Prof. Madsen & Kieth, Hi. As usual, I would like you to look at this draft of the GI # 6 and make corrections before I make the final copy. I have deliberated left all the recommended sites for the reading materials so that at our meeting we can decide which ones are most suitable. Some of the reading materials are closely related in theme. GI # 6: SECURITY, TERRORISM, WAR GENERAL INTRODUCTION This Guided Inquiry examines three related themes, Security, Terrorism and War. Although these concepts are as old as human history itself, they have, at least here in the United Sates, taken on new dimensions because of the recent developments in war on terrorism and the issues of home land security. In this GI, we shall try to examine the concepts of security, terrorism, and war; the background to these concepts; the new meanings that these concepts have taken on in the light of recent developments, and of course, the ethical considerations with regard to the policies and the stakeholders in the deliberations and decisions taken and acted upon. SECURITY, TERRORISM & WAR. Security: The concept of security generaly referes to the state of being free from risk and danger, or care, anxiety and dependence. To be secure means to be safe and OK. Security could either be on a personal level, group or States level. It could also be social, economic or political. Terrorism: There is some disagreement on what kind of act exactly constitutes terrorism or who is a terrorist. But the term terrorism generally refers to any criminal act directed towards an individual, a group of persons or a state with the aim if intimidating, frightening or terrorizing a person or people usually of a non-combatant target. Terrorisim therefore works against security. In most cases terrorism are for socio-political, economic or religious reasons. War: The term war refers generally to arms conflict or contention by force. It could also mean settling dispute by any kind of force. Sometimes war is civil, when it is an internal armed conflict restricted within a particular country, or national if it is fought between two or more countries. It is either offensive (on the part of the party who commits the first act of aggression or violence) or defensive ( on the part of the party who fights back in response to an agression or violence suffered). War could also be fought against a concept or action or element, like war on Drugs, AIDS or Terrorism. Both terrorism and war go directly against the concept of security. For more information on the concepts of Security, Terrosism and War, refer to these sites: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/columnists_9-15.html http://developer.netscape.com/misc/developer/conference/proceedings/j4/sld002.html http://www.essex.ac.uk/government/courses/Undergraduate/Courses/readinglists/GV103/103slides http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html http://www.undcp.org/terrorism_definitions.html http://www.acm.org/usacm/terrorist-memo.html http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/terrorism.htm#definition http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/FAQ.shtml http://www.terrorismanswers.com/terrorism/introduction.html http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedia/terrorism.html http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=393 http://www.minnesotansagainstterrorism.org/terdef.html WAR ON TERRORISM: AFGANISTAN AS CASE STUDY. Different nations at different times have engaged in one kind of campaign or war of one kind or another to combat terrorism either on an internal level within a paticular country or on a global level. In recent times however, "war on terrorism" has become a house hold term following the response of the United States to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. It was on Tuesday morning, 9-11-2001, the day which later came to be popularly tagged "A Day of Terror" when two hijacked jetliners hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, both of which collapsed within half an hour later. While this was going on, a third hijacked plane hit the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the fourth crashed into a field in Pensylvania. Every thing came to a stand still. Trading on Wall Street, N.Y. stopped and for the first time in US history, the Federal Aviation Administration halted all flight operations at all the airports in the country. The US military was placed on high alert and President Bush labelling the attack as as an "act of war" vowed to "find those responsible and bring them to justice". Initial death toll was feared to be over twenty thousand, but after the records were checked it came to about three thousand. For more details on the facts of the 9-11-2001 terrorists attacks check these websites: www.september11news.com/ - Within a few months the US found out that this act of terrorism was planned and excecuted by an organisation called the Al Quida under the leadership of a man nammed Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-Arabia dissident based in Afganistan, who was being haboured and protected by the Taliban regim there. Several appeals to the Taliban regim in Afganistan to release Osam bin Ladin failed and the after