War https://www.morningsidecenter.org/ en Drone Warfare & Obama's 'Kill List' https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/drone-warfare-obamas-kill-list <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>Drone Warfare &amp; Obama&#039;s &#039;Kill List&#039;</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>By Mark Engler</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>To The Teacher:</strong></p> <p>Late in the spring of 2012, the<em>&nbsp;New York Times</em>&nbsp;revealed the existence of a secret "kill list" of suspected terrorists compiled by President Obama and his counterterrorism advisors. The&nbsp;<em>Times</em>&nbsp;reported that the president personally reviews and approves individuals targeted for assassination. This revelation opened a broad discussion about the legality and morality of having a secretive program of extrajudicial assassination managed by the White House. Furthermore, it has shined a light on the increasing use by the U.S. military of unmanned drone strikes as a preferred method for continuing the "war on terror" in the Middle East and Asia.</p> <p>This lesson includes two student readings. The first reading explores revelations of President Obama's program of extrajudicial assassination - particularly the controversial "kill list" - and discusses the morality and legality of the White House's actions. The second reading provides further background on drones and drone warfare, and discusses arguments both opposing and in favor of it.</p> <p>Questions for student discussion follow each reading.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 1:&nbsp;</h3> <h2>Targeted Assassination and the President's "Kill List"</h2> <p>Late in the spring of 2012, the<em>&nbsp;New York Times</em>&nbsp;published a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;pagewanted=print">story by reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane</a>&nbsp;that revealed new details about the Obama administration's counterterrorism strategy. The article reported the existence of a secret "kill list" of suspected terrorists compiled by President Obama and his advisors. It reported that the president personally reviews and approves individuals targeted for assassination at weekly "Terror Tuesday" meetings. As Becker and Shane write:</p> <blockquote> <p>This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.</p> <p>President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them.</p> <p>"How old are these people?" he asked, according to two officials present. "If they are starting to use children," he said of Al Qaeda, "we are moving into a whole different phase."</p> <p>It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret "nominations" process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.</p> <p>Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding "kill list," poring over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre "baseball cards" of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises - but his family is with him - it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.</p> </blockquote> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>These details about President Obama's direct involvement in selecting targets for assassination were new. However, the background for these revelations date to the beginning of the global "war on terror" in late 2001, following the terrorist attacks of September 11. While on the presidential campaign trail in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama made a centerpiece of his platform a promise to fight terrorism more intelligently than his predecessor, George W. Bush. Now, late into his first term as president, many of the details of Obama's once vague counterterrorism strategy are coming to light.</p> <p>The Obama administration has embraced the use of "targeted assassinations" against suspected terrorists. Perhaps the most notable example of this strategy in action was the May 2011 Special Forces raid on al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's compound in northern Pakistan. The administration's argument in favor of targeted assassination is that it risks fewer American lives than full-scale military invasion, and it promises a higher degree of efficiency in locating and killing suspected terrorists - especially in countries with which the United States is not at war or in places not easily accessible to ground troops.</p> <p>Yet the use of targeted assassination is controversial. Officially, killing foreign citizens in countries with which the United States is not at war is a violation of diplomatic norms and could be condemned under international law. The recent revelation of the "kill list," as well as President Obama's direct involvement with it, has opened a broad discussion about the legality and morality of having a secretive program of extrajudicial assassination managed by the White House.</p> <p>On the one hand, some commentators defend the president's role atop this program of targeted assassinations, arguing that it would be unreasonable to expect the president not to reserve the right to have the final say. As Fred Kaplan wrote for&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/">Slate.com</a>&nbsp;in a June 15 article:</p> <blockquote> <p>What's all the fuss about President Obama's "kill list"? If there is a list of terrorists to be killed with drone strikes on the soil of a country where we're not officially at war, shouldn't it be the president who decides to pull the trigger? For such an extraordinary occasion, ripe with moral issues and potential diplomatic consequences, it is properly the president's call, not the CIA director's or the nearest four-star general's...</p> <p>[I]sn't it a good thing that the president is taking responsibility for these borderline cases, that he's not leaving it up to the spymasters or the generals, whose purview on such matters is narrower and whose tolerance for risk might be looser?</p> </blockquote> <p>On the other hand, critics allege that the assassination program is illegal and the president's direct involvement in it is immoral. Moreover, it sets a dangerous policy precedent. As Gabor Rona and Daphne Eviator of Human Rights First write in a June 1 article for&nbsp;<em>Foreign Policy</em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Becker and Shane confirm what we could only guess from remarks made by Obama's advisors in the past: that the United States is targeting to kill individuals overseas who do not pose an imminent threat to the United States and who are not directly participating in hostilities against Americans. That's a violation of international law...</p> <p>[Counterterrorism advisor John] Brennan acknowledged that the United States in its use of drone technology is "establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians."</p> <p>That precedent is a dangerous one. The United States is claiming both moral and legal authority that it does not have. And in practice it is applying that authority both broadly and recklessly. What would happen if, say, China decided to launch drone strikes against Tibetan dissidents across the border in India? Or Iran decided to strike members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) in Nevada? (MEK members reportedly trained there secretly in 2006.) (<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/31/kill-the-kill-list/">https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/31/kill-the-kill-list/</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>After news of the "kill list" came to light, the White House defended its actions. As Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, "President Obama made clear from the start to his advisers and to the world that we were going to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the American people from harm, and particularly from a terrorist attack." While the debate about the use of targeted assassinations will continue, there is no indication that the program will be ending any time soon.</p> <p><strong>For Discussion:</strong></p> <p><strong>1.&nbsp;</strong>Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong>&nbsp;Why are some people critical of President Obama's "kill list"?</p> <p><strong>3.&nbsp;</strong>What arguments do those who defend the "kill list" make?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong>&nbsp;What do you think? Should the use of "targeted assassination" be banned as a violation of international law, or do you think it is a legitimate part of the fight against terrorism?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong>&nbsp;If the United States' government is allowed to assassinate people in other countries that it believes are terrorists, should foreign governments be able to assassinate people also?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 2:&nbsp;</h3> <h2>Is Drone Warfare the Wave of the Future?<br> &nbsp;</h2> <p>Since the beginning of the global "war on terror" in late 2001, the US military has come to rely increasingly on the use of unmanned drone aircrafts to carry out airstrikes. Advancements in technology have made it possible to carry out complex, high-precision military operations on targets thousands of miles away, with virtually no risk to the lives of US soldiers. Under the Obama Administration, unmanned drone strikes have become a linchpin in the program of targeted assassinations of suspected terrorist operatives. As they have come into wider use, drones have become the subject of controversy.</p> <p>So, exactly what is an "unmanned drone"? Drone aircraft are essentially highly advanced remote-controlled airplanes. While drones have been used by the US military for several decades, it is only within the last 15 years that they have been equipped with missiles and used for airstrikes. Although this use for drones was pioneered under the Bush administration, it has been greatly expanded under the Obama administration, and has especially been used to carry out attacks on targets in Pakistan, a country with which the United States is not at war, but which is believed to be a hiding place for suspected terrorists. Reporter Tara McKelvey wrote in a feature for the May/June 2011 issue of the&nbsp;Columbia Journalism Review:</p> <blockquote> <p>President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute...</p> <p>After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush signed a directive that authorized arming the drones, called Predators, with Hellfire missiles to try to take out terrorism suspects, according to military officials. He later widened the directive to allow strikes against anyone working inside terrorist camps, not just individual suspects.</p> <p>Today, according to military officials, the United States is running two drone programs: the military is in charge of drones in Afghanistan, where the country is officially at war; the CIA, meanwhile, runs the drone program in Pakistan, an ally in the war in Afghanistan. The drone operations in Afghanistan are relatively straightforward and US officials routinely release information about the attacks. In Pakistan, where the CIA is running the show, the situation is different. (<a href="http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php?page=all">http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php?page=all</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>Defenders of drones argue that drones allow for a degree of precision that cannot be achieved through manned missions, all the while preserving the lives of US soldiers. As Jeb C. Henning of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress writes in an op-ed for the&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/opinion/embracing-the-drone.html?pagewanted=all)%20">New York Times</a></em>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Armed drones are both inevitable, since they allow the fusing of a reconnaissance platform with a weapons system, and, in many respects, highly desirable. They can loiter, observe and strike, with a far more precise application of force. They eliminate risk to pilots and sharply reduce the financial costs of projecting power. Moreover, polls show that a vast majority of Americans support the use of drones.</p> </blockquote> <p>However, opponents contend that drone strikes are carried out indiscriminately, without regard for the lives of civilians in the areas that are targeted. Journalist<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/jeremy-scahill-says-drone-strikes-murders_n_1565441.html">Jeremy Scahill&nbsp;</a>argued during a June 2, 2012, appearance on the MSNBC program "Up with Chris Hayes" that the U.S. government's lack of concern for the lives of civilians in the areas targeted for drone strikes and its effort to cover up civilian casualties when they occur constitute serious crimes:</p> <blockquote> <p>If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do - the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen. Those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area. There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike. And we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing. It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder.</p> </blockquote> <p>Furthermore, critics argue, the large amount of collateral damage and civilian deaths that result from drone strikes only serve to increase animosity towards the United States in the Muslim world, making future terrorist attacks more likely. As journalist&nbsp;<a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/06/13/u_s_drones_deeply_unpopular_around_the_world/">Glenn Greenwald</a>&nbsp;of Salon.com noted on June 13, 2012, U.S. policy in the Muslim world - especially the increasing use of drones - is deeply unpopular, and it is a leading cause of anti-Americanism in the region:</p> <blockquote> <p>[C]aring about international opinion - like so many other things - is so very 2004, especially in Democratic Party circles (notwithstanding the fact that, as that Rumsfeld-era report documented, anti-American animus arising from American aggression is the greatest security threat and the prime source of terrorism). Who cares if virtually the entire world views Obama's drone attacks as unjustified and wrong? Who cares if the Muslim world continues to seethe with anti-American animus as a result of this aggression? Empires do what they want. Despite all this, these polling data will undoubtedly prompt that age-old American question: Why?</p> </blockquote> <p>Drone warfare appears to be the wave of the future, but its growing popularity requires reckoning with unintended consequences.</p> <p><strong>For Discussion:</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong>&nbsp;Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong>&nbsp;Why do some people defend drones? Why do others criticize them?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong>&nbsp;What are the consequences of the U.S. doing actions in the world that are unpopular? How does this affect the U.S.'s ability to fight terrorism?</p> <p><strong>4.&nbsp;</strong>What do you think? Do you think drones should be used as heavily as they are?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>This lesson was written by Mark Engler for TeachableMoment.Org, with research assistance by Eric Augenbraun.</em></p> <p><em>We welcome your comments. Please email them to:<a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a>.</em></p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2012-07-20T00:00:00-04:00" title="Friday, July 20, 2012 - 00:00">July 20, 2012</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:00:00 +0000 fionta 623 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Guantanamo Bay at 10: A Debate About Military Detention https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/guantanamo-bay-10-debate-about-military-detention <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>Guantanamo Bay at 10: A Debate About Military Detention</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>By Mark Engler</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>To the teacher:</strong></p> <p>January 11, 2012, marked the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. government detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The anniversary is serving as an occasion for protest and for renewed public debate. Proponents argue that Guantanamo is an essential part of America's defense against hostile foreign extremists. However, Guantanamo Bay has drawn intense criticism from human rights advocates in America and abroad who charge the U.S. government with violating international laws.</p> <p>This lesson is divided into two readings. The first reading provides a brief history of the Guantanamo Bay detention center and explores arguments for and against the facility. The second reading looks more closely at how the debate about Guantanamo has evolved during the Obama administration. One of Barack Obama's most frequently repeated campaign promises was that he would close the facility if he was elected. Yet almost three years into his presidency, he has not done so. In fact, in December 2011, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which reaffirms the president's authority to indefinitely detain individuals suspected of terrorism and creates barriers to the closing Guantanamo. Discussion questions aimed at getting students to think critically about the Guantanamo facility and the debates that surround it follow each reading.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 1</h3> <h2>Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp: A Lightning Rod of Controversy</h2> <p>January 11, 2012 marked the 10-year anniversary of the creation of the U.S. government detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The Guantanamo Bay facility was established under the Bush administration as a place to detain and interrogate prisoners captured as part of Bush's "global war on terror," including enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The facility's main compound consists of six detention camps, with a total of 612 units, and is operated by a joint task force of the U.S. military. In total, the complex has housed over 770 inmates. Currently 171 prisoners remain there.</p> <p>Since opening, the base has been beset by criticism from human rights advocates in the U.S. and abroad. Former inmates as well as observers have spoken out about numerous instances of torture and other forms of abuse - both physical and psychological - at the camp. Critics have also denounced the generally poor living conditions at the camp. One detainee, Jumah al-Dossari, recounted his experiences both as a witness to and a victim of torture at Guantanamo Bay to Amnesty International in December of 2005. Al-Dossari stated:</p> <blockquote> <p>They went to a detainee and put his head in the toilet. The toilets in Camp Delta are iron, Turkish-style toilets and then they flushed his head down the toilet until he almost died. They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours. He suffered facial spasms as a result. They went to a detainee when he was praying the maghrib [sunset] prayer and beat him severely... On that same day, they came and beat me. At that time, we were angry because the duty chief supervisor cursed Allah and banged on the doors of our cells and said, "Merry Christmas;" that was on Christmas day 2002. There were many, many attempts to gouge the eyes of the detainees and to hit them in their private parts. They would beat them when they were ill and would hit them on their injuries.</p> </blockquote> <p>Such actions would normally represent a breach of the Third Geneva Convention, which regulates the treatment of prisoners of war. However, supporters of the Guantanamo detention facility argue that this convention does not apply to those captured in the "war on terror" because these "enemy combatants" are not part of any country's military, do not clearly identify themselves as soldiers, and, thus, are themselves in violation of the rules of war. As Jim Phillips of the conservative thinktank the Heritage Foundation said in 2006:</p> <blockquote> <p>"Everybody that is deemed to fall under the criteria for Geneva should be treated that way," Phillips says. "But some of these terrorists who are not recognized as soldiers don't deserve to be treated as soldiers. I think part of the question is: 'What is humiliating?' They would - may - argue that just being put in jail is humiliating, since they're doing the work of God, as they see it. If they're not deemed to qualify for Geneva-type treatment, I don't think they should be [given Geneva protections]."<br> (<a href="http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1069767.html">http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1069767.html</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>One of the core principles of the U.S. system of justice is "due process": People who are arrested must be told the charges against them and have the right to answer to the charges in a fair trail. But at Guantanamo, detainees can and have been held indefinitely without a trial and even without charges. For instance, one detainee, Shaker Aamer, who was captured in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in the early stages of the war in 2001 and was transferred to Guantanamo in February of 2002 - just a month after it opened - still remains there today, without being charged and without a trial.&nbsp;<br> (<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/">UK Independent</a>)</p> <p>In 2008, former Vice President Dick Cheney argued that the "unlawful combatants" being held at Guantanamo aren't entitled to due process: "Once you go out and capture a bunch of terrorists, as we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere, then you've got to have some place to put them," he said. "If you bring them here to the U.S. and put them in our local court system, then they are entitled to all kinds of rights that we extend only to American citizens. Remember, these are unlawful combatants." He added, "Guantanamo has been very, very valuable. And I think [the Obama administration] will discover that trying to close it is a very hard proposition." (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/15/">Reuters, 12/15/08</a>)</p> <p>But Guantanamo's opponents have denounced the facility on human rights grounds. Critics include Amnesty International, which in 2005 stated that "Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law."</p> <p>Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served in the Bush Administration, has also condemned the facility. Powell stated in 2007:&nbsp;"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it." (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/10/us-usa-powell-idUSN1043646920070610?feedType=RSS">Reuters, 6/10/07</a>)</p> <p><strong>For Discussion:</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>According to the reading, what are some of the primary arguments in support of the facility at Guantanamo Bay?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> What are some of the major arguments about why practices at the Guantanamo Bay facility violate standards of international law and human rights?</p> <p><strong>4. </strong>Do you think prisoners captured as a part of the global war on terror should be protected under the Geneva Conventions? Should they have the same rights to due process as American citizens? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Now that the United States has ended active combat operations in Iraq, do you think the United States still needs a facility like Guantanamo Bay?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 2:</h3> <h2>Broken Promises: President Obama and Guantanamo<br> &nbsp;</h2> <p>While on the campaign trail in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama joined the chorus of voices criticizing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Indeed, in his campaign stump speeches, Obama regularly vowed to the close the camp. Yet, three years into his presidency, the camp remains open.</p> <p>On December 15, 2009, Obama issued a Presidential memorandum calling for the facility to be closed and ordering the prisoners to be transferred to Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. But Obama's plan quickly faced bipartisan opposition in Congress as well as legal challenges. Ultimately, the administration abandoned its plan.</p> <p>Some commentators suggest that President Obama's failure to deliver on his promise has been due primarily to his style of leadership. Facing a legislature that is hostile to his aims, they argue, the president has sought compromise instead of being firm in his demands. As Peter Finn and Anne E. Kornblut wrote for the<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html">Washington Post</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html">&nbsp;</a>in April 2011:</p> <blockquote> <p>For more than two years, the White House's plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama's leadership style that continue to distress his liberal base - a willingness to allow room for compromise and a passivity that at times permits opponents to set the agenda.</p> </blockquote> <p>But others contend that while Obama has paid lip service to closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay, he is not opposed to some of its basic features. As Glenn Greenwald of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/guantanamo_17/">Salon.com</a>&nbsp;wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>It is true that Congress - with the overwhelming support of both parties - has enacted several measures making it much more difficult, indeed impossible, to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the U.S. But long before that ever happened, Obama made clear that he wanted to continue the twin defining pillars of the Bush detention regime: namely, (1) indefinite, charge-free detention and (2) military commissions (for those lucky enough to be charged with something). Obama never had a plan for "closing Guantanamo" in any meaningful sense; the most he sought to do was to move it a few thousand miles north to Illinois, where its defining injustices would endure.</p> </blockquote> <p>On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Among other things, the bill affirms the president's authority to indefinitely detain enemy combatants captured in the "war on terror." The bill also gives the government the power to detain American citizens without trial. Although Obama has stated he will not exercise this power, advocates of civil liberties have expressed alarm. Baher Azmy, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, was interviewed by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/constitutional-attorney-guantanamo-nearly-impossible-to-close-thanks-to-ndaa/">RawStory.com</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>"It has no real geographical limitation, it has no temporal limitation," [Azmy] said, summarizing key provisions in the NDAA. "It basically puts into law, into permanent law, the ability to indefinitely detain, outside of a constitutional justice system, individuals the president picks up anywhere in the world that the president thinks might have some connection to terrorism. The United States Congress, with the support of the president, has now put into law the possibility of indefinite detention, where the entire world, including the United States, is a battlefield."</p> </blockquote> <p>The National Defense Authorization Act also creates barriers to closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay - making it unlikely that, even if President Obama wis reelected, he'll be able to follow through on his campaign promise during his first term. As Azmy said:</p> <blockquote> <p>"[There are] really dangerous provisions here that would make it nearly impossible to close Guantanamo," Azmy explained. "Congress has forbidden from transferring or releasing any detainees from Guantanamo to their home countries or third countries willing to take them as refugees unless the Defense Department can meet this exceedingly onerous certification requirement. Basically, before anyone can be released, the Defense Department has to certify that the individual will not engage in any hostile acts when they are returned - something that the Defense Department cannot certify."</p> </blockquote> <p>The 10-year anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo Bay on January 11 sparked protest by opponents of the camp. A coalition of human rights groups held a national "Day of Action" in Washington, DC, featuring a solemn march of activists (dressed as prisoners in black hoods and orange jumpsuits) from the White House to the Supreme Court. The protesters aim to shine a public spotlight on this still-pressing human rights issue.</p> <p><strong>For Discussion:</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> What are some of the theories about why President Obama has not yet closed the Guantanamo Bay facility?</p> <p><strong>3. </strong>According to Constitutional lawyer Baher Azmy, what new powers does the National Defense Authorization Act give the U.S. federal government when it comes to people suspected of terrorism?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Do you think that the government should be able to detain U.S. citizens without trial if there is evidence connecting them to acts of terrorism? Or do you think that they should have the same rights as other Americans? Explain your position.</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Human rights groups argue that abuses at Guantanamo Bay have damaged the United States' reputation in the international community. Do you think that the U.S. government should be concerned about its international reputation? Why or why not?</p> <p><em>This lesson was written by Mark Engler for TeachableMoment.Org, with research assistance by Eric Augenbraun.</em></p> <p><em>We welcome your comments. Please email them to:<a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a>.