camp has hurt this country, both in reputation and by fueling a new generation of terrorists. But there is no need to let obviously dangerous individuals roam free.
President Obama was understandably under a lot of pressure to close the detention center following his campaign rhetoric, and he was right to make it a high priority. But perhaps he should have had a plan first.
12 February 2009
Perks of the Westminster system
There are a two aspects of the British parliamentary system of government I would like to see here in America. The first is the practice of having a shadow government. In the Westminster system of government, the ruling party gets to decide which members of parliament will hold important positions in the government- who will be Prime Minister, who will receive positions in the cabinet, etc. Taking the U.K. as an example, Labour won the last election, therefore their leader, Gordon Brown, is the current Prime Minister, and Labour MPs hold all the cabinet positions. This is not that far removed from our own system in that traditionally the President draws on members of his own party to fill cabinet positions.
A shadow government allows for the opposition party to have their say in how they would run the government were they in charge. Sticking with the U.K., the Conservatives, after placing in second during the last election, are now the official opposition party. As such, their leader, David Cameron, is the shadow Prime Minister. He has filled a shadow cabinet with fellow Tories. This provides the Conservatives with an opportunity to give the public a clear picture of what a Conservative government would look like: which policies it would endorse; which MPs would head each department; how it would be different than the current actual government.
It's obviously not a perfect translation to our system of government. Lots of details would have to be hammered out. The benefits are alluring though. Instead of focusing all their energies on trying to make the party in charge fail, the opposition party could have an outlet to promote their own policies and show the public what the alternative choice would be. The increase in dialogue between the parties and the people they want to represent would be fascinating.
Part deux of my hypothetical British invasion would be starting something similar to Prime Minister's questions. Every Wednesday for half an hour, the British Prime Minister stands in front of his fellow MPs and takes questions. Any topic. No prior knowledge of the questions. For starters, it's highly entertaining; Involving much wit and quick thinking. More importantly though, it keeps the Prime Minister accountable for his actions and decisions.
During the presidential campaign, John McCain promised to institute something similar if he became President. It wouldn't be too difficult a proposition. Once a week (or every two weeks, or every month) the President could appear before the Congress and answer questions from both parties regarding new plans and initiatives, or the state of the government. Anything really. Think of it as a State of the Union address, except not mind-numbingly boring.
The biggest benefit is the excitement a President's Questions could bring. It's not just policy wonks who are interested in Prime Minister's Questions in the U.K. Everyday people watch and discuss the weekly verbal sparring. There seems to have been a surge in interest regarding politics in this country (though I'm not sure if it's due more to people loving Obama, or hating Bush), and something informative, interactive, and entertaining like President's Questions could really capitalize on the momentum gathering right now in this country.
A shadow government allows for the opposition party to have their say in how they would run the government were they in charge. Sticking with the U.K., the Conservatives, after placing in second during the last election, are now the official opposition party. As such, their leader, David Cameron, is the shadow Prime Minister. He has filled a shadow cabinet with fellow Tories. This provides the Conservatives with an opportunity to give the public a clear picture of what a Conservative government would look like: which policies it would endorse; which MPs would head each department; how it would be different than the current actual government.
It's obviously not a perfect translation to our system of government. Lots of details would have to be hammered out. The benefits are alluring though. Instead of focusing all their energies on trying to make the party in charge fail, the opposition party could have an outlet to promote their own policies and show the public what the alternative choice would be. The increase in dialogue between the parties and the people they want to represent would be fascinating.
Part deux of my hypothetical British invasion would be starting something similar to Prime Minister's questions. Every Wednesday for half an hour, the British Prime Minister stands in front of his fellow MPs and takes questions. Any topic. No prior knowledge of the questions. For starters, it's highly entertaining; Involving much wit and quick thinking. More importantly though, it keeps the Prime Minister accountable for his actions and decisions.
During the presidential campaign, John McCain promised to institute something similar if he became President. It wouldn't be too difficult a proposition. Once a week (or every two weeks, or every month) the President could appear before the Congress and answer questions from both parties regarding new plans and initiatives, or the state of the government. Anything really. Think of it as a State of the Union address, except not mind-numbingly boring.
The biggest benefit is the excitement a President's Questions could bring. It's not just policy wonks who are interested in Prime Minister's Questions in the U.K. Everyday people watch and discuss the weekly verbal sparring. There seems to have been a surge in interest regarding politics in this country (though I'm not sure if it's due more to people loving Obama, or hating Bush), and something informative, interactive, and entertaining like President's Questions could really capitalize on the momentum gathering right now in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