the last dead line passed the US launched a war on terrorism tagged "Operation Endure Freedom" which dismantled the Al-Quida network in Afganistan and toppled the Taliban regime. Little pockets of this war continues even to this moment. www.geocities.com/dk_special_operations_forces/ afghanistan.html english.peopledaily.com.cn/zhuanti/Zhuanti_197_1.html www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/sept11/ ETHICAL CONSEDERATIONS There are many ethical questions that come to mind as we read and reflect on the issue of war on terrosism with particular focus on "Afganistan as a Case Study". Some of these ethical issues that we shall examine in greater details are, a) the question of who falls within the definition of a terrorist and whether "terrorism" is justifiable on any grounds whatsoever b) the issue of a just war, and thirdly, c)the conditions of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. A)What falls whithin the definition of terrorism and who is a terrorism? This question becomes relevant in the wake of many acts of aggression and violence that are suffered by different groups of people around the world. When we examine some of these cases of aggression and violence and the various opinions that are expressed by those directly involved and other observing groups, it becomes a little tricky sometimes to identify who exactly is the terrorist and what constitutes an act of terrorism. A good case in point is that of the Israelis and the Palestinians. (The Israelis like to describe the Palestinians and thier leader, Yaser Arafat as terrorists, while the Palestinians say that it is the Israelis who have forcebly occupied their land for over thirty-five years are the real teroorists, and that all they are doing is trying to defend themselves). A good number of times, the United States has been labbeled a "terrorist State" because of it foreign policy and the active role she plays in the running of other countries around the world.(Osam bin Ladin's Al-Quaida network was formed for many reasons among which was to fight against the presence of the US military in Saudi-Arabia which bin Laden thought was unacceptable to Islamic culture and tradition). This coupled with the general resentment against the US bias in the Middle- East crises as she takes side with Israel were among the factors that probably led to the events of 9-11-2001. This of course is not to suggest that the 9-11-2001 attacks are justified, but it does prompts us to think about the ethical issues of aggression and violence and the defence strategies that some individuals and/or government around the world adopt. Besides, we have the more obvious ethical issues like the pains and sufferings of innocent civilians, the rise of refugess and all the cases of hunger and disease that go along with them. For opinions for and against these positions check our these websites: saloon.javaranch.com/32/001249.html www.usmlo.org/archive/2002-01/October7.htm B) The Question of a Just War: Is there such a thing as a just war? This is a question which goes way back to the earliest times of ethical considerations of the concept of war. To claim a moral justification for any war, certain conditions are required. Some of these conditions are: the war must be in delf-defence or/and defence of others unjustly wronged; it must be the last resort taken on after all other alternatives for a peaceful resolution are exhusted; it must be with a good intention, for instance, to correct a grave and public evil perpetrated against the very basic rights aof whole populations; the actual execution of such wars must be humane --- the force used must be proportaionate to that used by the aggresor, that mercy be shown when the aggressor surrenders, etc.; it must carefully guard against hurting any innocent civilians in any way; and must be fought by a legitimate authority. Although such gideline requirments are provided, when it comes to the actual cases, it is difficult to figure these out. For more details on these, consult these websites: http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/beach.htm http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jan/justwar/020125.justwar.html http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory101501b.shtml http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/justwar.html http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/international/justwar.htm http://law.gonzaga.edu/borders/documents/deforres.htm http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm http://ethics.acusd.edu/Applied/Military/Justwar.html C) The Detainees at Quantanamo Bay: On January the 11th of this year, 2002, the US military source reported that the first group of Taliban and Al Qaida war prisoners from Afganistan would arrive at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, southern part of Cuba. In this place the detainees would be held in kind of makeshift detention center. Since then, several hundreds of detainees have arrived there under a heavily tight security. The actual fate of these detainees is not quite clear, but President Bush has proposed a trial under a military tribunal. Concerns have been rased about the kind of treatment meeted out to these