</em></p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2012-01-19T00:00:00-05:00" title="Thursday, January 19, 2012 - 00:00">January 19, 2012</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0000 fionta 639 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org A Sourcebook & Study Guide for High School & College Classrooms: Torture and War Crimes: The U.S. Record in Documents https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/sourcebook-study-guide-high-school-college-classrooms-torture-and-war <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>A Sourcebook &amp; Study Guide for High School &amp; College Classrooms: Torture and War Crimes: The U.S. Record in Documents</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <p>"Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. The tortured person is bound and helpless. The torturer stands over him with his instrumentsÖ.The inequality is total. To abuse or kill a person in such a circumstance is as radical a denial of common humanity at possible. It is repugnant to learn that one's country's military forces are engaging in torture. It is worse to learn that the torture is widespread. It is worse still to learn that the torture was rationalized and sanctioned in long memorandums written by people at the highest level of the governmentÖ.Torture destroys the soul of the torturer even as it destroys the body of his victim. The boundary between humane treatment of prisoners and torture is perhaps the clearest boundary in existence between civilization and barbarism."<br> —Jonathan Schell, "What Is Wrong with Torture," <em>The Nation</em>, 2/7/05</p> <p>"Behind the exotic brutality so painstakingly recorded in Abu Ghraib, and the multiple tangled plotlines that will be teased out in the coming weeks and months about responsibility, knowledge, and culpability, lies a simple truth, well known but not yet publicly admitted in Washington: that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials of the United States, at various locations around the world, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantanamo in Cuba to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, have been torturing prisoners."<br> —Mark Danner, "The Logic of Torture," <em>New York Review of Books</em>, 6/24/04</p> <p>Have U.S. forces violated international law in their treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo? Has that treatment amounted to torture or war crimes? If so, who should be held responsible?</p> <p>High school or college teachers who are able to address these difficult but important questions in their high school or college classrooms will find a plethora of original source materials to draw from. To help in this process, we have assembled here a sourcebook, a wide collection of excerpts from original materials (including international law, U.S. government statements, and investigatory reports) on the subject. Following the documents are questions for class discussion.</p> <p>We offer the sourcebook in the conviction that our country's treatment of prisoners is in fact a crucial issue for serious student reading, study, reflection, discussion, and response as citizens.</p> <p>In the spring of 2004, photographs of torture at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison were released, causing a roar of public discussion and concern. Since then, revelations of prisoner torture ("abuse" is the common euphemism) continue to trickle in from Pentagon, CIA and FBI investigations and sources. The International Committee of the Red Cross has conducted the only independent investigation of the issue. In addition, after extended legal efforts under the Freedom of Information Act, the American Civil Liberties Union has forced the U.S. government to produce thousands of pages of documents bearing on the torture of American prisonersóand has been releasing them to the public.</p> <p>Yet despite these mounting revelations of prisoner torture, public concern about the issue seems to have dwindled. Why? Inattention, ignorance, a limited attention span? Sparse coverage by TV, Americans' main news source, which concentrates on the new and filmable? Could the problem be what might be called the "9/11 syndrome," a mental health problem arising from an exaggerated fear of terrorist acts fueled by a constant drumbeat of "the war on terrorism" in official pronouncements and TV banners? A widespread view that in the prosecution of that "war" extraordinary measures, however brutal, are essential or at least defensible?</p> <p>Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU have called for an independent, bipartisan panel to determine responsibility for what they consider well-documented acts of torture and war crimes. But neither the Bush administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress nor most Democrats have responded. Instead they appear determined to close their eyes to the grave charge against the United States government: that its highest officials, after 9/11, solicited opinions from government lawyers that opened the gates to torture of prisoners and violations of the country's highest values.</p> <p>Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the officer in charge of the military police unit at Abu Ghraib, was demoted to colonel for "dereliction of duty." She has complained of being a scapegoat for for higher-ups. Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Brigade at the same prison, was fined $8,000 and received a written reprimand. Neither officer was charged with a crime.</p> <p>As of 4/30/05, 130 solders have been punished for "abusing" prisoners (<em>New York Times</em>).To date, no charges have been filed against their immediate superiors or those higher in the chain of command. The results of a high-level Army investigation announced 4/22/05 cleared top Army officers responsible for overseeing prison policies and operations in Iraq. Those exonerated included the top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, from June 2003 to July 2004.</p> <p>And yet there is strong evidence that higher ups are involved. Top U.S. officials let it be known through the military chain of command and through its intelligence agencies that it was essential "to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence," according to the Taguba report on prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib.</p> <p>The documents collected here are intended to allow students to consider the evidence for themselves, drawing from original source materials. Following a brief introduction, the documents follow, organized under these headings:</p> <p><strong>1)</strong> International agreements bearing on prisoner treatment</p> <p><strong>2)</strong> U.S. government statements and memoranda on prisoner treatment</p> <p><strong>3)</strong> Investigations of prisoner treatment</p> <p><strong>4)</strong> Responses to the investigations from the Bush administration, Congress, and human rights groups</p> <p><strong>5)</strong> Documents relating to prisoner rendition</p> <p><strong>6)</strong> Additional reports on prisoner treatment</p> <p><strong>7) </strong>Report of the UN Committee Against Torture, 5/18/06</p> <p><strong>8)</strong> Final Reflections</p> <p><strong>TEACHERS, PLEASE NOTE: The documents below (especially in Readings 3, 5, &amp; 6) contain graphic scenes of violence, including sexual violence, and use sexually explicit language.</strong></p> <p>The major argument supporting "aggressive" interrogation techniques is that they save American lives. Michael Scheuer, an ex-CIA operative, stresses this point, as quoted in the fourth reading. Schell calls torture "barbarism" in the same reading. Others have offered various arguments on the efficacy and morality of prisoner torture. We agree with Schell that torture is simply unacceptable for a country "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." But most of the documents presented here say little about the pros and cons. Rather, they offer documentation from numerous sources, on the basis of which teachers and students can address and answer, however tentatively, three major questions:</p> <p><strong>1. </strong>In their treatment of prisoners have American violated international agreements as well as national guidelines and legislation and been responsible for torture and war crimes?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> If so, to what extent, if any, do their immediate superiors and those higher in the chain of command bear responsibility?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> What consequences should there be for those responsible for acts of torture and war crimes?</p> <p>"This is what we know. The real question now, as so often, is not what we know but what we are prepared to do."<br> — Mark Donner, "The Logic of Torture," <em>The New York Review</em>, 6/24/04<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Introductory Reading</strong></h3> <h2>The scandal over prisoner treatment</h2> <p>On April 28, 2004, photographs displayed on "60 Minutes II" showed hooded, naked Iraqi prisoners piled in a pyramid with two smiling American soldiers behind them; a female soldier pulling on a dog leash attached to a prisoner; a hooded, cloth-draped prisoner standing on a box with arms outstretched and attached to wires. At about the same time The New Yorker magazine published Seymour Hersh's article, "Torture at Abu Ghraib," which included the revelations of a February Army investigation conducted by Major General Antonio Taguba. Taguba described many instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" committed by American military police at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.</p> <p>The photographs and the Taguba report shocked the country. President Bush called the photographs "disgusting" and condemned the behavior of "a few American troops." But a year earlier, in May 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross had reported on prisoner mistreatment, some of it "tantamount to torture" to American officials. And in July 2003 a worldwide human rights organization, Amnesty International, reported "allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees" as well as of Afghan prisoners at U.S. air bases in Afghanistan. It became clear that top American officials had known about prisoner mistreatment for months before Abu Ghraib became a symbol of it and that the mistreatment was widespread.</p> <p>This is how public knowledge of the prisoner scandal, now entering its second year, began. Since then, a continuing stream of official investigations and reports have revealed more about American misdeeds. But so far only low-level military and CIA personnel have been tried for criminal offenses.</p> <p>The following materials relate to various aspects of the prisoner scandal that every American should know about. This record does not make for pleasant reading. But it raises important questions about whether the U.S. violated the law and if so, what the consequences should be.</p> <p><br> <strong>For discussion</strong></p> <ul> <li>What do students know about the prisoner scandal?</li> <li>Does everyone understand that the scandal dates to events that followed 9/11?</li> <li>Do students understand that the charges of abuse relate to prisoners captured after the U.S. attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003?</li> <li>Before students examine the readings below, ask them to define in their own words "torture" and "war crime." Ask them to keep these definitions in their notebooks for later reference.<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 1:</strong></h3> <h2>Torture and War Crimes Are Illegal</h2> <p><br> <strong>1. </strong>Universal Declaration of Human Rights (approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 12/10/48)</p> <p>Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."</p> <p>The UN Assembly called on all member nations to publicize the text of Article 5 and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions."</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Geneva Conventions</p> <p>The four Geneva Conventions were created by representatives from the U.S. and other nations in 1949. The third convention covers the treatment of prisoners of war and includes the following:</p> <ul> <li>Article 13: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."</li> <li>Article 17: A prisoner of war is required "to give only his surname, first name and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personnel or serial number. No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."</li> <li>This Convention also states: "Should any doubt arise," all fighters are covered by the Geneva Conventions until "a competent tribunal decides they are not." To date, no such tribunal has been created.</li> </ul> <p><strong>3. </strong>The Law of Land Warfare, United States Army Field Manual 27-10 (7/18/56)</p> <p>Section III, 89: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults."</p> <p><br> <strong>4. </strong>UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984; ratified by U.S. Congress, 1994)</p> <p>Part I, Article 1: "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."</p> <p>Article 2: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."</p> <p>Article 3: "No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.</p> <p>Article 4: "Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal lawÖ.Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature."</p> <p>The Convention calls upon all states to "ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military."</p> <p>The Convention also declares, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."</p> <p>When the U.S. Senate ratified this Convention, it included a reservation under which the United States defined the prohibited "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' to mean all treatment prohibited by the Fifth, the Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.</p> <p><br> <strong>5. </strong>U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 118, 2441</p> <p>"(c) Definition. As used in this section the term 'war crime' means any conduct:</p> <p>(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;</p> <p>(2) prohibited by Article 23 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18, October 1907;." Section II, Chapter I, Article 23 includes "it is especially forbidden to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."</p> <p><br> <strong>For writing and discussion</strong></p> <ul> <li>Have students compare their own definitions of "torture" and "war crime" with those in the documents they have just read. What similarities and differences to they find?</li> <li>Ask students to write a concise paragraph summarizing the key elements in international agreements and Congressional legislation on the treatment of war prisoners and on what constitutes a war crime.</li> <li>Have students meet in groups of four to read their statements and to select what they regard as the best one for sharing with the class and for further class discussion.<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></h3> <h2>U.S. Government Statements and Memoranda&nbsp;on Prisoner Treatment</h2> <p>Soon after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, White House and Justice Department lawyers began considering how prisoners should be treated. How aggressive could American interrogators be in questioning Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees, especially those suspected of being terrorists? What acts would constitute torture and thus violate the Geneva Conventions? Was the president restricted in what he could direct the military to do in questioning prisoners? The lawyers addressed such questions in legal memoranda written beginning in January 2002 that were released to the public many months later.</p> <p><strong>Excerpts from these memoranda are below.</strong></p> <p><strong>1. January 9, 2002. </strong>A Justice Department memorandum stated: "Restricting the President's plenary power over military operations (including the treatment of prisoners)" would be "constitutionally dubious." This memo concluded that the Geneva Conventions did not cover non-state organizations like Al Qaeda or with Afghanistan under the Taliban because it was a "'failed state' whose territory "had been largely overrun and held by violence by a militia or faction rather than by a government." (The memo was by Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, addressed to the Defense Department's general counsel, William Haynes II.)</p> <p><strong>2. January 25, 2002.</strong> A memorandum from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to President Bush stated: "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." The new situation "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."<br> (Gonzales was later appointed by President Bush and approved by the Senate to become the U.S. Attorney General.)</p> <p>Gonzales said that a key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters do not have Geneva protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act. It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [The War Crimes Act]."</p> <p><strong>3. January 26, 2002.</strong> Secretary of State Colin Powell responded to the Gonzales memo. He argued that declaring the Geneva Conventions inapplicable would "reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the laws of war for our troops." He also wrote that it would "undermine public support among critical allies."</p> <p><strong>4. February 7, 2002.</strong> President Bush's memorandum to his National Security team stated that U.S. forces "shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva." On this same date the president announced his decision to withhold protection of the Geneva Convention from Al Qaeda and from Taliban fighters in Afghanistan on the grounds that they were "unlawful combatants," a term not found in the Geneva Conventions.</p> <p><strong>5. February 2002. </strong>The White House announced that the U.S. would apply the Geneva Conventions to Afghan prisoners but that they would not be given prisoner-or-war status because they were "unlawful combatants."</p> <p><strong>6. August 1, 2002. </strong>A memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee requested by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales maintained that causing a person "mental pain" does not always constitute torture.</p> <p>To be regarded as torture, Bybee wrote, mental pain must be caused by "threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." To be considered torture, the harm "must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent, damage. The development of a mental disorder such as post-traumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which also can last for a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement."</p> <p>The memo reported that at least seven acts have consistently been found to violate the federal torture Victims Protection Act: "1) Severe beatings using instruments such as iron bars, truncheons and clubs; 2) threats of imminent death, such as mock executions; 3) threats of removing extremities; 4) burning, especially burning with cigarettes; 5) electric shocks to genitalia or threats to do so; 6) rape or sexual assault, or injury to an individual's sexual organs, or threatening to do any of these sorts of acts; and 7) forcing the prisoner to watch the torture of others."</p> <p>However, the memo also states that "As Commander-in-Chief, the president has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants." Any measure that "interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants would thus be unconstitutional."</p> <p>(Bybee was subsequently appointed by President Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.)</p> <p><strong>7. August 2002. </strong>Alberto Gonzales subsequently wrote to the president: The criminal prohibition against torture "does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander in Chief authority." Therefore, he stated, executive officials cannot be prosecuted for torture if "they were carrying out the President's Commander-in-Chief powers."</p> <p><strong>8. August 1, 2002. </strong>According to the <em>New York Times </em>(June 27, 2004), "An August 2002 memo by the Justice Department that concluded interrogators could use extreme techniques on detainees in the war on terror helped provide an after-the-fact legal basis for harsh procedures used by the CIA on high-level leaders of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officialsÖ.The full text of the memo was made public by the White House on Tuesday [June 22, 2004]. The memo, which is dated, was a seminal legal document guiding the government's thinking on interrogation. It was disavowed earlier this week by senior legal advisers to the Bush administration who said the memo would be reviewed and revised because it created a false impression that torture could be legally defensible. In repudiating the memo in briefings this week, none of the senior Bush legal advisers whom the White House made available to reporters would discuss who had requested that the memo be prepared, why it had been prepared or how it was applied."</p> <p><strong>9. December 2002.</strong> Defense Secretary Rumsfeld authorized such interrogation techniques at Guantanamo as hooding prisoners, using dogs, forcing prisoners into "stress positions" for long periods, stripping them, shaving them and isolating them. All of these techniques violate the Geneva Conventions, but President Bush had previously declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda. Bush later rescinded those tactics and signed off on a shorter list of 'exceptional techniques,' including 20-hour interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create 'a feeling of helplessness and dependence,' and using dogs to increase anxiety. Another legal review further narrowed the list, and Mr. Rumsfeld issued yet another memo on April 16, 2003. August 24, 2004. The Schlesinger Panel, an independent panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense in August 2004, found that the memos "confused field commanders, who thought that harsh interrogations were allowed."</p> <p><strong>10. March 6, 2003.</strong> A legal memorandum written by a team of Bush administration lawyers stated: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority...a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control," and the use of the adjective "severe" "makes plain that the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture."</p> <p>The memo states that if an interrogator "has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture." And an interrogator who uses techniques that cause pain might be immune from prosecution if he "believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm. Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants [terrorists] would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Commander-in Chief authority in the President."</p> <p><strong>11. August 2003.</strong> According to Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books (July 15, 2004), Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had his top intelligence aide, Stephen Cambone, transfer General Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of interrogation at Guantanamo, to Iraq "to improve acquisition of intelligence by questioning detainees."</p> <p><strong>12. May 22, 2004.</strong> An email sent to senior members of the FBI (revealed by Human Rights Watch in December 21, 2004, through a Freedom of Information Act request) "repeatedly referred to an Executive Order that permitted military interrogators in Iraq to place detainees in painful stress positions, impose sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, intimidate them with military dogs and use other coercive methods."</p> <p><strong>13. June 26, 2004.</strong> On United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, President Bush declared "the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture. America stands against and will not tolerate torture. We will investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction. The United States also remains steadfastly committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions."</p> <p><strong>14. October 26, 2004. </strong><em>The New York Times</em> reported the following: "A new legal opinion by the Bush administration has concluded or the first time that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, administration officials said Monday. The opinion, reached in recent months, establishes an important exception to public assertions by the Bush administration since March 2003 that the Geneva Conventions applied comprehensively to prisoners taken in the conflict in Iraq, the officials said."</p> <p><strong>15. December 2004.</strong> A Defense Department letter to Congress stated: "At the urging of the White House, Congressional leaders scrapped a legislative measure last month that would have imposed new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures by American intelligence officers, Congressional officials say. The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote (that) would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the CIA as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress the methods they were using. In a letter to members of Congress, sent in October Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds that it 'provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.'" (<em>New York Times</em>, 1/13/05)</p> <p><strong>16. December 30, 2004.</strong> A memorandum posted on the website of the Justice Department with no public announcement stated: "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms." Torture can include "severe physical suffering" as well as "severe physical pain." The memorandum also rejects the August 1, 2002 memorandum assertion that torture may be said to occur only if the interrogator meant to cause the harm that resulted.</p> <p><strong>17</strong>. <strong>January 7, 2005.</strong> Alberto Gonzales made the following statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing to be attorney general.</p> <p>"This administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture."</p> <p>Gonzales said that he was "deeply committed to ensuring that the United States government complies with all of its legal obligations as it fights the war on terror, whether those obligations arise from domestic or international law. These obligations include, of course, honoring the Geneva Conventions whenever they apply."</p> <p>Regarding the Bybee memorandum of August 1, 2002: "I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis." Gonzales said that at the time he did not "have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department."</p> <p><strong>18.</strong> <strong>January 2005.</strong> In written responses to questions by Judiciary Committee members, Gonzales said (according to a<em> New York Times</em> summary on 1/18/05): "Officers of the Central Intelligence agency and other nonmilitary personnel fall outside the bounds of a 2002 directive issued by President Bush that pledged the humane treatment of prisoners in American custody. These techniques include 'water boarding,' in which interrogators make it appear that the suspect will be drowned. Mr. Gonzales declined to say in his written responses to the committee what interrogation tactics would constitute torture in his view or which ones should be banned."</p> <p><strong>19.</strong> <strong>January 18, 2005. </strong>Remarks by Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearing to be secretary of state,<br> Senator Christopher Dodd cited instances of forced nudity and simulated drowning as interrogation techniques. He asked Rice "whether or not you consider them to be torture or not." Rice: "Senator, the determination of whether interrogation techniques are consistent with our international obligations and American law are made by the Justice Department. I don't want to comment on any specific interrogation technique."</p> <p><strong>20.</strong> <strong>February 28, 2005. </strong>The State Department released its annual Human Rights Report. According to the <em>Washington Post </em>( 3/1/05), the report "criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them with dogs—methods similar to those approved at times by the Bush administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody. The State Department report also harshly attacked the treatment of prisoners in such countries as Syria and Egypt, where the United States has shipped terrorism suspects under a practice known as 'rendition.' An Australian citizen, for example, has alleged that under Egyptian detention he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. Most of his fingernails were missing when he later arrived at Guantanamo Bay."</p> <p><br> <strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> What is the "new situation" that "renders obsolete" the strict Geneva Convention regulations about questioning prisoner, according to Gonzales? Do you agree with his conclusion? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>Consider closely the president's directive of February 7, 2002. How do you understand the implications of "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity"?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Given your understanding of international agreements and Congressional legislation on treatment of prisoners and war crimes, do you agree with the president's view that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters should be classified as "unlawful combatants"? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> For a good portion of 2002 government lawyers researched and then wrote memoranda on the meanings to be given to "torture" and "war crimes" and on the constitutional authority of the president. Why do you suppose they were doing such work? How and why did they conclude that any interference with presidential directives regarding prisoners would be unconstitutional? Do you agree with their findings? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> How do you explain the Justice Department decision (announced December 30, 2004) that contradicted Bybee's memo of August 1, 2002 discussing torture?</p> <p><strong>6. </strong>Exactly what did Secretary Rumsfeld authorize for American behavior in the treatment of prisoners (document #9, December 2002)? What do you think is the significance of Rumsfeld's sending General Miller from Guantanamo to Iraq (document #11, August 2003) ?</p> <p><strong>7. </strong>Why do you suppose Congress scrapped legislation that would have put curbs on "extreme interrogation" techniques?</p> <p><strong>8.</strong> Evaluate the responses of Gonzales and Rice to questions about prisoner treatment during their confirmation hearings.</p> <p><strong>9.</strong> How do you explain the State Department's condemnation of other nations for practices also used by the U.S.?</p> <p><strong>10.</strong> Student questions?<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 3:</strong></h3> <h2>Investigations of Prisoner Treatment</h2> <p>The Army's Criminal Investigation Division received copies of the Abu Ghraib photographs in January 2004, but even before then the division was aware of allegations of prisoner mistreatment. Investigations by the International Committee of the Red Cross had already taken place and been reported to U.S. authorities, and Amnesty International had reported "allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees" in July 2003. In February 2004 Major General Antonio Taguba reported on his investigation of the situation at Abu Ghraib. Both the photographs and the Taguba findings became public in April. The Pentagon, FBI and CIA began investigations that are continuing.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>1. Reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)</strong></p> <p>In February 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross released a report on the "Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq During Arrest, Internment and Interrogation."</p> <p>After a visit to Abu Ghraib, Red Cross inspectors reported "acts of humiliation such as being made to stand naked against the wall of the cell with arms raised or with women's underwear over the heads for prolonged periods-while being laughed at by guards, including female guards, and sometimes photographed in this position." The report stated also that military intelligence officers had confirmed the ICRC inspectors' impression that those "methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information."</p> <p>Other methods: "Hooding, used to prevent people from seeing and to disorient them, and also to prevent them from breathing freely. &nbsp;Handcuffing with flexi-cuffs, which were sometimes made so tight and used for such extended periods that they caused skin lesions and other long-term after-effects on the hands [nerve damage], as observed by the ICRC; Beatings with hard objects [including pistols and rifles], slapping, punching, kicking with knees or feet on various parts of the body (legs, sides, lower back, groin); Being paraded naked outside cells in front of other persons deprived of their liberty, and guards, sometimes hooded or women's underwear over the head; Being attached repeatedly over several days with handcuffs to the bars of their cell door in humiliating (i.e. naked or in underwear) and/or uncomfortable position causing physical pain; Exposure while hooded to loud noise or music, prolonged exposure while hooded to the sun over several hours, including during the hottest time of the day when temperatures could reach 122 degrees Fahrenheit or higher; Being forced to remain for prolonged periods in stress positions such as squatting or standing with or without the arms lifted."</p> <p>"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information or other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'"</p> <p>The authors of the Red Cross report that when they visited the "isolation section" of Abu Ghraib in mid-October 2003, they "directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation" of prisoners, among them "the practice of keeping [prisoners] completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness." When the Red Cross delegates "requested an explanation from the authorities the military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained that this practice was 'part of the process.'"</p> <p>"The ICRC medical delegate examined persons presenting signs of concentration difficulties, memory problems, verbal expression difficulties, incoherent speech, acute anxiety reactions, abnormal behavior and suicidal tendencies. These symptoms appeared to have been caused by the methods and duration of interrogation."</p> <p>A spokeswoman for the Red Cross said the report had been based on private interviews with prisoners during 29 visits inspectors conducted in 14 places of detention in Iraq. The report also said that as far back as May 2003, the ICRC reported about 200 allegations of abuse to the military and in July complained about 50 allegations of abuse at a detention site, Camp Cropper in Iraq. The report called some of the abuses "tantamount to torture."</p> <p>According to the Red Cross report, "certain military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."</p> <p>On May 17, 2004, the <em>New York Times</em> reported on the Red Cross's findings: "Many of 100 or so Iraqi prisoners categorized by American officials as 'high value detainees' because of the special intelligence they are believed to possess have been held since June 2003 for nearly 23 hours a day in strict solitary confinement in small concrete cells without sunlight, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross" In its report to American officials last October 2003, the Red Cross said: 'The internment of persons in solitary confinement for months at a time in cells devoid of daylight for nearly 23 hours a day is more severe than the forms of internment provided for under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration has said it regards the Convention as 'fully applicable' to all prisoners held by the U.S. in Iraq."</p> <p>On November 30, 2004, the <em>New York Times</em> reported: "The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantanamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called 'a flagrant violation of medical ethics.' Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners' mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators, the report said.</p> <p>"The report of the June [2004] visit said investigators had found a system devised to break the will of the prisoners at Guantanamo and make them wholly dependent on their interrogators through 'humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions.' Investigators said that the methods used were increasingly 'more refined and repressive' than learned about on previous visits. "The construction of such a system, whose stated purpose is the production of intelligence, cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.'"</p> <p>Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger complained about prison abuses in a mid-January 2004 meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/11/04)</p> <p><br> <strong>2. U.S. Military Investigations and Reports</strong></p> <p>a. Army Major General Taguba's Report (released February 2004). Taguba's report about his investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib concluded that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at the prison. The Taguba report said that General Miller's recommendation of a guard force that "sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees" violated Army doctrine. The report also stated that the military police had "no training in interrogation" and were told, in the words of Sergeant Javal Davis, to "loosen this guy up for us." "Make sure he has a bad night." "Make sure he gets the treatment."</p> <p>Examples of prisoner treatment from the Taguba report include: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."</p> <p>The CIA kept some detainees in Abu Ghraib prison off the official rosters. This practice of allowing what Major General Taguba called "ghost detainees" at the prison was "deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law." He concluded that the purpose of this practice was to hide the prisoners from the Red Cross. (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/25/04)</p> <p>b. Army report (New York Times, 5/26/04). "An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known. The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on 'blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia...in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of death."</p> <p>c. Defense Department account (<em>New York Times</em>, 12/8/04). "Two Defense Department intelligence officials reported observing brutal treatment of Iraqi insurgents captured in Baghdad last June [2004], several weeks after disclosures of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison created a world-wide uproar, according to a memorandum disclosed Tuesday.</p> <p>d. Schlesinger Panel. The "Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations," headed by James Schlesinger, Defense Secretary under President Nixon, released its report in August 2004.</p> <p>According to an article about the Schlesinger panel report in the New York Times Book Review (1/23/05): "The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." The panel found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers and Commander Central Command General John Abizaid should have known about and responded "to the serious limitations of the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib" and recognized the need for more and better-trained military police. The report also concluded that interrogation techniques approved by Rumsfeld for limited use at Guantanamo "migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were neither limited nor safeguarded."</p> <p>"The Schlesinger panel has officially conceded, although the president has never publicly acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death. Twenty-three other deaths that occurred during American custody had not been fully investigated by the time the panel issued its report."</p> <p>e. Investigation by Major General George Fay and Lieutenant General Anthony Jones of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade (released in August 2004).</p> <p>According to the <em>New York Times</em> (8/27/04): "This investigation found that certain individuals committed offenses in violation of international and U.S. law. Leadership responsibility and command responsibility, systemic problems and issues also contributed to the volatile environment in which the abuse occurredÖAt Abu Ghraib, isolation conditions sometimes included being kept naked in very hot or very cold, small rooms, and/or completely darkened rooms, clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions."</p> <p>The report included specific examples of prisoner treatment, including:<br> "In October 2003, Detainee-07, reported alleged multiple incidents of physical abuse while in Abu GhraibÖ.Detainee-07's claims of physical abuse (hitting) started on his first day of arrival. He was left naked in his cell for extended periods, cuffed in his cell in stressful positions ("High cuffed"), left with a bag over his head for extended periods, and denied bedding or blankets. Detainee-07 described being made to 'bark like a dog, being forced to crawl on his stomach while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck causing unconsciousness.' On another occasion Detainee-07 was forced to lie down while MPs jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body. During this abuse a police stick was used sodomize Detainee-07 and two female MPs were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographsÖ.Based on the details provided by the detainee and the close correlation to other known MP abuses, it is highly probable Detainee-07's allegations are true."</p> <p>This report also criticized Army medical staff members "who did not prevent or report abuses and torture." At a Pentagon press conference, General Fay told reporters, "There were a few instances when torture was being used."</p> <p>A previously classified Annex to the Fay report blamed top Pentagon officials and senior military commanders for creating conditions that led to "acts of brutality and purposeless sadism" at Abu Ghraib. (The annex report was one of several documents released on March 10, 2005 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union.)</p> <p>Classified parts of the Fay report were critical of Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq at the time. The report stated: "Policies and practices developed and approved for use on Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions [see President Bush's decision of 2/7/02 in Reading 2] now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Conventions' protections. Dogs as an interrogation tool should have been specifically excluded." It criticizes General Sanchez for not having fully considered "the implications for interrogation policy," and says the manner in which interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolations as interrogation practices "on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions."</p> <p>f. Report by naval inspector general Vice Admiral Albert Church (March 2005).<br> This report was undertaken at the direction of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who called for an examination of interrogation techniques at prisons in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.</p> <p>According to the New York Times (3/10/05): "Admiral Church's report criticizes senior American officials for failing to establish clear interrogation policies for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving commanders there to develop some practices that were unauthorized, according to the report summary. But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."</p> <p>The Church report also said that "none of the pictured abuses at Abu Ghraib bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater."</p> <p>g. Army Inspector General's Report (released 4/22/05).<br> Lt. General Richard Sanchez, the chief commander in Iraq from June 2003 to July 2004, and three other top officers overseeing prison policies and operations were cleared of responsibility for the abuse of prisoners. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve officer and commander of the military police unit at Abu Ghraib, was earlier relieved of that command and given a written reprimand. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, responded by stating, "It's just another effort to paper over the scandal."<br> (New York Times, 4/23/05)</p> <p><br> <strong>3. FBI Reports</strong></p> <p>(From a New York Times report, 12/21/04). "FBI memorandums portray abuse of prisoners by American military personnel in Iraq that included detainees' being beaten and choked and having lit cigarettes placed in their ears, according to newly released government documents Beyond providing new details about the nature and extent of abuses, if not the exact times or places, the newly disclosed documents are the latest to show that such activities were known to a wide circle of government officials. The documents were in the latest batch of papers to be released by the government in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups to determine the extent, if any, of American participation in the mistreatment of prisoners. The documents are the most recent in a series of disclosures that have increasingly contradicted the military's statements that harsh treatment of prisoners happened only in limited, isolated cases."</p> <p><br> <strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Except for the investigations of the Red Cross, all inquiries into the treatment of prisoners have been conducted by the Pentagon or other official agencies of the U.S. government. Human rights organizations have called repeatedly for an independent, bipartisan investigation. But Congress has not responded to this call. Why do you suppose it has not?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> What are "ghost detainees"? Why might the CIA not want the Red Cross to know about them? What conclusions, if any, do you draw about CIA methods of interrogation?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> The Schlesinger report (Item #2b) found "There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." What "institution"? What do you suppose is meant by "higher levels"? To whom, specifically, do you suppose the report refers?</p> <p><strong>4. </strong>What "interrogation techniques" do you think the Schlesinger report refers to as having "migrated to Iraq"? Why do you suppose they "migrated"?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Compare the findings of the Church report with those of the Schlesinger and Fay reports. How do you explain the differences?</p> <p><strong>6. </strong>The words "torture" and "violation of the Geneva Conventions" appear in a number of the reports. Would you use these words in assessing what you know of American treatment of prisoners? Why or why not? None of the reports mentions "war crimes"? Would you? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>7. </strong>Student questions?<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 4:</strong></h3> <h2>Responses to Investigations of Prisoner Treatment from the Bush Administration, Congress, and Human Rights Groups</h2> <p><strong>Bush Administration</strong></p> <p>1. May 4, 2004. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said that "what has been charged so far is abuse technically different from torture."</p> <p>2. May 7, 2004. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld said: "These events [at Abu Ghraib] occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility. Watch how Americans, watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes and our own weaknesses."</p> <p>3. May 13, 2004. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "It doesn't represent American values. We care about the detainees being treated right. We care about soldiers behaving right. We care about command systems working. The justice system of the United States is serious, professional, and it's under way."</p> <p>4. May 24, 2004. President Bush said the events at Abu Ghraib as involving actions "by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values."</p> <p>5. June 10, 2004. According to a New York Times report of a June 10 news conference: "President Bush said he could not remember whether he had seen secret Pentagon and Justice Department legal opinions that concluded he had broad authority to determine what techniques could be used to interrogate unlawful combatants seized in Afghanistan. But he insisted several times that his only orders were that interrogators must 'conform to U.S. law' and act 'consistent with international treaty obligations.'"</p> <p>6. March 2005: Porter Goss Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Under questioning at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CIA Director Porter Goss "sought to reassure lawmakers that all interrogations 'at this time' were legal and that no methods now in use constituted torture," reported the <em>New York Times</em> (3/16/05).</p> <p>"At this time, there are no 'techniques,' if I could say that are being employed that are in any way against the law or would meetówould be considered torture or anything like that," Goss told the committee. Several minutes later he was asked whether he could say same about techniques employed by the agency since the campaign against Al Qaeda expanded in the aftermath of 9/11. Goss responded: "I am not able to tell you that."</p> <p>Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) asked Goss about the CIA's previously reported use of "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown. Gross replied that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques." Goss defended "professional interrogation" as an important tool in efforts against terrorism, saying that it had resulted in "documented successes" in averting attacks and capturing important suspects. (<em>New York Times</em>, 3/16/05)</p> <p><strong>Congress</strong></p> <p>1. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, a member of the Armed Services Committee (3/10/05): "So there's been no assessment of accountability of any senior officials, either within or outside the Department of Defense, for policies that may have contributed to abuses of prisoners." Levin said there is a problem when investigators (like Admiral Church) are "in the chain of command of the officials whose policies and actions they are investigating."</p> <p>2. Senator Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota, Armed Services Committee, 5/19/04): "We've now had fifteen of the highest-level officials involved in this entire operation, from the secretary of defense to the generals in command, and nobody knew that anything was amiss, no one approved anything amiss, nobody did anything amiss. We have a general acceptance of responsibility, but there's no one to blame, except for the people at the very bottom of one prison."</p> <p>3. Rep. Jane Harman of California, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee (6/8/04), referring to excerpts from one internal Bush administration memo on prisoner treatment, called the administration's views antithetical to American laws and values by arguing that torture may be justified and that the president is above the law in his role as commander-in-chief. This memo is shocking in that it appears to justify torturing prisoners in U.S. control, Harman said.</p> <p>4. Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat from Delaware, suggested that American military personnel could be in greater danger of torture because of the U.S. mistreatment (6/8/04). That's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. Thatís the reason, in case anybody forgets it. Biden noted that his son, Beau, is in training for the Delaware National Guardís judge advocate general office.</p> <p><strong>Human Rights Groups</strong></p> <p>1. Human Rights Watch</p> <p>Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Human Rights Watch acquired an email message sent by the FBI to senior FBI officials. The email repeatedly referred to a presidential Executive Order that permitted military interrogators in Iraq to place detainees in painful stress positions, impose sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, intimidation with military dogs and use other coercive methods.</p> <p>"U.S. President George W. Bush should fully explain why an FBI document suggests he authorized unlawful interrogation methods," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The FBI email is not proof of a presidential order to commit unlawful acts, but it strongly suggests that U.S. interrogators thought they were working with the president's approval, It's no longer enough for Bush issue a simple denial. A real explanation is needed." Human Rights Watch noted that the email "was sent to senior members of the FBI on May 22, 2004, more than a year after the president reportedly disavowed the use of such interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay. The email makes 11 references to an Executive Order 'signed by President Bush' that authorized these abusive interrogation techniques."</p> <p>In response to the March 2005 testimony by CIA Director Porter Goss (see Item #8 in Bush administration documents above), Reed Brody, Special Counsel for Human Rights Watch said: "Waterboarding entails forcibly pushing a person's head under water until he believes he will drown. In practice, he often does. Waterboarding can be nothing less than torture in violation of United States and international law. Mr. Goss, by justifying the practice as a form of professional interrogation, renders dubious his broader claim that the CIA is not practicing torture today."</p> <p>Human Rights Watch issued a report on April 22, 2005 stating that there was<br> "overwhelming evidence that U.S. mistreatment and torture of Muslim<br> prisoners took place not merely at Abu Ghraib, but at facilities throughout<br> Afghanistan and Iraq as well as at Guantanamo and at 'secret locations'<br> around the world in violation of the Geneva Convention and the laws against<br> torture." The group called for a special prosecutor to examine the conduct<br> of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the former director of central<br> intelligence, George Tenet, in matters related to the abuse of detainees.<br> Reed Brody, special counsel for Human Rights Watch, said, "This pattern of<br> abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual<br> soldiers who broke the rules. It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S.<br> officials to bend, ignore or cast the rules aside." (New York Times,<br> 4/24/05)</p> <p>2. American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First</p> <p>The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First are asking a federal district court in Illinois to rule that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld violated the U.S. Constitution and international laws prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In their complaint the ACLU and Human Rights First charge that along with his subordinates, "Secretary Rumsfeld authorized, ratified and failed to stop the unlawful treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."</p> <p>The ACLU charges that Secretary Rumsfeld violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendment prohibitions against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as his violations of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The suit is being filed on behalf of eight individuals who were detainees in Afghanistan or Iraq and who claim to have been tortured and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.</p> <p>3. United Nations Human Rights Monitor (released 4/22/05)</p> <p>Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian appointed as the UN's human rights monitor for Afghanistan, accused American military forces and contractors in Afghanistan of "engaging in arbitrary arrests and detentions and committing abusive practices, including torture." He also said that detention conditions did not meet Geneva Convention standards. (New York Times, 4/23/05)</p> <p><br> <strong>For Discussion</strong></p> <p>1. Do you agree with Secretary Rumsfeld's statement that the treatment of prisoners as of May 2004 was "technically different from torture"?</p> <p>2. What, exactly, do you think Rumsfeld is referring to in his 5/7/04 statement about personal accountability and "full responsibility"? What would you expect the consequences to be if you admitted to "accountability" and took "full responsibility" for something you had done wrong? Have there been consequences that you know of for Secretary Rumsfeld?</p> <p>3. What criticisms of the investigative reports do Senators Dayton, Levin make? How justified do you think they are and why? What criticism does Rep. Harman make? Is it justified? Do you agree with Sen. Biden that Bush administration policies, by in his opinion violating treaties on prisoner treatment, may endanger U.S. soldiers who are captured? Do you agree with him that this is why the U.S. should abide by such rules of war?</p> <p>4. What is the basis for the ACLU suit against Secretary Rumsfeld? What do you think of it and why?<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 5:</strong></h3> <h2>Extraordinary rendition</h2> <p>"Extraordinary rendition" is a procedure in which foreign suspects are sent to another country for interrogation. In practice, suspects have been sent to countries with reputations for torturing prisoners.</p> <p>1. The Case of Maher Arar</p> <p>Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy Airport on September 26, 2002. Jane Mayer reported the following in her article "Outsourcing Torture" in the New Yorker (February 14 /21, 2005). "He was changing planes; he had been on vacation with his family in Tunisia, and was returning to Canada. Arar was detained because his name had been placed on the United States Watch List of terrorist suspects. He was held for the next thirteen days, as American officials questioned him about possible links to another suspected terrorist. Arar, who was not formally charged, was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet.</p> <p>"The jet landed in Jordan. Arar said he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of 'the Special Removal Unit' he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, 'just began beating on me.' They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. 'Not even animals could withstand it,' he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. 'You just give up,' he said. 'You become like an animal.'</p> <p>"A year later, in October 2003, Arar was released without charges the Syrian ambassador in Washington announced that his country had found no links between Arar and terrorism. Arar, it turned out, had been sent to Syria on orders from the U.S. government, under a secretive program known as 'extraordinary rendition.' This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. Arar is suing the U.S. government for his mistreatment. 'They are outsourcing torture because they know it's illegal,' he said. 'Why, if they have suspicions, don't they question people within the boundary of the law?'"</p> <p>Asks David Cole in The Nation (3/21/05): "Why would the United States forcibly redirect this man's travels to send him against his will to Syria? If the Justice Department has its way, that question will never be answered. It has invoked a 'state secrets privilege' in the case, claiming that all information relating to why it sent Arar to Syria rather than his home country of Canada is highly classified and cannot be disclosed without endangering the nation's security. If the government prevails on this argument, extraordinary rendition—the practice of transferring suspects to foreign nations for coercive interrogations—will be literally beyond the law."</p> <p>On February 16, 2006, U.S. District Judge David Trager dismissed Arar's lawsuit. In his opinion the judge wrote that "Arar's claim that he faced a likelihood of torture in Syria is supported by U.S. State Department reports on Syria's human rights practices." But, in ruling against Arar, he stated that the foreign policy and national security issues raised by the government were "compelling" and that such cases were in the jurisdiction of the executive branch, not the legislative or judicial.