detainees in spite of the promise by the officials at the Bay to ansure a humane treatment. This concern has not been cleared even though some United Nations inspectors have been there to assess the situation. www.facsnet.org/issues/specials/ terrorism/pepperdine.php3 - discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ zforum/02/news_colucci012402.htm www.foreignaffairs.org/Briefings/ briefings.asp?i=law.xml Some of the ethical issues raised are: a)whether or not the detainees are actually given a humane treatment; b)the issue of assessibility to some legal resources; and c)whether or not the conditions for treatment of war prisoners stipulated by the United Nations and the international humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions are being applied to these detainees, or whether or not they are entitled to the priviledges of those considered to prisoners of war (POW). Below we have websites leading to reactions of various people to the condition of the detainees at Guantanamo bay and the United Nations Resolutions on treatment of prisoners of war. http://hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/uspow012802.htm http://www.un.org http://www.un.int/usa/terror.htm GUIDED INQUIRY REQUIRED ASSIGNMENT Based on the reading assingments answer the following questions. a) How are the concepts of security, terrorism and war related? b)From the arguments on who is a terrorist and what constitues rerrorism, what, in your opinion are the stroong points on each side of the argument? How do the arguments, for and against the concept of terrorism affect your judgment about the US foriegn policy? c)Is there such a thing as justified terrorrism? d) Analyse the conditions for a just war as presented in the reading materials. In your opinion do you think there could be such a thing as a "just war"? e) What are the ethical and legal implications of assessing terrorism, war and the conditions of detainees or war prisoners? HOMELAND SECURITY The issue of homeland security is not a new phenomenon in the United States neither is it restricted to the US alone. Every country in the world has machinaries in place to guarantee security for her citizens. But in US, the issue of homeland security has taken on a new dimension, an added impetus and scope and a higher level of urgency becuse of the terrorists attacks on 9-11-2001. Immediately after this tragic event, departments and agencies both at the federal and state levels took steps to strengthen security. At the Federal level, a sum of $10.6 billion from the 2002 Fiscal Year Emmergency Budget Supplemental was set aside for financing homeland security. The President appointed former governor for the Sate of Pensylvannia, Gov. Tom Ridge as director of homeland security. The first Presidential Directive on homeland security has this to say: "Securing Americans from terrorist threats or attacks is a critical national security function. It requires extensive coordination across a braod spectrum of Federal, Sate, and local agencies to reduce the potential for terrorist attacks or to mitigate damage should such and attack occur. The Homeland Security Council(HSC)shall ensure coordination of all homeland security-related activities among executive departments and agencies and promote the effective developments and implementation of all homeland security policies". And just recently, the President has gone even further to propose an entire department for homeland security. This proposal has lead to varous reactions. Most of the reactions are positive one but a few others are concerned that there might be and overlap in the work of the FBI and CIA along woth that of the department of homeland security. Yet others are concerned about the time table for the implementation of this proposal. www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/ http://www.iacsp.com/ [appears geared towards security professionals] http://www.rand.org/organization/nsrd/terrpanel/NCTReport.pdf http://w3.access.gpo.gov/nct/index.html http://www.nssg.gov/ http://www.fas.org/bwc/ http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/Site_Files/qna/OVERVIEW.HTM http://foia.fbi.gov/ Some of the ethical and legal implications issue from the demand by security agencies like the FBI and CIA to have greater access to peoples private information and persona files. Critics think that this may be in violation of privacy act. In this article some of these issues are debated. www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=1108 - 46k - www.newhouse.com/archive/story1a041002.html - 29k news.com.com/2100-1023-886157.html - GUIDED INQUIRY REQUIRED ASSIGNMENT a)With these securiy agencies, FBI focusing primarily of the internal security aof the country and the CIA on security with primary focus on foriegn cases, do you think we need a department of homeland security or do you share the view of critics who think it is a duplication of departments? b)How do you assess some of the new powers of security agencies to have access to people private information in the light of an existing Privacy Act? Do you think that the privacy of individual citizens is being violated by these new policies? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com