</p> <p>Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on Arar's behalf, said: "It's a shocking decision. It's really saying that an individual who is sent overseas for the purpose of being tortured has no claim in a U.S. Court." (Bob Herbert, "The Torturers Win," <em>New York Times</em>, 2/20/06)</p> <p>On September 18, a Canadian government commission exonerated Maher Arar of any ties to terrorism in a strongly-worded report that criticized both Canada and the U.S. for his rendition to Syria. It faulted Canadian authorities for providing U.S. authorities with inaccurate information about him. But it also provided evidence that the FBI was told that they "had yet to complete a detailed analysis of Mr. Arar [and that] we are unable to indicate links to Al Qaeda."</p> <p>The head of the commission, Justice Denis O'Connor said: "The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar's case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion. They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there." He also criticized U.S. authorities for not informing Canada about sending Arar to Syria.</p> <p>Arar thanked the commission for clearing his name and added, "It is my hope that the U.S. government provides the people with a valid explanation of what happened. What does this do for the credibility of the U.S. government when it talks about protecting human rights?"</p> <p>"In Washington, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he had not read the report, but said, 'We were not responsible for his removal to Syria,' adding, 'I'm not aware that he was tortured.'" (<em>New York Times</em>, 9/20/06)</p> <p>In a radio interview Arar said, "The facts speak for themselves, you know. The report clearly concluded that I was tortured. And for him to say that he does not know about the case or does not know I was tortured is really outrageous." (<em>New York Times</em>, 9/21/06)</p> <p>2. Other Renditions</p> <p>Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese-born German, was pulled from a bus on the Serbia-Macedonia border in December 2003 and flown to Afghanistan, where he said he was beaten and drugged. He was released five months later without being charged with a crime.</p> <p>Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian, was arrested in Pakistan several weeks after the 2001 attacks. He was moved to Egypt, Afghanistan and finally Guantanamo.</p> <p>Reported the <em>New York Times</em> (2/13/05): "Mamdouh Habib still has a bruise on his lower back. He says it is a sign of the beatings he endured in a prison in Egypt. Interrogators there put out cigarettes on his chest, he says, and he lifts his shirt to show the marks. He says he got the dark spot on his forehead when Americans hit his head against the floor at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.</p> <p>"Back home now, [after 40 months in prisons], Mr. Habib alleges that at every step of his detention—from Pakistan, to Egypt, to Afghanistan, to Guantanamo—he endured physical and psychological abuse. The physical abuse, he said, ranged from a kick 'that nearly killed me' to electric shocks administered through a wired helmet. In Afghanistan, he said, female soldiers 'touched me in the private areas' while questioning him. Three or four times, he said, when he was taken to an interrogation room, there were pictures doctored to make it appear that his wife was naked next to Osama bin Laden. He said that during one interrogation session, a woman wearing a skirt said to him, 'You Muslim people don't like to see women,' she said. Then she reached under her skirt, Mr. Habib said, pulling out what he described as a bloody stick. 'She threw the blood in my face,' he said."</p> <p><br> 3. Additional Documents on Extraordinary Rendition</p> <p>President Bush. In an interview with the <em>New York Times</em> (1/27/05), President Bush said: "Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture."</p> <p>President Bush stated (3/16/05): "In the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves. We don't believe in torture."</p> <p>CIA Director Porter Goss. Goss told Congress that the CIA has "an accountability program to monitor rendered prisoners. But he acknowledged that 'of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'" (<em>Washington Post</em>, 3/17/05)</p> <p>Former CIA Operative Michael Scheuer. Scheuer, quoted in the <em>New York Times</em> (3/11/05), said: "Regarding 'renditions': First, the agency [the CIA] is peculiarly an instrument of the executive branch. Renditions were called for, authorized and legally vetted not just by the National Security Council and the Justice Department, but also by the presidents—both Mr. Clinton and George W. Bush. In my mind these men and women made the right decision—America is better protected because of renditions. Second the rendition program has been a tremendous success. Dozens of senior Qaeda fighters are today behind bars. Third, if mistakes were made they should be corrected, but the CIA officers who followed orders should not be punished. Perfection is never attainable in the fog of war."</p> <p>House of Representatives. On March 16, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to forbid the use of supplemental appropriations that contradict anti-torture statutes. The bill singled out renditions. Representative Robert Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who co-authored the bill, said: "Diplomatic assurances not to torture are not credible and the administration knows it."</p> <p><em>Washington Pos</em>t, 3/1/05. "The State Department's annual human rights report released yesterday criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them with dogs—methods similar to those approved at times by the Bush administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody. The State Department report also harshly attacked the treatment of prisoners in such countries as Syria and Egypt, where the United States has shipped terrorism suspects under a practice known as 'rendition.'"</p> <p><em>New York Times</em>, 3/6/05. "The Bush administration's secret program to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation has been carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency under broad authority that has allowed it to act without case-by-case approval from the White House or the State or Justice Departments, according to current and former government officials. The unusually expansive authority for the CIA to operate independently was provided by the White House under a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the September 11, 2001, attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the officials said.</p> <p>"Former government officials say that since the September 11 attacks, the CIA has flown 100 to 150 suspected terrorists from one foreign country to another, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan." [All of these countries have very poor human rights records and torture prisoners routinely.]</p> <p><em>New York Times</em>, 5/1/05. Although the State Department has declared that "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights" and both it and human rights groups have reported that torture in Uzbek jails is commonplace, there is strong evidence that the CIA is sending terror suspects there.</p> <p><em>New York Times</em>, 5/12/05. Human Rights Watch said it has documented 63 cases in which Islamic militants were sent to Egypt for interrogation and imprisonment and believes the numbers sent since 9/11 could be as high as 200. The organization's Middle East deputy director said, "Egypt's terrible record of torturing prisoners means that no country should forcibly send a suspect there" and that doing so was banned under international law.</p> <p><br> <strong>For Discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>What is meant by the term "extraordinary rendition"?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>What evidence is there that the U.S. practices a policy of rendition?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> What are the pros and cons of this policy?</p> <p><strong>4. </strong>What is the president's view of it?</p> <p><strong>5. </strong>What is your opinion of it and why?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 6:</strong></h3> <h2>Additional Documents on Prisoner Abuse &amp; Death</h2> <p>Ever since the public became aware of the Abu Ghraib photographs in late April 2004, there have been many revelations about prisoner abuse and death at U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here are some of them.</p> <p><br> <strong>Other Reports of Abuse</strong><br> (All reports are from the <em>New York Times</em>, unless otherwise noted.)</p> <p>5/5/04: Hayder Sabbar Abd, an Iraqi Shiite Muslim, was arrested in June 2003 and ended up several months later in Abu Ghraib. After he and six other men were involved in a jailyard fight, they were hooded. "They beat our heads on the walls and doors." He said his jaw had been broken, badly enough that he still has trouble eating. He thinks he was hit about 50 times during two hours. He was ordered to masturbate and said a female guard "was laughing, and she put her hands over her breasts. Of course, I couldn't do it. I told them that I couldn't, so they beat me in the stomach, and I fell to the ground. The translator said, 'Do it! Do it! It's better than being beaten'. So I put my hand on my penis, just pretending." This was followed by all of the men being piled in a pyramid while photographs were taken. Hayder Sabbar Abd said he was never interrogated and never charged with a crime. He was released in April 2004.</p> <p>5/13/04: "In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan that attacks of September 11, 2001, CIA interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique know as 'water-boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under and water and made to believe he might be drowning."</p> <p>9/10/04: "Army jailers in Iraq, acting at the Central Intelligence Agency's request, kept dozens of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities off official rosters to hide them from Red Cross inspectors, two senior Army generals said Thursday. 'The number is in the dozens, to perhaps up to 100,' Gen. Paul J. Kern, the senior officer who oversaw the Army inquiry, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Another investigator, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, put the figure at 'two dozen or so,' but both officers said the could not give a precise number because no records were kept on most of the CIA detainees."</p> <p>10/17/04: "Military guards, intelligence agents and others described in interviews with the New York Times a range of procedures [at Guantanamo Bay]. One regular procedure was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels. Such sessions could last up to 14 hours without breaks."</p> <p>12/15/04: A report of an FBI agent who witnessed the condition of detainees is released. It reads: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On another occasion the A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night."</p> <p><br> <strong>Reports on Deaths of Prisoners in American Custody</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>12/4/02, Bagram, Afghanistan: Autopsy showed blunt force injury to legs; investigation indicated military intelligence and the military police were involved.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>6/6/03, Nasiriya, Iraq: Death certificate listed cause of death as homicide by strangulation.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>11/4/03, Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq: Cause of death was a blow to the head and "compromised respiration." Died during an interrogation process by Navy Seals and CIA employees.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>11/26/03, Al Qaim, Iraq: Detainee, an Iraqi major general, died during interrogation by military intelligence, after having been interrogated by CIA. An autopsy listed the cause of death in part as lack of oxygen due to smothering.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>4/28/04, Baghdad area, Iraq: Death certificate lists cause as "multiple gunshot wounds with complications." (New York Times, 5/31/04)</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>3/16/05 (reported in New York Times): "At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials. The number of confirmed or suspected cases is much higher than any accounting the military has previously reported. Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift."</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>3/12/05 (reported in New York Times): "Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public. The reports [were] obtained by Human Rights Watch. The reports from the Army Criminal Investigation Command, also make clear that the abuse at Bagram (40 miles north of Kabul) went far beyond the two killings.</li> </ul> <p><br> "American military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Mr. Habibullah, in an isolation cell on December 4, 2002, and Mr. Dilawar, in another such cell six days later, were from natural causes. Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, the American commander of allied forces in Afghanistan at the time, denied then that prisoners had been chained to the ceiling or that conditions at Bagram endangered the lives of prisoners. But after an investigation by the New York Times, the Army acknowledged that the deaths were homicides.</p> <p>"John Sifton, a researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said the documents substantiated the group's own investigations showing that beatings and stress positions were widely used, and that 'far from a few isolated cases, abuse at sites in Afghanistan was common in 2002, the rule more than the exception.'"</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 7:</strong></h3> <h2>Report of the UN Committee Against Torture</h2> <p>(May 18, 2006)</p> <p>A United Nations committee made up of human rights experts from around the world periodically reviews the actions of the signers of the UN Convention Against Torture. Each signing nation must provide the committee with a report, which the committee considers as part of its review. In 2006, the Bush administration finally delivered its report to the committee, which had been due in November 2001. The U.S. sent a delegation of more than two dozen officials to Geneva in early May to present its legal case to the UN committee. On May 18, the committee issued its review of the U.S.'s report.</p> <p>The UN committee welcomed the U.S. statement "that all United States officialsÖare prohibited from engaging in torture and are prohibited from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." It also "noted with satisfaction" a statement that the United States does not transfer persons to countries where it believes "it is more likely than not" that they will be tortured.</p> <p>But the UN committee specifically rejected major points made in the Bush administration report. It also took issue with statements made by the administration's legal team, which had discussed the report with the committee. The UN committee stated that:</p> <ul> <li>The Bush administration definition of psychological torture does not adhere to Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture. The administration said that psychological torture is limited to "prolonged mental harm." But the Convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The Bush administration states that the Convention does not apply during times of armed conflict. But the Convention declares, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever&nbsp;may be invoked as a justification for torture."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The Bush administration states that the Convention applies to the U.S. only when it commits torture on U.S. territory. The UN committee states that according to the Convention's Article 2, it "applies&nbsp;in any territory under its jurisdiction."</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The Bush administration states that kidnappings and disappearances of individuals do not constitute torture. The UN committee states that U.S. "involvement in enforced disappearances" does constitute torture.</li> </ul> <p>Additional UN committee criticisms of U.S. conduct:</p> <p>1. U.S. failure to register all persons detained in territories under its jurisdiction,<br> "depriving them of a safeguard against torture."</p> <p>2. U.S. "rendition of suspects, without any judicial procedure, to States where they face a real risk of torture."</p> <p>3. The U.S. authorization in 2002 of "the use of certain interrogation techniques, which have resulted in the deaths of some detainees." The committee said that the U.S. should eliminate "methods involving sexual humiliation, 'water boarding,' 'short shackling' and "using dogs to induce fear."</p> <p>4. "Reliable reports" that U.S. military or civilian personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq have committed "acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment," and "sexual assault," and other mistreatment of women, "including shackling women detainees during childbirth, and "lenient sentences" for those brought to justice.</p> <p>5. "The difficulties certain victims of abuse have faced in obtaining redress and adequate compensation."</p> <p>6. U.S. establishment of "secret detention facilities which are not accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross." The "regrettable" policy of having "no comment" about the existence of such secret detention facilities.</p> <p>7. Indefinite detentions of persons for long periods of time "without charge" and without other "legal safeguards"at Guantanamo Bay, a "violation of the Convention." The Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed down, the UN committee said.</p> <p>8. Inadequacy of "information, education and training provided to [U.S.] law enforcement or military personnel." The committee charged that this training failed to "focus on all provisions of the Convention, [especially] the prohibition of torture and the prevention of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."</p> <p>The committee recommended that the U.S. "enact a federal crime of torture" and "investigate, prosecute and punish" American citizens who are guilty of torturing people overseas or domestically. Finally, the committee asks the U.S. for a report within one year on its recommendations. (The recommendations, however, are not binding.)</p> <p>John Belling, the U.S. State Department's legal advisor, led the delegation that presented the administration's case to the UN committee. Belling told the New York Times that the UN committee's critical review "obviously causes us to question whether our extensive presentation was worth it. Unfortunately, I think the committee really had essentially written its report beforehand."</p> <p>The executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, called the committee's conclusions "a complete repudiation of virtually every legal theory that the Bush administration has offered for its controversial detention and interrogation policies." (5/20/06)</p> <p><br> Addition: Report of United Nations Human Rights Committee, 7/28/06</p> <p>After a two-day hearing on U.S. compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a 1966 treaty, the UN Human Rights Committee reported:</p> <ul> <li>The U.S. report to the committee on its compliance with the treaty was seven years overdue.</li> <li>The committee objected to the U.S. interpretation that the treaty does not apply to detainees held outside the U.S. or in time of war.</li> <li>The committee was concerned that "credible and uncontested information" showed that the U.S. holds detainees secretly for months and years and that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not informed or given access to them and neither are their families. It said that the U.S. "should immediately abolish" all secret detention facilities" and grant "prompt access" to detainees by the ICRC.</li> <li>The committee was concerned about detainee treatment, "such as prolonged stress positions and isolation, sensory deprivation, hooding, exposure to cold or heat, sleep and dietary adjustments, 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing&nbsp;as well as religious itemsÖand exploitation of detainees' individual phobias." It called for "immediate investigations into all allegations of suspicious deaths and torture" and complained about lack of oversight and punishment of those responsible for mistreating and torturing detainees.</li> <li>The committee called for the U.S. to allow Guantanamo, Cuba detainees a court review of their treatment and conditions of detention.</li> </ul> <p><strong>For Discussion</strong></p> <p>A teacher might want to consider forming small groups to consider the following:</p> <p>The Bush administration submitted a report to the UN Committee Against Torture that was due almost five years before. Consider the report's major points and the committee's response to each. Based on your understanding of the UN Convention Against Torture, do you agree or disagree with the committee's rejection of each major point made by the Bush administration. Why or why not?</p> <p>Consider the UN committees' additional criticisms of U.S. behavior. Based on your understanding of that behavior, what is your assessment of these criticisms? Examine each criticism. Is it fair? Unfair? Why or why not?<br> <br> <strong>For Citizenship</strong></p> <p>After you have read and discussed the UN committees' report, write a letter to President Bush and/or John Belling expressing your views and the reasons for them. If there is class consensus in its reaction to that report, a student committee could prepare drafts for class approval and the letters sent with the signatures of all class members who agree with it.<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 8:</strong></h3> <h2>Final Reflections</h2> <p>"Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. The tortured person is bound and helpless. The torturer stands over him with his instruments. The inequality is total. To abuse or kill a person in such a circumstance is as radical a denial of common humanity at possible. It is repugnant to learn that one's country's military forces are engaging in torture. It is worse to learn that the torture is widespread. It is worse still to learn that the torture was rationalized and sanctioned in long memorandums written by people at the highest level of the governmentÖ.Torture destroys the soul of the torturer even as it destroys the body of his victim. The boundary between humane treatment of prisoners and torture is perhaps the clearest boundary in existence between civilization and barbarism."<br> — Jonathan Schell, "What Is Wrong with Torture," The Nation, 2/7/05</p> <p>"Behind the exotic brutality so painstakingly recorded in Abu Ghraib, and the multiple tangled plotlines that will be teased out in the coming weeks and months about responsibility, knowledge, and culpability, lies a simple truth, well known but not yet publicly admitted in Washington: that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials of the United States, at various locations around the world, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantanamo in Cuba to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, have been torturing prisoners...."<br> "This is what we know. The real question now, as so often, is not what we know but what we are prepared to do."<br> — Mark Danner, "The Logic of Torture," New York Review of Books, 6/24/04</p> <p><br> <strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p>1. What conclusions, if any, have you reached about whether or not Americans have tortured prisoners?</p> <p>2. What conclusions, if any, have you reached about whether or not the tortures of prisoners are the acts of a few?</p> <p>3. What conclusions, if any, have you reached about whether or not the U.S. has committed war crimes? If so, who should be charged with war crimes?</p> <p>4. Do you agree with Schell's explanation about what is wrong with torture? Why or why not?</p> <p>5. Having examined U.S. treatment of prisoners in some depth, students may still have questions. How might they be answered in independent and small-group inquiries?</p> <p><br> <strong>For citizenship</strong></p> <p>Consider with students the final Mark Danner quote that concludes the materials. What are students prepared to do?</p> <p>Is there a class consensus on prisoner treatment? If so, students might draft letters to their representative and their senators. What actions do students want them to take? Why?</p> <p>Is the class satisfied with the investigations already made or pending? Why or why not? If not, the class might consider efforts to create an independent, bipartisan investigation of prisoner treatment. What might students do to promote such an investigation? Invite brainstorming on the subject. Consider such ideas as the following:</p> <ul> <li>Prepare a concise report to distribute to students and to parents.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Work for a PTA meeting on prisoner treatment and the need for an independent investigation.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Organize a schoolwide assembly on the subject with student and guest speakers.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Plan and act on a program to involve students in other high schools.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Continue to gather and report on additional findings about prisoner treatment.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Conduct a campaign to reach representatives and senators to include e-mails and visits to officials' offices.<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <p><strong>Sources</strong></p> <p>Mark Danner: markdanner.com. Danner's website offers access to his recent articles and interviews; his book, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror covers the subjects dealt with here in great depth and includes much documentation.)</p> <p>American Civil Liberties Union: aclu.org The ACLU regularly releases additional information on prisoner treatment under the Freedom of Information Act.</p> <p>Human Rights Watch: hrw.org. The site offers access to HRW's numerous articles on prisoner treatment as well as a timeline of events.</p> <p>Amnesty International: amnesty.org Amnesty has a major program opposing torture; its website includes detailed information on torture at U.S. detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and elsewhere as well as a manual on the treatment of prisoners)</p> <p><em>New York Review of Books </em>(including "Making Torture Legal," Anthony Lewis, 7/15/04)</p> <p><em>New York Times</em></p> <p><em>Washington Post</em></p> <p><em>New Yorker</em></p> <p><em>The Nation</em></p> <p>Other sources cited in the text<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <p><br> <em>This sourcebook was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</em><br> &nbsp;</p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-11-07T21:48:30-05:00" title="Monday, November 7, 2011 - 21:48">November 7, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:48:30 +0000 fionta 1037 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org American Misconceptions about the War on Iraq https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/american-misconceptions-about-war-iraq <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>American Misconceptions about the War on Iraq</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <p>What misconceptions did Americans have about the war on Iraq and why? According to polls concluded in the fall of 2003, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that clear evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link had been found. Many believed that Iraq used weapons of mass destruction during the March-April portion of the war and that world public opinion approved of the U.S. attack. The readings and activities below provide the basis for a discussion of these issues.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Student Questionnaire</h3> <p>You might begin a class exploration of the reasons for Iraq War by asking students to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire below is based on a survey conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks to determine American perceptions. (For more information on this and other PIPA polls, go to <a href="https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/10117">umd.edu</a>.)</p> <p>You might first ask students to complete the survey. Then, after students have read the two readings below and taken part in some of the classroom activities, conduct a class-wide discussion of students' initial responses to the questionnaire.</p> <p>Check the response that you believe to be most nearly correct.</p> <p>1. <strong>What is the relationship between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11?</strong></p> <p>a. Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11 attacks.<br> b. Iraq gave substantial support to Al Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11 attacks.<br> c. A few Al Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraq officials.<br> d. There was no connection at all.</p> <p>2. <strong>Has the U.S. found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?</strong></p> <p>a. The U.S. has found evidence.<br> b. The U.S. has not found evidence.</p> <p>3. <strong>Since the war with Iraq ended, has the U.S. found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?</strong></p> <p>a. The U.S. has found such weapons.<br> b. The U.S. has not found such weapons.</p> <p>4. <strong>Did Iraq use chemical or biological weapons in the war that officially ended in April?</strong></p> <p>a. Iraq did use chemical and biological weapons.<br> b. Iraq did not use chemical and biological weapons.</p> <p>5. <strong>How do you think the people of the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq?</strong></p> <p>a. The majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war.<br> b. Views are evenly balanced.<br> c. The majority of people oppose the U.S. having gone to war.</p> <p>6. <strong>Where do you tend to get most of your news?</strong></p> <p>a. Newspapers and magazines<br> b. TV and radio<br> c. Internet<br> d. Family and friends</p> <p>7. <strong>Which network, if any, is your prime source of news?</strong></p> <p>a. Fox<br> b. CNN<br> c. NBC<br> d. ABC<br> e. CBS<br> f. PBS-NPR (National Public Radio)<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <p>The following are the results of the polls conducted by PIPA from January through September, 2003, with a total of 8634 randomly chosen adult respondents.</p> <p>1. What is the relationship between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11?<br> a. 22% b. 35% c. 30% d. 7%</p> <p>2. 45-52% believe U.S. has found evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda .</p> <p>3. 24% believe U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.</p> <p>4. 22% believe Iraq did use chemical or biological weapons in the war with the U.S.</p> <p>5. How do you think the people of the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq?<br> a. 25% b. 31% c. 41%</p> <p>6. Where do you tend to get most of your news?<br> a. 19% b. 80% c. not included d. not included</p> <p>7. Which network, if any, is your prime source of news?<br> Two or more networks: 30%<br> a. 18% b. 16% c. 14% d. 11% e. 9% f. 3%</p> <p>The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll reports that:</p> <p>1. "Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions."</p> <p>2. "While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media and to some extent those who primarily watch CNN, have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."</p> <p>3. "Supporters of the President are more likely to have misperceptions. Republicans are also more likely, but this appears to be a function of support for the President. Misperceptions are not only the result of political bias; a significant number of people who oppose the president have misperceptions and within the groups that support or oppose the President, misperceptions vary sharply according to news source."</p> <p>4. Support for the war on Iraq was favored by 23% of those who had no misperceptions, 53% of those who had one misperception, 78% of those who had two misperceptions, and 86% of those who had three misperceptions. The three misperceptions are that: a)" Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks and that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found"; b) "weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the war and that Iraq actually used weapons of mass destruction during the war"; and c) "world public opinion has approved of the U.S. going to war with Iraq." The poll also found that "While in most cases only a minority has any particular misperception, a large majority has at least one key misperception."</p> <p>Other polls have found the following:</p> <ul> <li>An August 2003 Washington Post poll found that 32% thought it very likely and 37% somewhat likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.</li> <li>A September 2003 CNN/USA poll found that 42% thought that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.</li> <li>An August 2003 Harris poll found that 27% thought the U.S. had found Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.</li> <li>A January 2003 Gallup International poll of people in 38 countries found that not one showed majority support for unilateral U.S. action in Iraq.<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 1:</strong></h3> <h2>What U.S. leaders said about the threat of Iraq</h2> <p><strong>PRESIDENT BUSH'S PRE-WAR REMARKS</strong></p> <p><strong>January 28, 2003, the President's State of the Union message to Congress and the nation:</strong><br> "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own....The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa....Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."</p> <p><strong>February 6, 2003, President Bush radio address:</strong><br> "Saddam Hussein has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990's. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."</p> <p><strong>March 3, 2003, the President's letter to Congress explaining why war on Iraq was necessary:</strong><br> War is required because of Saddam Hussein's connection to "...the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."</p> <p><strong>March 6, 2003, the President's news conference on Iraq:</strong><br> "He [Saddam Hussein] provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people....The attacks of September 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction....He [Saddam Hussein] is a murderer. He has trained and financed Al-Qaeda type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."</p> <p><strong>March 17, 2003, the President's speech to the nation on Iraq:</strong><br> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised....The danger is clear. Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."</p> <p><strong>March 20, 2003, the President's report to Congress on why the nation must go to war with Iraq:</strong><br> "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>PRESIDENT BUSH'S POST-WAR REMARKS</strong></p> <p><strong>May 1, 2003, the President's remarks on the end of major combat in Iraq:</strong><br> "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001, and still goes on....The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."</p> <p><strong>May 30, 2003, during a visit to Poland:</strong><br> "We have found weapons of mass destruction."</p> <p><strong>July 14, 2003, the President's Oval Office remarks:</strong><br> "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.."</p> <p><strong>September 17, 2003, the President's answer to a reporter's question:</strong><br> "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th....There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."</p> <p><strong>REMARKS OF PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS</strong></p> <p><strong>September 25, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice:</strong><br> "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq."</p> <p><strong>February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations Security Council:</strong><br> "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence....Saddam Hussein already possess two out of three key components needed to build a nuclear bomb....we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make...[biological] weapons....Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents....And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them....[There] is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder....We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction. He's determined to make more.... should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing....?"</p> <p><strong>March 16, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's "Meet the Press":</strong><br> "And we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."</p> <p><strong>March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on "ABC This Week" [during the war]:</strong><br> "We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad..."<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION</strong></p> <p><strong>On October 10-11, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives (by a 296-133 margin) and the Senate (by a 77-23 margin) approved this resolution:</strong><br> "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States [and is] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations....Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq....The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States...to: (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."</p> <p>To summarize, statements by President Bush, his top advisors, and the congressional resolution offer three reasons why it was essential for the U.S. to make war on Iraq and remove its leader Saddam Hussein.</p> <p>1. Iraq has a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons, is creating more of these weapons of mass destruction and is in the process of developing nuclear weapons.</p> <p>2. Iraq aids and harbors terrorists, including members of the Al Qaeda network responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., and could provide them with weapons of mass destruction or help them build their own.</p> <p>3. Iraq is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and other nations.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>Activities: Student Reading 1</h4> <p>1. After they've finished reading Reading I, ask students to re-read closely the comments of top U.S. officials and the Congressional resolution about the threat Iraq posed to our country. During this re-reading have students underline those passages they have questions about. Perhaps the passage is unclear in some way, conflicts with other information the student has, or lacks detail. When they have finished re-reading, ask students to write one good question, preferably a question they cannot answer.</p> <p>"Good," in this context, means a question which, if answered well, would help the student to a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of any threat Iraq posed to the U.S.</p> <p>2. Divide the class into groups of four. Within each group, each student will read their question to others in the group. The group will then consider the following about each question:</p> <p>a. Is the question answerable? Is it clear? If not, how might it be made clearer?</p> <p>b. Is there any word or phrase in the question that must be defined before it can be answered satisfactorily? If so, the questioner should explain as precisely as possible what he or she means by the word or phrase.</p> <p>c. Does the question call for a factual answer? Where might any facts come from?</p> <p>d. Does the question include any unreasonable assumption? If so, how might the question be reworded?</p> <p>e. Does the question call for an opinion? Whose opinion? Why?</p> <p>After students have discussed their answers, ask them to select the question they regard as the best in their group. Like "good," "best," in this context, means a question, which if answered well, would help students to a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of any threat Iraq posed to the U.S.</p> <p>3. Ask each of the students whose questions were chosen to read it to the class. Record each question, without comment, on the chalkboard. When all of the questions have been recorded, repeat questions a) through e) above to make sure that everyone is clear about what the questions on the chalkboard are asking and how they might be answered.</p> <p>4. Have the class study Student Reading 2 for possible answers to the questions on the chalkboard.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></h3> <h2>Questions and Answers about Iraq's Threat to the U.S.</h2> <p>1. <strong>Was Iraq directly involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?</strong></p> <p>President Bush's answer to this question on September 17, 2003 was "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11." However, in the President's letter to congress six months earlier on March 20, 2003, he said there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2003."</p> <p>According to a New York Times report in February 2002, the CIA found "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups."</p> <p>2. <strong>Is there evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks?</strong></p> <p>The President's repeated statements, Secretary Powell's UN address and the House-Senate resolution giving the President the go-ahead for war on Iraq all assert Iraq-Al Qaeda connections.</p> <p>Secretary of State Powell offered the most detailed argument for these links in comments about Musaab al-Zarqawi, "an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants." According to the secretary, "al-Zarqawi established a poison and terrorist training center camp in northeastern Iraq and while in Baghdad for medical treatment set up with other Al Qaeda members a network to "coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq...."</p> <p>During this time northeastern Iraq was policed by U.S. and British jets. (This part of Iraq is controlled by Kurds, who were opposed to Saddam Hussein's rule.) Kurdish officials friendly to the U.S. responded to the Secretary Powell's assertions by stating that they had not heard of the poison lab he alleged was in their region. They also said that the photograph of the village Powell showed at the UN was not controlled, as he had said, by Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group accused of terrorist activities, but by a more moderate Islamic group.</p> <p>The other reports of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda do not provide specific evidence. According to one former official with the National Security Council the supposed Iraq-Al Qaeda link was "a classic case of rumint, rumor-intelligence plugged into various speeches and accepted as gospel." (The New Republic, 6/30/03) ["Rumint" is a slang word for rumor-intelligence.]</p> <p>3. <strong>Did Iraq use weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical or nuclear weapons) during the war?</strong></p> <p>No American official has ever claimed that Iraq used such weapons.</p> <p>4. <strong>Has the U.S. found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war ended?</strong></p> <p>Searches over 15 months by the U.S. Iraq Survey Group, led first by presidential appointee David Kay and then by Charles Duelfer, found no weapons of mass destruction. The final Duelfer report declared that Iraq had 'essentially destroyed its illegal weapons ability by the end of 1991, having destroyed its chemical stockpiles and ended its nuclear program. It eliminated its last biological weapons plant in 1996.</p> <p>5. <strong>Has world opinion favored the U.S. war on Iraq?</strong></p> <p>A Gallup International poll in January 2003 asked adults in 38 countries the following question:</p> <p>"Are you in favor of military action against Iraq?<br> a. under no circumstances<br> b. only if sanctioned by the United Nations<br> c. unilaterally by America and its allies"</p> <p>In no country did a majority support c, American unilateral action.</p> <p>A Gallup International poll in April-May 2003 asked, "Now that the regime of Saddam Hussein has been destroyed, do you think that military action by the U.S. and its allies was justified or not justified?" In 27 of 43 countries polled the majority said military action was not justified; in seven countries the majority said that it was; in nine countries responses were mixed.</p> <p>6. <strong>Was Iraq seeking uranium from Africa as part of an effort to create nuclear weapons?</strong></p> <p>After Vice President Cheney learned that Britain had documents reportedly showing that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African nation of Niger, he gave this information to the CIA. The CIA then asked Joseph Wilson, a diplomat who had been an ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. In February 2002 Wilson reported to the CIA and the State Department that the documents were forgeries. On March 7, 2002, Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei of The International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations Security Council that his agency had reached the same conclusion. He also reported that there was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.</p> <p>7. <strong>Did Saddam Hussein refuse to let UN inspectors enter Iraq?</strong></p> <p>No. Late in 2002 UN inspectors launched a series of inspections to search for any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. They did not find any but were still searching when the U.S. announced an imminent attack on Iraq. Then the UN inspectors left the country.</p> <hr> <h4>Activities: Student Reading 2</h4> <p>1. Discuss with the class which, if any, of its questions have been answered by the second reading.</p> <p>2. Do students have any questions about this reading? If so, write them on the chalkboard and subject them to the same analytical questions noted above.</p> <p>3. What questions from each of the readings remain unanswered? Discuss how each might each be answered. In the process, consider possible sources of information, where they might be located, and issues of reliability.</p> <p>4. Assign individuals and/or small groups to answer each question and to report findings to the class for discussion.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>The Questionnaire</h4> <p>1. Provide the class with a summary report of the PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll results and a summary of student responses to the questionnaire.</p> <p>2. Discuss each item on the questionnaire.</p> <ul> <li>How many students would now change their response to a particular question? Why?</li> <li>Is there a class consensus on an answer to a question? If not, why not?</li> <li>What are student reactions to the PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll results on each question?</li> <li>How do they account for answers that they view as clearly incorrect?</li> <li>What relationship, if any, is there between student perceptions about why the U.S. went to war against Iraq and their sources of news? Such a question offers the opportunity for a discussion of various sources of news and their strengths and limitations.</li> </ul> <hr> <h4>Two Approaches to Discussing Why the U.S. Warred on Iraq</h4> <p><strong>1. </strong>Discuss the three basic reasons provided by U.S. leaders for going to war against Iraq and summarized at the end of Student Reading 1. As students look back on them now, do they think all of these reasons were valid? One or two? None? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Conduct a <strong>moving opinion poll</strong>. Moving opinion polls are a way to get students up and moving as they place themselves along a STRONGLY AGREE—STRONGLY DISAGREE continuum according to their opinions about specific statements. An important aspect of the poll is to demonstrate to students that people can disagree without fighting—in fact they can listen to one another respectfully and perhaps even rethink their own opinions after hearing the views of others.</p> <p>Create a space in the room from one end to the other end that is long enough and wide enough to accommodate the whole class. Make two large signs and post them on opposite sides of the room: One says STRONGLY AGREE, the other says STRONGLY DISAGREE.</p> <p>Explain to students: "You will be participating in a moving opinion poll. Each time you hear a statement, move to the place along the imaginary line that most closely reflects your opinion. If you strongly agree, move all the way to one side of the room; if you strongly disagree, move all the way to the opposite side of the room. You can also place yourself anywhere in the middle, especially if you have mixed feelings about the question.</p> <p>"After everyone is placed along the imaginary line, I will ask people to explain briefly why they are standing where they are. This is not a time to debate or grill each other. Rather, this is a way to check out what people are thinking and get a sense of the different ways people view an issue."</p> <p>Begin the activity with statements that indicate non-controversial preferences, like, "Coke is the best soft drink" or "Skiing is the best winter sport." Then introduce statements on the Iraq issue such as the following:</p> <ul> <li>The U.S. went to war with Iraq because that country was a direct threat to the U.S.</li> <li>Iraq had weapons of mass destruction like biological and chemical weapons and might have given them to terrorists to use against the U.S.</li> <li>We know that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.</li> <li>Most people in the world opposed the U.S. war on Iraq.</li> <li>The U.S. warred on Iraq because it had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction it might have used on us.</li> <li>Terrorist attacks on U.S. ships like the Cole and embassies in Africa had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.</li> <li>The U.S. government had no proof that Iraq was planning an attack on our country.</li> <li>The U.S. will eventually find stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq.</li> </ul> <hr> <p><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a></em></p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-11-07T13:00:00-05:00" title="Monday, November 7, 2011 - 13:00">November 7, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:00:00 +0000 fionta 667 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org War and the Media: A Resource Unit https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/war-and-media-resource-unit <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>War and the Media: A Resource Unit</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>by Alan Shapiro</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>To the Teacher</strong></p> <p>"When war is declared, truth is the first casualty."<br> <em>—Senator Hiram Johnson, speaking in the U.S. Senate, 1918. The senator's source may have been an article in "The Idler," 1758, by Samuel Johnson.</em></p> <p>If "truth is the first casualty" during wartime, students need to learn what kinds of questions to ask of the news reports they get from the media and to develop skills and understandings that make them more critical readers, listeners and viewers. The lessons here aim to help this process along.</p> <hr> <h3><br> LESSON ONE</h3> <p>Introduce a study of war and the media with an examination of two accounts of the conflict at Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. If necessary, provide a brief context for this outbreak of the American Revolution. After students complete the reading, have them complete Exercise 1.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <p><strong>Student Reading: </strong></p> <h2>What happened at the first battle of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775?</h2> <p>From the <em>Salem Gazette</em> (Salem, Massachusetts), April 25, 1775</p> <p>"At Lexington, six miles below Concord, a company of militia, of about one hundred men, mustered near the meeting-house; the [British] troops came in sight of them just before sunrise; and running within a few rods of them, the Commanding Officer accosted the Militia in words to this effect: 'Disperse, you rebels—throw down your arms and disperse'; upon which the Troops huzzaed [shouted approval], and immediately one or two officers discharged their pistols, which were instantaneously followed by the firing of four or five of the soldiers and then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole body; eight of our men were killed and nine wounded....</p> <p>"In Lexington, the enemy set fire to Deacon Joseph Loring's house and barn, Mrs. Mullikin's house and shop, and Mr. Joshua Bond's house and shop which were all consumed....They pillaged almost every house and passed by, breaking and destroying doors, windows, glasses, etc., and carrying off clothing and other valuable effects....But the savage barbarity exercised upon the bodies of our unfortunate brethren who fell, is almost incredible; not content with shooting down the unarmed, aged and infirm, they disregarded the cries of the wounded, killing them without mercy, and mangling their bodies in the most shocking manner.</p> <p>"We have the pleasure to say, that, notwithstanding the highest provocations given by the enemy, not one instance of cruelty, that we have heard of, was committed by our victorious militia...."</p> <p>From the <em>London Gazette</em>, June 10, 1775</p> <p>"Lieutenant-Colonel Smith finding, after he had advanced some miles on his march, that the country had been alarmed by the firing of guns and ringing of bells, dispatched six companies of light infantry, in order to secure two bridges on different roads beyond Concord, who upon their arrival at Lexington, found a body of the country people under arms, on a green close to the road; and upon the King's Troops marching up to them, in order to inquire the reason for their being so assembled, they went off in great confusion, and several guns were fired upon the King's Troops from behind a stone wall, and also from the meeting-house and other houses, by which one man was wounded, and Major Pitcairn's horse shot in two places. In consequence of this attack by the rebels, the troops returned the fire and killed several of them....</p> <p>[On the march back from Concord the rebels kept firing from behind stone walls and houses,] "and such was the cruelty and barbarity of the rebels that they scalped and cut off the ears of some of the wounded men who fell into their hands."</p> <p><strong>Exercise 1</strong></p> <p>In their accounts of the conflict at Lexington the two newspapers include reports and judgments. Distinguishing between the two is not always simple. But in reading, hearing, or viewing the news it is a vital basic skill.</p> <p>A <strong>report</strong> is a verifiable statement that that does not include judgmental language and that may or may not be true. For example, the <em>Salem Gazette</em> says that the first shots were fired by "one or two officers" of the British force; the <em>London Gazette </em>says that "several guns were fired upon the King's Troops." Both are reports, for they could be verified as either true or not true and they exclude judgmental language—though both include generalities ("one or two" and "several"). However, both reports cannot be true. Determining which one is would require further investigation that might or might not produce a definitive answer.</p> <p>A <strong>judgment</strong> expresses an opinion. The <em>Salem Gazette</em> writes of "our unfortunate brethren." The <em>London Gazette</em> states that the Americans "went off in great confusion." Both "unfortunate" and "great confusion" express opinions.</p> <p>Student Directions: Reread the two accounts. Then list five sentences you identify as reports and five you identify as judgments. In each case explain why.</p> <p><br> <strong>To the Teacher:</strong> Students also need to understand that some statements may not be classifiable simply as reports or judgments. For example:</p> <p>"'We will find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice,' said a Pentagon official." This statement may be classified as a report since verifying that a Pentagon official made this statement is probably possible. But the statement itself is a prediction and so has to be classified as a judgment.<br> "'Nuclear deterrence prevented Soviet aggression,' said a professor of Soviet studies." Once again verifying that the professor made this statement is probably possible, which makes it a report. But what was said rests on inferences drawn by the professor, and they represent a judgment.<br> Failing to distinguish among such different kinds of statements can make one prey to propaganda and manipulation. To evaluate news, we need to understand the difference between reports and judgments. If students need additional work in this area, the teacher can prepare such exercises as the following.</p> <p><br> <strong>Exercise 2</strong></p> <p><em><strong>Student Directions:</strong></em> Mark each of the following statements either R (report) or J (judgment) and be prepared to explain your answer.</p> <p><strong>1.</strong> The world will be a safer place without Saddam Hussein.<br> <strong>2. </strong>Saddam Hussein has violated 17 Security Council resolutions.<br> <strong>3.</strong> US military plans for Iraq will be successful.<br> <strong>4. </strong>Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.<br> <strong>5. </strong>President Bush's view of Saddam Hussein is correct.</p> <p><br> <strong>Exercise 3</strong></p> <p><em><strong>Student Directions:</strong></em> Write five strict reports and five judgments on the Iraq situation. Then exchange papers with a partner. Mark your partner's sentences R or J. Discuss.</p> <p><br> <strong>Exercise 4</strong></p> <p><strong><em>Student Directions:</em></strong> Write a strict report (no judgmental words) on something that happened to you recently.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>For further discussion of the Lexington accounts:</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> List differences in the two accounts on each of the following items:</p> <p class="rteindent1">a. the number of people in the militia<br> b. what the British commander said<br> c. who fired first<br> d. numbers of casualties<br> e. behavior of each side</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>From whose point of view is each account written? What specific words and sentences support your conclusion?</p> <p><strong>3. </strong>How do you explain the differences between the two articles on who fired first and which group's behavior was cruel?</p> <p><strong>4. </strong>"When war is declared, truth is the first casualty," said Senator Hiram Johnson in 1918. What evidence do the two accounts offer that there is truth in what the senator observed?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Since the two newspaper accounts differ on important details, how could you investigate further what happened at Lexington on April 19, 1775? (diary accounts? depositions by any who were present? other newspaper accounts? history book accounts with sources one might check?) Obviously, one cannot check every newspaper story, but the object here is to understand that: war reports raise many questions; reports and judgments are different kinds of statements; the source of any report is important; and objectivity may be colored by the reporter's and/or newspaper's point of view.</p> <p>Note to the Teacher: As you move through this resource unit, have students keep in their notebooks a growing list of questions that seem useful to ask about a news story.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON TWO</h3> <p><br> <em><strong>Student Assignment:</strong></em> Read the first six paragraphs of a story from the online edition of the New York Post of February 24, 2003. Then answer in writing the questions that follow. (The teacher may want to instruct students about the use of passive voice in news reports.)</p> <p><br> <strong>Student Reading: </strong></p> <h2>Reading and analyzing a news story</h2> <p><br> <strong>HUNT-AND-KILL SQUADS SET TO TAKE OUT SADDAM &amp; SONS</strong></p> <p>WASHINGTON—Special "hunter-killer teams and aircraft would target strongman Saddam Hussein—and his two evil sons—within 8 hours of the launch of any military campaign, The Post has learned.</p> <p>The moves would include a series of massive, surgical airstrikes and commando raids in the opening hours of the action. Specially trained operatives would target Saddam, sons Uday and Qusay and other key aides.</p> <p>Qusay, who heads Saddam's personal Republican Guard unit, has orders to unleash weapons of mass destruction should something happen to his father, according to British intelligence.</p> <p>Saddam's eldest son, Uday, is said to command Iraq's vicious paramilitary groups in charge of sabotaging infrastructure, such as bridges, and committing atrocities against their country's own civilians to blame on the United States.</p> <p>In the past, Uday has been accused of personally brutally beating Iraqi Olympic athletes, as well as having ties to terrorists. He also is considered the money man who helps fund Saddam's regime.</p> <p>Taking the fiendish father and sons out would be part of what US military officials and outside defense analysts say is a bold and radical battle plan for Gulf War II. The plan aims to use exotic new weapons and the full range of US military power in a series of nearly simultaneous air and ground attacks on the citadels of Saddam's power in the opening hours.</p> <p><strong>Questions</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> What sources of information does the <em>Post</em> story state for its account?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> For what statements, if any, is there no clear indication of a source? Why?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Does the story include judgmental statements? If so, what are they? Note the headline. Is it judgmental? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> How objective is the story? What makes you think so?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Do you have any reason(s) to doubt the accuracy of anything in the story? Why?</p> <p>Class discussion. The teacher may wish to give special attention to the fact that, except for the reference to British intelligence, this article repeatedly fails to cite a source for its assertions and often uses the passive voice, one method of avoiding stating the source for statements. Even the British intelligence reference raises questions. Has British intelligence made such a public statement? If not, where did The Post get its information from?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON THREE</h3> <p><em><strong>Student Assignment:</strong></em> Below are two samples of World War II reporting by, first, an American newspaper about the Japanese enemy and, second, by a Japanese magazine about the American enemy. Both were drawn from John Dower's study, War without Mercy, about how Americans and Japanese portrayed each other during World War II. Read each, then be prepared to answer the questions following the two excerpts.</p> <p><strong>1. </strong>The American report is accompanied by a cartoon of a bandaged, bawling ape with horn-rimmed eyeglasses and buck teeth and begins with the headline "MEN OR BEASTS?"</p> <p>"To size up the Japanese hasn't been easy at this great distance. One opinion is that they are no more than monkeys; another that they are human beings, after all, though in a state of arrested development. Nicosia Osmena, son of the Philippines President, who has had to live with them for three grim years, offers a compromise theory. To him the Japanese is the Missing Link [between humans and apes]." (<em>The New York Times</em>, 2/25/45)</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>The Japanese report begins with the headline, "Naming the Western Barbarians," and is accompanied by a drawing of an ogre with a necklace of skulls removing a smiling Roosevelt-faced mask. It states:</p> <p>"It has gradually become clear that the American enemy, driven by its ambition to conquer the world, is coming to attack us, and as the breath and body odor of the beast approach, it may be of some use if we draw the demon's features here. Our ancestors called them Ebisu or savages long ago, and labeled the very first Westerners who came to our country the Southern Barbarians.... Since the barbaric tribe of Americans are devils in human skin who come from the West, we should call them Saibanki, or Western Barbarian Demons." (<em>Manga Nippon</em>, October 1944)</p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>What questions do students think would be useful in analyzing each report? (See "<a href="http://morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/teaching-critical-thinking-believing-game-doubting-game">Teaching Critical Thinking</a>" on this website for suggestions about helping students to learn how to ask good questions.)</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>How would you explain each element in the <em>Times' </em>cartoon"—"bandaged," "bawling," "ape," "horn-rimmed eyeglasses," "buck teeth"?</p> <p><strong>3. </strong>How would you explain each element in the Japanese cartoon—"ogre," "necklace of skulls," "smiling Roosevelt-faced mask"?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Why does the <em>Times' </em>headline ask "Men or Beasts?"</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Why does the Japanese publication use the term "Western Barbarians"?</p> <p><strong>6.</strong> How would you describe the tone of the <em>Times' </em>article? The article in <em>Manga Nippon</em>? What words or phrases in each case lead you to your conclusion?</p> <p><strong>7.</strong> In what ways are the two articles similar? How would you explain this similarity?</p> <p><strong>8.</strong> What do you suppose are the purposes of creating such portraits of the enemy? What differences might it make if soldiers on either side of a conflict were portrayed as human beings very much like themselves in most ways?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON FOUR</h3> <p>Following the reading are suggestions for classwork. The source for much of the reading is the book <em>The News About the News</em> by Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert E. Kaiser. Downie is executive editor of the <em>Washington Post</em>; Kaiser is associate editor.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Student Reading:</strong></p> <h2>Information and viewpoints about the media business and the news</h2> <p><strong>1. What is "the public interest"?</strong></p> <p>The Federal Communications Commission requires everyone who receives a broadcast license to operate in "the public interest." Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, when asked at his first press conference what the meaning of "the public interest" was, responded, "I have no idea. It's an empty vessel in which people pour in whatever their preconceived views or biases are." Neither the FCC nor any other US governmental body has ever spelled out specifically what meaning should be given to the phrase. The FCC has never denied renewal of a broadcasting license to any applicant.</p> <p><strong>2. The media and big business</strong></p> <p>"Most newspapers, television networks and local television and radio stations now belong to giant, publicly owned corporations far removed from the communities they serve. They face the unrelenting quarterly profit pressures from Wall Street now typical of American capitalism. Media owners are accustomed to profit margins that would be impossible in most traditional industries. For General Motors a profit margin of 5 percent of total revenue would mark a very good year, but the Tribune Company of Chicago, which owns newspapers and television stations located all across the country, wants a 30 percent margin. Many local television stations expect to keep 50 percent of their revenue as profit....Protecting such high profits can easily undermine the notion that journalism is a public service." (<em>The News About the News</em>)</p> <p><strong>3. Who owns what in the media</strong></p> <p><strong>General Electric</strong>, with annual revenues of $129.9 billion as of 2002, has media holdings that include 50 percent of NBC, CNBC and MSNBC (Microsoft owns the other 50 percent). GE also owns AMC, Bravo, WE and Independent Film Channel as well as 25 percent of A&amp;E and the History and Biography channels. It owns 13 television stations and such international channels as NBC and CNBC. Its other media holdings include a number of Internet companies.<br> <strong>Gannett </strong>owns more than 100 newspapers, including USA Today, which is published nationally. It also owns 15 television stations...<br> <strong>Viacom </strong>owns CBS, MTV, UPN, Showtime, Nickelodeon, TNN, The Movie Channel, BET, 50 percent of Comedy Central and other TV channels as well as 39 TV stations. It also owns the CBS Radio Network, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and other movie studies, book publishing companies, magazines and Internet sites.<br> Other media giants include the AT&amp;T Corporation, Sony, Walt Disney Company, AOL/Time Warner and Vivendi Universal.</p> <p><strong>4. The media and the government</strong></p> <p>The 50 largest media companies and four of their trade associations spent $111.3 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch between 1996 and mid-2000. Between 1993 and mid 2000 media corporations and their employees gave $75 million in campaign contributions to candidates for federal office and the two major political parties. Between 1995 and 2000 media companies took FCC employees on 1460 all-expenses-paid trips. Between 1997 and 2000 they paid for 315 such trips for members of Congress and senior staffers.</p> <p><strong>5. The deregulation of radio</strong></p> <p>Until the 1980s one company could legally own no more than seven AM and seven FM stations. Deregulation acts by Congress and the FCC now permit companies to buy as many stations nationally as they wish. As of 2001 Clear Channel owned 1200 radio stations. TV host Phil Donahue says, "Now we have hundreds of radio stations creating a profit with virtually no on-air personnel and no newsroom, no AP wire, no birth announcements, no obituaries. And not least, no coverage of the police, the PTA or the Lions Club and no high school football scores. Nothing but digital music, commercials and profit."</p> <p><strong>6. The decline of newspapers</strong></p> <p>In 1963 for the first time, a majority of Americans said they got their news mainly from TV. Newspapers were on the decline. By the 1980s only a handful of cities had competing daily papers. "Most of the surviving newspapers are now owned by large chains that have more than 1200 of 1500 dailies." (<em>The News About the News</em>)</p> <p><strong>7. News as a way to sell ads</strong></p> <p>"The drift away from serious coverage of serious subjects was part of the most important change in American news values in the last years of the twentieth century. Covering the news, once seen primarily as a public service that could also make a profit, became primarily a vehicle for attracting audiences and selling advertising to make money." (<em>The News about the News</em>)</p> <p><strong>8. The cost of being adversarial</strong></p> <p>In an article about media reporting of national security issues, William A. Dornan, a California State University journalism professor, says that journalists tend to go along with the US government's approach to war and peace issues. He writes: "...nothing that is said here should be interpreted to mean that journalists are part of a planned conspiracy, or that their editors act on instructions directly received from the State Department or the Pentagon." He sees the behavior of journalists and editors as a complicated matter that includes the "assumption that for corporate journalism to reach a mass audience it must rule out taking a strong adversary stand against the state."<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Suggestions for classwork</strong></em></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about any issues raised in the reading?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Ask all students to imagine that they have been appointed to the FCC.</p> <ul> <li>Their first assignment is to write a definition of "the public interest" and to detail any specific regulations for fulfilling that interest that they, as FCC members, would require of all broadcasters. For example, should there be a regulation governing the amount of advertising directed at children? allowing a certain amount of free time for political candidates? requiring a certain amount of time for public interest announcements?</li> <li>Divide the class into small groups to share their definitions and suggested regulations. Can they reach consensus on a definition and regulations? Each group should name a reporter to summarize its conclusions for class discussion.</li> </ul> <p><strong>3.</strong> Discuss:</p> <ul> <li>What difference does it make in news reporting that "giant, publicly owned corporations [are] far removed from the communities they serve"? that a small number of such corporations dominate the media business?</li> <li>Why do you think that these corporations spend millions on lobbying and free trips for legislators and regulators?</li> <li>What difference to news reporting does it make that most Americans now get their news from TV?</li> <li>What difference do you think it makes whether the media covers the news primarily as a public service or covers it mainly to attract audiences and sell advertising?</li> <li>Why might corporate journalism rule out taking a strong adversary stand against the state? How might the reporting of war news be affected?</li> <li>What you have read about the media business and the news include a number of critical viewpoints. Do you regard any of them as exaggerated or unfair? Why?<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <hr> <h3>LESSON FIVE</h3> <p>To be intelligent readers, listeners, and viewers of war news, students need to understand some things about how war is reported. For example, it's important to know that government officials are often a source—sometimes the only source—of war news. Those officials may be concerned about how the public perceives such issues as the security of troops or military errors (e.g., "friendly fire" that kills American soldiers and "collateral damage" that kills innocent civilians). They may not wish to reveal certain plans and motivations. All this may lead to false news reports—with immense consequences. This last point is the subject of the following student reading.</p> <p><strong>Student Reading: </strong></p> <h2>Launching the Vietnam War</h2> <p>On August 5, 1964 a <em>Washington Post</em> headline read: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression."</p> <p>A front pages story in<em> The New York Times</em> reported that: "President Johnson has ordered a retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin." In an editorial after a speech by President Johnson on the Tonkin incident, the<em> Times</em> reported that Johnson "went to the American people last night with the somber facts."</p> <p><em>The Los Angeles Times</em>, in an editorial after the speech, urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."</p> <p>For a number of years under presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, the United States had been supporting the South Vietnamese in a civil war with the National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Vietnam (often referred to as the Vietcong), a communist organization supported by the communist North Vietnamese, which in turn had the support of the Soviet Union. US leaders regarded South Vietnam as the first of a series of "dominoes" in Southeast Asia that might fall one after another and lead to communist governments throughout the region. The US supplied arms to South Vietnam and, by the time Lyndon Johnson became president after the assassination of Kennedy in November 1963, the US had also sent some 17,000 "advisors" to assist the South Vietnamese army.</p> <p>But South Vietnam was doing poorly. By early 1964 President Johnson had authorized secret Operation Plan 34A. The idea behind the plan was that "progressively escalating pressure" on North Vietnam would force it to stop aiding the NLF. The secret plan included sabotage in the North, a secret air war in Laos using American planes with Laotian markings, and patrols by American destroyers off the coast of North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin. The American public knew nothing about this plan.</p> <p>A few days before the reported attack on American destroyers, South Vietnamese commandos assaulted two North Vietnamese islands in the Gulf of Tonkin. The American destroyer Maddox was in the gulf gathering intelligence to help the South Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese, possibly thinking that the destroyer was a South Vietnamese ship supporting the commandos, attacked the Maddox with torpedo boats on August 2. The next day South Vietnamese boats attacked the North Vietnamese coast.</p> <p>On August 4 the Pentagon reported that two US destroyers had been attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. But the US task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf cabled Washington that "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" raised doubts that any attack had occurred. There was no damage to the destroyers.</p> <p>To this day there is no convincing evidence that any attack occurred. President Johnson immediately ordered reprisals and 64 US planes bombed North Vietnam. He informed Congress of the reprisals but not about Operation Plan 34A and not about US support for South Vietnamese covert actions against North Vietnam. The president led Congress and the nation to believe that the August 2 attack on the Maddox was unprovoked. In the absence of certain evidence that there had been a second attack, he asked for a congressional resolution "to protect our armed forces."</p> <p>On August 7 Congress approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declaring that the Congress "approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" and asserting that peace and security in Southeast Asia were "vital" to US interests. Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon argued during the debate: "We are in effect giving the President...war-making powers in the absence of a declaration of war. I believe that to be a historic mistake." He and Senator Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.</p> <p>The Vietnam War had begun. It would cost millions of Vietnamese casualties and the deaths of more than 50,000 American soldiers.</p> <p>Several days later the president commented to Undersecretary of State George W. Ball about the attacks on the two American destroyers: "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish."</p> <p>In <em>The Uncensored War</em>, Daniel Hallin says that journalists "had a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account (of Tonkin Gulf events); it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi (the North Vietnamese capital) had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats." In addition, "It was generally known...that 'covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with US support and direction had been going on for some time."</p> <p>Years later veteran <em>New York Times</em> journalist Sidney Schanberg warned other journalists during the Gulf War not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."</p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about the Gulf of Tonkin events and how they were reported?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>How would you classify the word "Aggression" in the Washington Post headline? As a report? A judgment? Something else? Why?</p> <p>3. What is factually inaccurate in the New York Times report? Why? In its editorial it says the president provided the nation with "facts." How would you define "facts"? Are they what the president provided? If not, what did he provide?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Consider the Los Angeles Times editorial comment: Was it a "fact" that the communists attacked "American vessels in international waters"? What other "facts" have been omitted? Why?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Why do you think President Johnson did not inform either Congress or the American public of Operation Plan 34A? What evidence would you cite to support your view?</p> <p><strong>6. </strong>If journalists had "a great deal of information" contradicting the official account of the Tonkin Gulf events, why didn't they report it? Since the North Vietnamese must have known about the South Vietnamese attacks and, eventually, about the support of American destroyers for them, what "national security issues" could have made journalists reluctant to report what they knew?</p> <p><strong>7.</strong> Do you agree that the president "bamboozled Americans with a "fabrication"? Why or why not? If you agree that he did, how do you explain the president's behavior?</p> <p><strong>Writing assignments</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Imagine that you are a newspaper reporter. Given the information you have about the events of August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, write an opening paragraph of a newspaper report about them. Then put a headline over your paragraph. Be as objective as you can be.</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>Imagine that you are an editorial writer for a newspaper. Write an editorial of one paragraph based on your understanding of the events of August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.</p> <p>In class, divide students into groups to share their reports and/or editorials. Have students discuss the following questions after they hear each. <em>Reports: </em>How accurate and how objective is each report? What judgmental words, if any, does it use? What are its sources? Is there evidence of bias? If so, what?<em> Editorials: </em>What evidence does the editorial provide to support any judgments? Is the evidence stated objectively? If so, how? If not, why not?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON SIX</h3> <p><strong>Student reading: </strong></p> <h2>Reporting the Gulf War in 1991</h2> <p>The Gulf War was launched by the first President George Bush and US allies in 1991 in response to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The military campaign, called Operation Desert Storm, succeeded after several months in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.</p> <p>In his book <em>Jarhead</em>, a former Marine sniper, Anthony Swofford, reports how his sergeant issued a "gag order" to his unit before a visit by reporters in the Saudi Arabian desert before Operation Desert Storm began. "Listen up," the sergeant said. "I've gone over this already. But the captain wants you to hear it again. Basically, don't get specific. Say you can shoot from far away. Say you are highly trained, that there are no better shooters in the world than Marine snipers. Say you're excited to be here and you believe in the mission and that we'll annihilate the Iraqis. Take off your shirts and show your muscles."</p> <p>In November 1990 a Kuwaiti woman in tearful testimony before a Congressional committee said that Iraqi soldiers, during their invasion of Kuwait, had thrown babies out of their incubators in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait city and "left them on the cold floor to die." Her story was widely reported in the media. President Bush spoke about the incubator babies in five of his speeches and senators later referred to them in supporting pro-war resolution.</p> <p>Later Myra Ancog-Cooke, a nurse who worked in the children's ward of the hospital with Freida Contrais-Naig, said, "I remember someone called and said, 'Look at CNN, they are talking about us.' We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of incubators. I said to Freida, 'That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here.'" Ms Myra Ancog-Cooke said babies had not been thrown from incubators.</p> <p>Later it became known that the woman, Niyirah al Sabah, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and was working for Hill &amp; Knowlton, a public relations firm that had been secretly hired by the Kuwaiti government to help make the case for war by the US on Iraq. The firm coached six witnesses to report the false story. Months later the truth came out.</p> <p>After the US entered World War II there was censorship of news reports, but reporters went pretty much where they pleased, reported what they saw and heard, and their dispatches were published in newspapers. Rarely were there any problems about violation of security. During the Vietnam War there were voluntary security guidelines. Only a half dozen of the two thousand reporters who covered the war lost their credentials for violating them. Howard Kurtz, the media reporter for the<em> Washington Post</em>, writes: "Reporters roamed the jungles at will, often hitching rides on choppers with friendly units. But as the futility of that tragic, televised war became increasingly clear, many military officials blamed the press for turning public opinion against them. Never again, they vowed, would they allow themselves to be humiliated by the media."</p> <p>The military enforced tight control of reporting during the Gulf War. Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek reporter, writes: "Everyone agrees: the 1991 Gulf War was a disaster for military-media relations. Reporters were mostly cooped up at an air base in Saudi Arabia with little to do but complain about censorship. Access to the battlefield was extremely limited....'What's the government afraid of?' John Chancellor, the late NBC News anchor, told me at the time. 'They should trust us.'" There were military escorts for reporters; they could not conduct interviews with military officials unless they had been cleared in advance. "Television," says Kurtz, "could not show 'personnel in agony or severe shock' or 'images of patients suffering from severe disfigurement.'</p> <p>"The television coverage had immediacy and visual impact—you could hear the air-raid sirens, see the sky light up, watch the correspondents fumbling with their gas masks....They got plenty of facts wrong. One TV reporter announced that Iraq's elite Republican Guard had been wiped out. Another said that chemical weapons had been used against Israel. Casualties were overstated. Viewers were drowning in disconnected facts...."</p> <p>Kurtz writes: "Any effort to tell the Iraqi side of the story, as CNN's Peter Arnett learned in reporting from Baghdad, brought angry charges that reporters were helping the enemy. The problem for the press is that its core values, such as objectivity and skepticism, do not mesh well with the rally-round-the-flag passions that swept the country in wartime....Long after the war we learned from Newsday's Patrick Sloyan and the Army Times that some Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive in trenches by US plows and earth movers. And, in the <em>Washington Post</em>, Barton Gellman reported that the military had waited months to tell the families of thirty-three dead servicemen that their loved ones had been killed by friendly fire. These were the kinds of grisly details that Pentagon officials were able to keep from the press, though they had nothing to do with military security. It was not until a year after the war that we learned that key weapons like the stealth fighter and the cruise missile had struck only about half their military targets, compared to the 85 to 90 percent rate claimed by the Pentagon....Or, after months of official denials, that American-led bombers had inflicted serious damage on Iraqi generators, contributing to thousands of postwar civilian deaths."</p> <p>Another reporter, Michael Massing, former editor of the <em>Columbia Journalism Review</em>, argues that military control of reporting was not the chief problem. What was required was "an ability to digest and make sense of the huge amount of data generated by the conflict." The Pentagon maintained that it was attacking only military-related facilities, "but," writes Massing, "the attacks on power plants, oil refineries, and other elements of the country's infrastructure suggested a far more destructive plan—one designed to return Iraq to a 'pre-industrial age,' as a UN report subsequently put it. What was the Pentagon's purpose in all this?"</p> <p>And then, Massing notes, there was the endless reporting "on the chemical-weapons threat from Iraq—a threat that never materialized." Yet, he says, "correspondents showed little interest in America's own fearsome weapons. Like napalm. For the first time since Vietnam, the US forces used this flesh-searing substance, mostly to kill Iraqi troops in bunkers. On February 23, 1991 <em>The New York Times</em> headlined a story "Allies Are Said to Choose Napalm for Strikes on Iraqi Fortifications." The story explained that napalm-fueled fire over the mouths of caves and trenches may not burn the soldiers but can suffocate them as it removes oxygen from the air. This is the reason why opponents of napalm use argue it should be classified as a chemical weapon and banned. But the Times article did not raise this issue.</p> <p>On February 13, 1991, American missiles struck the Amiriya air-raid shelter in Baghdad. 408 civilians were incinerated. Later Laurie Garrett, a medical writer for <em>Newsday</em>, viewed a half-hour videotape of the results: The videotape "showed scenes of incredible carnage. Nearly all the bodies were charred into blackness; in some cases the heat had been so great that entire limbs were burned off. Among the corpses were those of at least six babies and ten children, most of them so severely burned that their gender could not be determined. Rescue workers collapsed in grief, dropping corpses; some rescuers vomited from the stench of the still-smoldering bodies." Later Ms. Garrett wrote, "One can only wonder how US viewers would have reacted if they had seen the unedited video, or at least more than the sanitized few moments that were aired."</p> <p>Chris Hedges is a <em>New York Times</em> correspondent who has covered wars in the Balkans, Central America, and the Middle East, including the first Gulf War, where he was captured. In a March 7, 2003 PBS interview on "Now with Bill Moyers" asked him, "Tell me, having covered the first Gulf War, what the men and women who are about to go into Iraq are going to experience?" "Well, the ones who are up on the front line are...going to have to come face-to-face with the myth of war. The myth of heroism, the myth of patriotism. The myth of glory. All those myths that have the ability to arouse us when we're not in mortal danger. And they're going to have to confront their own mortality. And at that moment some people will be crying, some people will be vomiting. People will not speak much. Everyone will realize that....until the fighting ends, it will be a constant minute-by-minute battle with fear. And that sometimes fear wins. And anybody who tells you differently has never been in a war."</p> <p>Asked about how the Gulf War was reported, Hedges answered: "...the war became entertainment. The Army had no more candor than they did in Vietnam. But what they perfected was the appearance of candor. Live press conferences. And well-packaged video clips of Sidewinder missiles hitting planes or going down chimneys....and the fact that they covered up death. Not only the death of our own. But the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis who were killed. They were nameless, faceless phantoms....So it was a completely mythic, or mendacious narrative that was presented to us....And it frightened me and it disgusted me. And it wasn't because I didn't believe that we shouldn't have gone into Kuwait. I believe we had no choice. But I certainly understood that we, as a nation, had completely lost touch with what war is. And when we lose touch with what war is, when we believe that our technology makes us invulnerable...if history is any guide, we are going to stumble into a horrific swamp."</p> <p>And, finally, Moyers asked Hedges: "What have you learned as a journalist covering war that we ought to know on the eve of this attack on Iraq?" He responded: "That everybody or every generation...seems not to listen to those who went through it before and bore witness to it. But falls again for the myth. And has to learn it through a tragedy inflicted upon their young. That war is always about betrayal. It's about betrayal of soldiers by politicians. And it's about betrayal of the young by the old."</p> <p>The transcript of the full Hedges interview can be found on the PBS website at: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html">http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html</a><br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about Gulf War reporting?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>This reading includes a number of critical comments about how the military limited the access of reporters to first-hand information about what was happening during the Gulf War. Yet during the Vietnam War there was a great deal of access. Why did the military change its regulations? What is your reaction to each of those regulations?—limited access to the battlefield, military escorts for reporters; advance clearance for interviews with military officials; censorship of TV images of wounded or dead soldiers or civilians; official briefings or handouts instead of firsthand observation. Do you think each regulation is justified? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> A recent survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that about half of all Americans think the military should have more control over war news than the media have. What do you think and why?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Here are some of the things the Pentagon prevented the media from learning or reporting on until long after the war was over:</p> <ul> <li>the burial alive of Iraqi soldiers</li> <li>the killing of American soldiers by friendly fire</li> <li>the limited success of the stealth fighters and cruise missiles in hitting their targets</li> <li>the damage to Iraqi generators that contributed to many postwar civilian deaths</li> </ul> <p>The major argument for censorship is that it prevents the enemy from learning things that might give it an advantage, that might result in failure of an operation or in the deaths of American soldiers—in short, that it protects military security. Another reason given for censoring war news is to ensure that families don't learn about the death or injury of a relative by watching the TV news. If the media had reported immediately any of the stories bulleted above, would it have endangered military security or exposed families to broadcast news about the fate of relatives? If not, why then did the military attempt to keep these stories from appearing in the media? This question might be a good one for small-group discussions, reports from each group to the entire class and then whole class discussion.</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> The story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators may seem relatively harmless, since ultimately it was shown to be false. But it reveals people's tendency to believe the worst of any enemy. Why does this happen?</p> <p><strong>6. </strong>Reporters, as Kurtz points out, "got plenty of facts wrong." Why is this likely to happen in war reporting? What does this suggest as a caution to readers and viewers?</p> <p><strong>7. </strong>Why, as Massing comments, didn't reporters ask questions about attacks on power plants and the like? Or about the American use of napalm?</p> <p><strong>8. </strong>Why did US TV viewers not see the unedited results of an air-raid shelter bombing?</p> <p><strong>9. </strong>What does Chris Hedges mean by the "myths" of war, heroism, patriotism, glory? He says that in the Gulf War a "mythic or mendacious narrative...was presented to us." Based on what you know, do you agree? Why or why not? In what ways can war become entertainment? What does Hedges mean by "every generation...seems not to listen to those who went through it before"? By "war is always about betrayal"? Some of these questions might also be usefully discussed first in small groups to give everyone an opportunity to have his/her voice heard. Considering their importance, the teacher might want to use a <strong>fish bowl technique</strong>.</p> <p>The fish bowl is a way to engage the entire class in one small-group dialogue. Invite five to seven students to begin a conversation on one of the questions above. Ask them to make a circle of chairs in the middle of the room. Try to ensure that this group reflects diverse points of view. Ask everyone else to make a circle of chairs around the fish bowl, so there will be a smaller circle within a larger circle. Only people in the fish bowl can speak; thus, the process facilitates a kind of sustained, focused listening.</p> <p>One way to facilitate a fish bowl is:</p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Ask a question and invite students in the fish bowl to speak to it in a "go-around" without interruption.</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Designate a specific amount of time for clarifying questions and further comments from students in the fish bowl.</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Invite students in the larger circle to participate after about 15 minutes; a student may enter the fish bowl by tapping a fish bowl student on the shoulder and moving into that student's seat.</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Continue this same procedure with additional questions.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON SEVEN</h3> <p><strong>Student Reading: </strong></p> <h2>New rules for a new war</h2> <p>For this second war with Iraq, the Pentagon has a new set of rules. The one getting the most attention is that journalists covering a US attack on Iraq will be "embedded," or have assigned slots with combat and support units and stay with them for up to two months. About 500 correspondents, including about 100 from foreign and international press agencies, have already been given slots. Many have also been trained for combat conditions and offered the same inoculations against smallpox and anthrax that American soldiers have received.</p> <p>This policy is a significant change from the tight restrictions the Pentagon has enforced since the Vietnam War. Most news executives and reporters welcomed the change. David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning correspondent for <em>The New York Times</em>, praised it, "given the controls last time [1991], which were excessive." He added, though, that the crucial issue was access: "Can you get where you want?" Donatella Lorch, a <em>Newsweek</em> correspondent, said the new policy "brings up a lot of issues for reporters," a major one being the pressure "to remain critical and independent" while living every day with troops one is covering.</p> <p>Dan Rather, the CBS news anchor, expressed concern that the Pentagon would continue to make it difficult to get out images telling a story other than the one the military want told. "A lot of people said the right things," Rather said. "In the fog of war, these things have a way of changing."</p> <p>Because it is likely that some "embedded" correspondents will be with units that see little or no action, <em>Newsweek</em> has announced that, like most other major news organizations, it will have "correspondents roaming the region freely as well as embedded with troops. It's like campaign coverage; you need some reporters on the plane with the candidates and others out talking to the voters. One big question is how the military will treat reporters who aren't embedded."</p> <p>The changes are possibly the result of 1) the desire of the Pentagon to have correspondents be able to give firsthand reports that would counter any Iraqi claims of American atrocities and 2) the drumfire of criticism of past restrictions.</p> <p>Other Pentagon rules include the following:</p> <ul> <li>Reporters cannot carry a sidearm.</li> <li>They cannot use flash photography at night.</li> <li>They cannot report a unit's exact position.</li> <li>They cannot release reports of live, continuing action without the permission of the commanding officer.</li> <li>They cannot report on future or cancelled operations.</li> <li>They can give the date, time and place of military action, as well as any results, in general terms only.</li> </ul> <p>Of course, news organizations can censor themselves. For example, there has already been criticism of a CNN document, "Reminder of Script Approval Policy," that states: "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval. Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved [and those originating from] all international bureaus must come to the ROW in Atlanta for approval." (The "ROW" is the row of CNN script editors in Atlanta who can demand changes or "balances" in a reporter's work.) "A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorized manager...When a script is updated it must be re-approved..."</p> <p>Media critic Robert Fisk comments, "Note the key words here: 'approved' and 'authorized'. CNN's man or woman in Kuwait or Baghdad...may know the background to his or her story; indeed, they will know far more about than the 'authorities' in Atlanta. But CNN's chiefs will decide the spin of the story....The relevance of this is all too obvious in the next Gulf War. We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on the air." This system of "script approval," says Fisk, refers to "someone" making a change in the script but doesn't say who the "someone" is. He concludes: "But when we recall that CNN revealed after the 1991 Gulf War that it had allowed Pentagon 'trainees' into the CNN newsroom in Atlanta, I have my suspicions."</p> <p>Paul Scott Mowrer, editor of the <em>Chicago Daily News</em>, writes: "In this nation of ours, the final political decisions rest with the people. And the people, so that they may make up their minds, must be given the facts, even in time of war, or perhaps especially in time of war."</p> <p>Dr. David Considine, an Appalachian State University professor of media studies, writes: "The mass media is not only capable of shaping products but also shaping the perceptions we have. It's not just a question of what we see but what we don't see, what we are told but what we are not told. It's a question of whose stories are told and who's doing the telling....Public policy is frequently based on public perception....So clearly, what stories are told and what stories are left out really can shape our perceptions and then, as a result of that, public policy."</p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>What is your reaction to the Pentagon's new rules for war coverage? What do you think is the reason for each rule?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Why might news organizations censor themselves? What are Fisk's criticisms of CNN policies? What are your reactions to those criticisms?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> What does Fisk mean when he writes, "We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on the air"? What are his "suspicions"? Why?</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Do you agree with Mowrer's comment? Why or why not? How do you think the Pentagon might respond to it?</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> What is your reaction to Considine's remarks? Do you think the media have shaped any of your perceptions? For example, what is your view of the war on Iraq? How did you come to this view? What role do you think any of the media played? How can we know "what we don't see" and "what we are not told"?<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>For future work</strong></p> <p>Assign students to specific newspapers, radio stations, and TV networks and cable channels as regular "beats" to report on regularly about how war news is treated. Include mainstream news sources such as newspapers in the area, network and public radio and TV and cable channels, as well as such alternative news sources as WBAI (radio) or those available on the Internet—for example, <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php">fair.org</a>. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">commondreams.org</a> and <a href="http://www.fpif.org/">fpif.org</a> (Foreign Policy in Focus).The web provides a wealth of foreign news sources, some of which students could check against U.S. media reporting. In its section on publications, the<em> New York Times</em> Navigator makes it possible to find newspapers around the world. At the <em>Columbia Journal Review</em> site (<a href="http://www.cjr.org/">cjr.org</a>), click on Media Finder for world newspapers as well as newspapers in every state of the U.S. Still another source is <a href="http://newslink.org/">http://newslink.org/</a>.</p> <p><br> Some of the following questions may be useful for them to apply on a sustained basis to the stories they read, hear or view.</p> <p><strong>1. </strong>How objective is the reporting? Does the reporter use mainly the language of reports? What, if any, evidence is there of bias in the use of judgmental language, photographs and/or film? Note especially verbs and adjectives as possible sources of judgments. If there are judgments, do they seem fair to make? Why or why not? Try to imagine how an Iraqi might view the story.</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> From whose point of view is the story told? Be specific. Tipoffs are words like "our" and "the enemy." Students might consider the common headline that appeared early in the crisis with Iraq on several TV news channels: "Showdown with Saddam." From whose point of view is this headline? What tone is established by using Saddam Hussein's first name? What would be your reaction if the headline said: 'Showdown by George'?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> How would you describe the story's tone? What language, photographs, and/or film lead you to your conclusion?</p> <p><strong>4. </strong>Is the story entirely based on an eyewitness account? If not, what other sources of information are there for the story? If you can't tell, why not? Note the use of passive voice and what it might indicate.</p> <p><strong>5.</strong> Do you have any reason(s) to doubt the accuracy of the story? What and why? Can you note any corrections of a story at a later time?</p> <p><strong>6.</strong> How complete does the story seem to be? What, if any, questions that you have go unanswered? Why? Is there any evidence of deliberate, significant omissions? What and why?</p> <p><strong>7.</strong> What perceptions about the war does the story encourage? What is your evidence for them? Consider in this connection, especially, the impact of certain words, photographs, or film segments.</p> <p><strong>8.</strong> Does anything about the story—or anything the reporter says—suggest that the military have censored it? That the newspaper, radio station, or TV channel may have censored itself? Why?</p> <p><strong>9.</strong> Does the story question any information the military is supplying? What and why?</p> <p><strong>10. </strong>Are any newscasts on radio or TV accompanied by patriotic music? Why? Does a TV channel show the American flag as a backdrop or use any other patriotic American symbols? Why?</p> <p><strong>11.</strong> What other questions do students have about their study of war reporting?</p> <p>In addition to hearing a sampling of student reports on their news analyses, the class might also consider similarities and differences among the media. For example, students should become aware, if they are not already, that TV and radio reports are likely to be very brief, perhaps not much more than might appear in a newspaper headline. On the other hand, while photographs may appear with newspaper articles, TV almost always features film. What, if anything, does such film add to the report? For example, why is a statement by the president delivered by a reporter standing in front of the White House? Radio can only offer words and sounds but is capable of affecting the imagination powerfully. But all news reports, whatever the medium, use language that is open, as is film, to scrutiny and criticism.</p> <p>Some students might be interested in checking out the claims of cable news channels. Fox's motto is "We report. You decide." CNN claims to be "the most trusted name in news." What do you understand these claims to mean? How accurate do you judge them to be? Based on what evidence?<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Possible subjects for further inquiry</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Government secrecy about the effects of the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>The accuracy of information provided to reporters by the government during the war in Grenada.</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> War reporting by such famous writers as Ernie Pyle and Ernest Hemingway in World War II and the TV reporting of the Gulf War from Baghdad by Peter Arnett</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> The impact of war photographs taken by Matthew Brady in the Civil War</p> <p><strong>5. </strong>The role of William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers in bringing on the Spanish-American War.</p> <p><strong>6.</strong> The release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 by the New York Times and then the Washington Post and the court battle it occasioned.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>Sources</h4> <p><strong>Books</strong></p> <p>William E. Gardner et al, <em>Selected Case Studies in American History</em><br> John Dover, <em>War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War</em><br> Loren Baritz, <em>Backfire: The Myths That Made Us Fight, The Illusions That Haunt Us Today</em><br> Theodore Draper, <em>Abuse of Power</em><br> Howard Kurtz, <em>Media Circus: The Trouble with America's Newspapers</em><br> Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert E. Kaiser, <em>The News About the News</em><br> Phillip Knightley, <em>The First Casualty</em><br> Anthony Swofford, <em>Jarhead</em></p> <p><strong>Newspapers, Magazines and Newsletters</strong></p> <p><em>New York Post</em>, 2/24/03<br> <em>New York Times Book Review</em>, 3/2/03 and regular edition, 2/18/03<br> Center for Defense Information, "Defense Monitor," Vol. XXIII, No.4<br> <em>The Nation</em>, 1/17/14/02, 2/24/03, 3/17/03<br> <em>Columbia Journalism Review</em>, May/June 1991<br> <em>Newsweek</em>, 3/10/03, 3/17/03 Christian Science Monitor, 12/4/01<br> <em>Bulletin of Atomic Scientists</em>, August 1985</p> <p><strong>Websites</strong></p> <p>Center for Public Integrity: cpi.org<br> FAIR: <a href="http://www.fair.org">www.fair.org</a><br> The Guardian: guardian.co.uk, 2/5/03<br> The Independent: independent.co.uk, 2/25/03</p> <p><strong>Telecast</strong></p> <p>NOW with Bill Moyers, 3/7/03 (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html">http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html</a>)<br> <br> &nbsp;</p> <p><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T21:44:21-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 21:44">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:44:21 +0000 fionta 1034 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Iraq: 'A Grave & Deteriorating Situation' https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/iraq-grave-deteriorating-situation <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>Iraq: &#039;A Grave &amp; Deteriorating Situation&#039;</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Americans are caught up in a national debate about the future course of the United States in Iraq. President Bush's policy for Iraq now commands the support of only 27 percent of Americans, and the Iraq Study Group has reported that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>What should the U.S. do? The student reading below offers an overview of the five most discussed strategies, issues associated with each, and suggestions for class activities and student inquiry.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>See the high school section of TeachableMoment for sets of background materials dealing with events and issues on Iraq, 2002-2006.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Student Reading:</h3> </div> <h2>Five Strategies for Iraq, Part One</h2> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." This is the opening sentence of the executive summary of a report released in December 2006 by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). It explains: "Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, Al Qaeda and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In September the ISG spent four days in Baghdad, where their grim views on the Iraq situation reached a turning point. "They found the trip so harrowing, they said, that they wondered if they could afford to wait to speak out about the disaster in Iraq," reported the <em>New York Times</em> on December 8, 2006.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"Like other visitors, they arrived on a C-130 transport plane that performed a plunging corkscrew maneuver to avoid insurgent fire while landing at Baghdad's airport. Then they were bundled into flak jackets and helmets and rushed onto attack helicopters for the five-minute flight to the Green Zone, the military-controlled neighborhood that is sealed off from the city. There they were placed in a fleet of armored Humvees, each with a medic seated in the back to offer first aid in the event of a rocket attack. The roar of the Humvees' engines could not mask the sound of explosions from car bombs outside the Green Zone. The security measures had been routine for most of the American occupation, but they were still jarring to these first-time visitors to the war zone." (New York Times, 12/8/06)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>What should the United States do? Here are five different answers to this question proposed by various U.S. leaders. (Part One of the reading includes the first two answers, Part Two includes the other three.)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1. Follow the Iraq Study Group Recommendations</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The Iraq Study Group made 79 recommendations, all of which should be acted on because in the ISG view they represent a comprehensive strategy. The ISG consisted of five Republicans and five Democrats who reached consensus for their report.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Its three most crucial points include:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>a. </strong>Shift U.S. military emphasis from combat toward training and support for</div> <div>Iraq's army by embedding American advisors in it. All combat brigades "not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq" by the first quarter of 2008.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: For some time U.S. military have been training Iraq's army, but it is poorly equipped and lacks strong leadership. Its soldiers are frequently absent. Embedded American soldiers could well be in great danger without U.S. military support. Another issue is whether Shiites, who make up an overwhelming majority of both the army and the police, would be motivated to fight Shiite militias, if necessary. And even if Iraq army training were successful, it is unclear how many American troops might be withdrawn.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>b. </strong>Emphasize to Iraq's leaders that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended and requires progress in "national reconciliation, security, and governance." Implicit would be a U.S. threat to leave if Iraqis don't make this progress.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: In calling for national reconciliation, the Iraq Study Group asks Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to overcome serious religious, ethnic, and political differences. Otherwise, the report declared, "the security situation cannot improve." Since "national reconciliation" has not occurred in almost four years, it is unclear what will motivate the three major groups to overcome antagonisms that have sparked sectarian violence for many months.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>c.</strong> Enlist the help of countries, including Iran and Syria, that have an important stake in preventing Iraq's slide into chaos.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: The leaders of Iran and Syria may have reason to think that they will ultimately gain by chaos in Iraq. Probably more important: Given their poor relations with the U.S., why should they want to help? What's in it for them? In any case, President Bush has stated repeatedly that he will not engage in direct talks until Iran stops enriching uranium and Syria stops its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Iran's foreign minister has said his country has no interest in talks unless the U.S. commits to withdrawing its troops from Iraq.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>(Note: access to the complete ISG Report is available through, among other sources, <a href="http://www.pbs.org">www.pbs.org</a>.)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. Send in more troops (John McCain)</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Senator McCain (R-AZ) argues for sending in at least 20,000 more troops to provide security, especially in Baghdad. McCain said that the U.S. "should not characterize such a redeployment as 'short-term' or place a timetable on its presence. Our troops should be sent to Baghdad—or anywhere in Iraq—in order to complete a defined mission, not to serve until some predetermined date passes. Only by cracking down on independent militias, reducing criminal and terrorist activity, and protecting the population and key infrastructure—none of which can be accomplished without more troops—can a political settlement begin to take hold." (12/6/06)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: With some success, the U.S. has repeatedly sent more troops into such Iraqi cities as Ramadi and into Baghdad neighborhoods to pacify them. But in time, the troops were called upon to go elsewhere, after which the insurgents reappeared and the same security issues recurred. More U.S. troops and more U.S. air attacks have also meant inevitably the maiming and killing of innocent civilians.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>For example: "Angry residents of a village north of Baghdad fired weapons in the air as they buried victims of an American airstrike, Reuters reported. The American military said that the airstrike was against militants of Al Qaeda who had fought with troops. &nbsp;Local officials in the village said there were 17 killed, but that they included 6 women and 5 children. Hundreds of chanting residents marched on Saturday firing shots and carrying banners that condemned 'mass killing by the occupation forces,' Reuters said." (<em>New York Times</em>, 12/10/06).</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1. </strong>What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2.</strong> Right now, sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis are the major cause for the violence in Iraq. What do you understand those differences to be? If you don't understand them, how might you learn more about them?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>3. </strong>In addition to the Iraqi army and other Iraqi security forces like the police, the U.S. has 140,000 soldiers in the country. Insurgents, Shiite and Sunni militias, terrorists, and criminals are far fewer in number. What is your understanding of why, then, American and Iraqi troops and other security forces have been unable to stop the violence? If you have no satisfactory answer, what sources of information might help you to understand?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Student Reading:</h3> </div> <h2>Five Strategies for Iraq, Part Two</h2> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>3. Withdraw forces quickly (Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, John Murtha)</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has proposed legislation to require that U.S. troops be withdrawn from Iraq by July 1, 2007. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has called for Congress to cut funding for the war and to bring troops home immediately. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has urged getting out of Iraq in the next six to eight months. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) would "immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: Opponents of this course think U.S. withdrawal might lead to a heightened civil war in Iraq. They think it might also lead predominately Sunni countries (like Saudi Arabia) or predominately Shiite countries (like Iraq) to intervene directly in Iraq to protect their fellow sect members and their own security interests.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>4. Divide Iraq into three statelets (Peter Galbraith, John Biden)</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Some have proposed dividing Iraq into three stateletsóKurdistan in the north, a Sunni region in the center, and a Shiite republic in the south. The original author of this proposal, Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat and a consultant to the Kurds, wrote more than two years ago, "In my view, Iraq is not salvageable as a unitary state." Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the chief congressional supporter of this idea.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: Polls indicate that most Iraqis want a unitary state. Such a division would also have to take into consideration the fact that most of Iraq's valuable oil reserves and the main source of its national income are in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. If there were an agreement to share oil wealth, would Sunnis trust Shiites and Kurds to divide profits fairly with them? And what about profits from oil fields yet to be discovered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>5. Continue Bush administration strategy</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>President Bush says the U.S. objective in Iraq is "a government which can sustain, govern and defend itself, and will be an ally, against this movement [Al Qaeda] that is threatening peace and stability." (12/7/06) The president's most recent comments on Iraq, including after the Iraq Study Group issued its report, indicate that he continues to defend major elements of his existing strategy. While he supports training the Iraqi army, he opposes pulling back combat troops, sending in more troops or withdrawing any forces on a timetable.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Issues: Most Americans think the U.S. is trapped in a no-win situation and do not support the president's strategy. In a survey by Associated Press-Ipsos (12/4/06-12/8/06), 71 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the president's policies in Iraq; only 27 percent expressed support for them.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>(Note: for further detail on each strategy see the website of the officials most closely associated with it.)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Some conclusions</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The 2006 congressional elections confirmed that most Americans appear to agree with the Iraq Study Group statement: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In Congress, there is wide agreement that the U.S. strategy should include:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <ul> <li>some kind of phased withdrawal, but not on a specific timetable</li> <li>involving Iraq's neighbors in helping to stabilize the country</li> <li>training Iraq's police forces and army</li> <li>obtaining economic aid, political help, and peacekeeping forces from other nations</li> </ul> <div>None of those who support one or some combination of the five strategies can guarantee success in Iraq. The results of any strategy are unpredictable and might make the situation in Iraq worse—possibly much worse.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>President Bush makes the final decisions on strategy and will announce them, he said, after he has reviewed not only the ISG recommendations but also those from the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the National Security Council.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Congress has the power to restrain the president's decisions through, for example, refusing to authorize funding for themóbut has not made any serious effort to do so.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>On October 6, the House of Representatives voted 376-50 in favor of a Defense Appropriations bill that specifically stated opposition to permanent military bases in Iraq. But most supporters of bringing U.S. troops home soon do not say they support withdrawing all the troops. And the U.S. now has huge military bases in Iraq that seem very permanent. Balad, a logistical support air base, houses 20,000 soldiers in air-conditioned containers. Most never leave the base or interact with an Iraqi. Balad has the amenities of an American town with a miniature golf course, a Pizza Hut, and a 24-hour Burger King. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com" target="_blank">www.washingtonpost.com</a>, 2/4/06) Unless there is a dramatic change in policy, U.S. troops will be in Iraq "for a long, long time," as James Baker, co-chairman of the ISG, said when its report was made public.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. </strong>After President Bush announces his decision about any course changes he proposes for Iraq, have students discuss their reactions to them in the light of the situation there.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h4><strong>Fish Bowl</strong></h4> </div> <div>A "fish bowl" is one way to engage the entire class in a small-group dialogue. This technique is especially useful when emotions are heated or when students bring vastly different perceptions to a controversial topic.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Invite five to seven students to begin the conversation. Ask them to make a circle with their chairs in the middle of the room. Try to ensure that this group reflects diverse points of view on the issue.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Ask everyone else to make a circle of chairs around the fish bowl. There will then be a smaller circle within a larger circle. Only people in the fish bowl can speak; thus, the process facilitates a kind of sustained, focused listening that is not often witnessed in a high school classroom.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Begin by asking a question and invite students in the fish bowl to speak to it. In this case, for example, the teacher might ask: Do you agree with the Iraq Study Group that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating?" Why or why not? Invite each student in the fish bowl, in turn, to respond without being interrupted. Then allow time for clarifying questions and further comments from students in the fish bowl.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After 15 minutes or so, invite students from the larger circle to participate in the fish bowl conversation by tapping a fish bowl student on the shoulder and moving into that student's seat. Continue using this same procedure with additional questions about each of the proposed strategies.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Allow time at the end of the session for student assessment of the fish bowl experience. Were all points of view heard? Respected? What new ideas, questions, and facts were introduced into the discussion that complicated your thinking about an issue? Do you now hold any different views than you did before the fish bowl?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>For inquiry</h4> <div>Student might explore:</div> <ul> <li>Significant unanswered questions during class discussion and the fish bowl</li> <li>Origins of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds</li> <li>Major leaders of each group-their backgrounds and views</li> <li>Similarities and differences between U.S. wars in Iraq and Vietnam</li> </ul> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>For writing and citizenship</h4> <div>Write a letter to your representative, one of your senators, or the president expressing your views about the situation in Iraq, what should be done about it, and why.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a>.</em></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T14:39:11-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 14:39">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:39:11 +0000 fionta 731 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org HUMANITARIANS in Action & in Danger https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/humanitarians-action-danger <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>HUMANITARIANS in Action &amp; in Danger</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>As soon as a conflict erupts, humanitarian organizations spring into action. And after a conflict stops, humanitarian aid continues. But helping suffering people is difficult and often dangerous. The student reading below discusses such dangers in Lebanon, Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Gaza. Discussion questions and suggestions for further inquiry and for citizenship activities follow.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Teachers will find additional background on several of the conflicts in the following lessons, which are available on this website: "Middle East Conflict: A Civilian Catastrophe," "Israelis vs. Palestinians: New Leaders &amp; Old Problems," "Genocide in Darfur."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 1:</h3> <h2>Humanitarians under fire</h2> </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Warfare of various kinds—civil wars, insurgencies, terrorist bombings and assassinations—are active in many places where people need help from humanitarian organizations. In addition to the conflicts described below, there are also conflicts underway now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nepal, Somalia, Chechnya, Colombia, and Gaza.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Lebanon</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>War means danger, suffering, and death for ordinary human beings who happen to be where fighting and bombing occur. Workers in humanitarian organizations who bring help to them are often also in danger and may themselves be injured or killed.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The war between Israel and the Lebanese group Hezbollah forced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians to leave their homes. They needed food, water, shelter, and medical assistance. An Israeli bomb took out the one bridge into Lebanon's south. "Now all the population living in the south is completely isolated," said Sergio Cecchini, a spokesman for Doctors Without Borders (<a href="http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org">www.doctorswithoutborders.org</a>), an organization that was awarded the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize for its humanitarian work. Doctors Without Borders formed a human chain in the Litani River to ferry medical supplies. Days later, shellings and air strikes narrowly missed two of its convoys.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Conditions were so bad that workers for the International Committee of the Red Cross (<a href="http://www.icrc.org">www.icrc.org</a>) could not reach a patient in a village in southern Lebanon for four days. She had to have her leg amputated. Jan Egeland, the chief United Nations humanitarian affairs official, called it "a disgrace" that Israel and Hezbollah would not stop fighting long enough to allow help to reach civilians in southern Lebanon.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>A Mercy Corps (<a href="http://www.mercycorps.org">www.mercycorps.org</a>) convoy drove the 35-mile route between Beirut, Lebanon, and Majayoun, a southern Lebanese town. Normally this is a 45-minute trip. But now the roads were so cratered by bombs that the convoy had to drive through groves of olive trees instead. It took the relief group five hours to reach the town.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>(Source: <em>New York Times</em>, 8/8/06)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Congo</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Between 1997 and 2004, nearly 4 million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo died in a civil war, and many women were raped. Many Congolese live in areas where there are no paved roads, so it was difficult for aid workers to reach the war's victims. In addition, Congolese authorities and military often harassed and intimidated aid workers.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Brian Larson, the former director for CARE (<a href="http://www.care.org">www.care.org</a>) in Congo, traveled to a remote area where he met with eight women who had been raped. "I learned that not only did the women suffer from the violence of the rape, they also had to suffer in silence, as there was no medical care for them, and they were viewed by society as damaged goods. Many of them were thrown out of their homes by their husbands and family—as if the rape was their fault."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>(Source: <em>New York Times</em>, 8/8/06)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Darfur</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In another African country, Sudan, a genocidal civil war in the Darfur region has killed hundreds of thousands and made refugees of 3 million. Save the Children (<a href="http://www.savethechildren.org">www.savethechildren.org</a>) can reach only one-half of the refugee camps because of "lawlessness" and "unpredictable incidents of terror and violence." Its programs include supplying food and water and creating health clinics for children and adults. Because many young children are being forced to become soldiers in Darfur, the organization also has a program to correct misinformation people have about military service for children.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Despite flight restrictions and a bad security situation, AmeriCares (<a href="http://www.americares.org">www.americares.org</a>) airlifted into Darfur hospital equipment, water purification solutions, and medications for respiratory ailments, intestinal disorders, and malaria. The International Rescue Committee (<a href="http://www.theirc.org">www.theirc.org</a>) , a partner of AmeriCares in Darfur, distributed these materials.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"July was the worst month of the three-year-old conflict in terms of attacks on aid workers and operations," the IRC reported. Aid workers were intimidated and harassed and their vehicles stolen. Much worse, eight humanitarian workers were violently killed.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Sources: Save the Children, AmeriCares, and The International Rescue Committee.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Sri Lanka</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Not long after a tsunami brought devastation, death—and humanitarian aid—to Sri Lanka, that country's long-term civil war between government and separatist forces resumed . Aid workers have been unable to reach the hardest hit areas. They have also been subject to repeated attacks. In the worst of these, 17 employees of Action Against Hunger (<a href="http://www.actionagainsthunger.org">www.actionagainsthunger.org</a>) were massacred in August.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Source: <em>New York Times</em>, 8/18/06</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about Part One? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. </strong>What do students think they know about the Israel-Hezbollah war? The Congo civil war? the Darfur genocide? What are their sources of information? What would they like to know? How might they find out?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>3.</strong> What possible reasons are there for attacks on humanitarian workers?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 2:</h3> <h2>Humanitarian Crises in Gaza and Darfur</h2> </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Gaza</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>One year after Israel evacuated all of its settlers and soldiers from what was to be Palestinian-controlled Gaza, Israeli troops and tanks returned in the summer of 2006. Israeli planes repeatedly bombed suspected locations of Palestinian militants who had resumed firing rockets across the border into Israel. Inevitably, civilians were wounded or killed in bombing raids.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>CARE reports that it, like several other humanitarian organizations, has been "overwhelmed by calls for assistance as families struggle to cope without incomes, and without the means to ensure their families are safe and protected from the violence." For example, on the night of July 21, 2006, 11-year-old Fuad Ijbarah woke, terrified, to the sounds of weapons firing and tanks moving toward the tin shack his family lived in. Fuad said, "We had to leave the house immediately. I don't know how long it took us to walk to Rafah." He and his family are now living there indefinitely in a tent.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>One significant source of jobs in Gaza was work in greenhouses. In Beit Lahia 27 greenhouses rehabilitated by CARE were destroyed and another 23 damaged by Israeli attacks. More than 100 yards of the Beit Hanoun Municipality playground, rehabilitated by Save the Children, was badly damaged. Other organizations reported damage to project sites and offices and equipment. They also reported that donor funds they had used for certain activities had been frozen.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After the militant Palestinian organization Hamas won parliamentary elections that gave them power in the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. and the European Union suspended financial aid to Palestine, and the US Treasury banned almost all financial dealings with the Authority. For Palestinians this meant sharp cutbacks in health, water, sanitation and waste disposal services. The many Palestinians who had received a salary from the Authority were cut off.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>More than two dozen humanitarian organizations, including Action Against Hunger, American Friends Service Committee, Oxfam International, Campaign for Children of Palestine and World Vision Jerusalem, called upon the international community to work with all parties to stop the fighting, to seek a peaceful resolution, to ensure access to humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians living in Gaza, and to protect, in particular, the lives of children in Gaza.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Darfur</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>It doesn't seem possible, but the situation in Darfur continues to worsen. Dr. Denis Lemasson, the program director for Doctors Without Borders, reported after his return in August 2006 from Darfur, that while he was in Mornay a medical team arrived. "They had been attacked and beaten on the road and their car struck by gunfire."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>He said that the number of armed groups fighting had increased, as had criminal activity. Travel on certain roads became too dangerous for Doctors Without Borders workers. The group had to suspend the work of mobile clinics that serve nomadic people and in some locations had to evacuate teams who faced the risk of being killed.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Lemasson reported that the displaced people, now in refugee camps, "are completely dependent on international aid for access to food, water, health care, and shelter. When they go outside the camp, they run the daily risk of beatings, rape, and death. &nbsp;[They] have no chance—and no prospect—of returning to their home villages."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>What makes the situation of the Darfur people even worse is that "international aid is declining," Dr. Lemasson wrote. Food distributions are being cut back, water distribution is inadequate and health care needs are great. "On top of that, if security problems result in the closure of programs basic survival needs will not be met." He pleaded with armed groups "not to interfere with the work of humanitarian aid organizations."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1.</strong> What questions do students have about Reading 2? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. </strong>What do students think they know about the Israel-Gaza conflict? What are their sources of information? What would they like to know? How might they find out?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Student Reading 3:</h3> </div> <h2>Frequently asked questions</h2> <div><strong>Where do humanitarian organizations get their money from?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>All depend upon voluntary contributions, though some are funded in part by corporations, foundations, national societies, and governmental agencies.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>How much of this money goes to those in need?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In general, about 90% of the money goes directly for humanitarian assistance. About 10% goes for administrative salaries and fundraising.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>How do the organizations decide on where to spend money?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Each has a special mission, which it defines on its website. Executive groups, boards of trustees, and special commissions determine specific decisions about the use of money.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>What opportunities do humanitarian organizations offer to young people who want to participate in their work?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Volunteers and interns are needed at most organizations, and usually must be of college age.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>How can I find out more about an organization?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Examine the organization's website as well as two other sources of information, the American Council for Voluntary International Action (<a href="http://www.interaction.org">www.interaction.org</a>), an alliance of more than 160 U.S.-based humanitarian organizations, and Charity Navigator (<a href="http://www.charitynavigator.org">www.charitynavigator.org</a>), which provides information on over 5,000 charities and evaluates the financial situation and health of each.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h4>For inquiry</h4> </div> <div>Any of the conflicts and humanitarian organizations discussed in the readings could be subjects for further inquiry. What interests students most? What questions do they have? How can they answer them? The suggestion here is that whatever subject an individual or small group chooses, their first step is to frame a well-defined question and to have it approved by the teacher. See "Thinking Is Questioning" and "Teaching Critical Thinking," both of which are available on this website for detailed suggestions about procedures.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>For citizenship</h4> <div>One may easily despair at the number of armed conflicts around the world and the suffering they inevitably cause for men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the fighting. Most humanitarian organizations responding to human-made disasters do not take sides and resist despair. Their purpose is to help those in need, despite many difficulties and dangers. Some, like Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam International, also address what they regard as the causes of the suffering, the obstacles to helping civilians and violations of international law.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The American Council for Voluntary International Action (<a href="http://www.interaction.org">www.interaction.org</a>) stresses that the best form of help is money. It enables an organization to buy exactly what is needed.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Find out if students are interested in a project to help non-combatants suffering as a result of an armed conflict. If they are:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1.</strong> Which conflict do they wish to respond to? What might they need to find out about each conflict before making a decision? What procedures might make the most sense to answer their questions?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2.</strong> Have students brainstorm ideas for raising money. Write all ideas on the chalkboard without stopping for any discussion. When students have no further ideas, invite discussion to select the one or two that seem most doable. How will the group organize to carry out any decisions?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>3.</strong> Which organization(s) do they want to contribute to? What might they need to find out about an organization before making a decision? Who will make each investigation and how?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a>.</em></div> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T14:39:11-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 14:39">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:39:11 +0000 fionta 729 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org The Torture Issue (with a DBQ) https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/torture-issue-dbq <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>The Torture Issue (with a DBQ)</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <p>U.S. abuse and torture of prisoners is an issue that exploded into public prominence with the photographs from Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004. Reports from such human rights organizations as Human Rights Watch (hrw.org), the American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org) and Amnesty International (amnesty.org) continue to document prisoner torture and violations of American international commitments under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. See the websites of these organizations for such documentation.</p> <p>President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have insisted repeatedly that the U.S. does not torture prisoners despite evidence to the contrary embodied in reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Pentagon, the FBI, official commissions and documents retrieved by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act. See "Torture and War Crimes: The U.S. Record in Documents" on this website for a student reading that includes administration legal memoranda on allowable interrogation techniques and the results of inquiries into prisoner treatment.</p> <p>The student reading below on "The Torture Issue" includes specific examples of U.S. treatment of prisoners as revealed in various investigations, excerpts from the Third Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture, and a brief discussion of torture definitions. A DBQ (document-based question) follows. It includes statements from diverse points of view on the efficacy and morality of torture. Suggestions for use of the DBQ for student discussion appear in the section that follows on classroom activities.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>Reading:</h3> <h2>Views on Torture</h2> <p><strong>U.S. treatment of prisoners</strong></p> <p>The photographs of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib became public in the spring of 2004. Then came reports of additional abuses, especially in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A subsequent series of investigations by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Pentagon, the FBI, and special panels appointed by the president stimulated further controversy over U.S. treatment of prisoners. These investigations reported that Americans had used such practices as:</p> <ul> <li>Hooding prisoners to restrict their breathing and disorient them</li> <li>Handcuffing prisoners with tight flexi-cuffs causing skin lesions and nerve damage</li> <li>Beatings with hard objects, punching and kicking</li> <li>Forcing prisoners to parade naked, sometimes hooded, sometimes with women's underwear over the head</li> <li>Exposing hooded prisoners to loud music</li> <li>Forcing hooded prisoners to endure prolonged exposure to summer sun at temperatures of 122 degrees Fahrenheit or higher</li> <li>Forcing prisoners to remain for lengthy periods in such stress positions as squatting or standing with arms lifted</li> <li>Exposing prisoners to strobe lights and loud rock and rap music while air-conditioning is turned to maximum levels</li> <li>Forcing prisoners to bark like a dog, to crawl on the stomach and then being spit and urinated upon by MPs</li> <li>Waterboarding, a process in which the head is pushed under water until the person believes he is drowning</li> <li>Putting lit cigarettes in prisoners' ears</li> </ul> <p>Do some or all of these constitute torture?</p> <p>Army Major-General Taguba's report (2/04) states that prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib was "systemic" and not just practiced by a few soldiers. The Schlesinger Panel (appointed by President Bush) in its report (8/04) found that high-level officers bore responsibility for abusive treatment at various detention centers and for the deaths of at least five prisoners from torture. Dozens of other prisoners have died in U.S. custody, some under suspicious circumstances.</p> <p>The Third Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture, both of which were ratified years ago by the U.S., ban torture. This is what they say on that subject.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Third Geneva Convention</strong></p> <p>Article 13: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."</p> <p>Article 17: A prisoner of war is required "to give only his surname, first name and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personnel or serial number. &nbsp;No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever, Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."</p> <p>This Convention also states: "Should any doubt arise," all fighters are covered by the Geneva Conventions until "a competent tribunal decides they are not."</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment</strong></p> <p>Part 1, Article 1: "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."</p> <p>Article 2: "Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."</p> <p>Article 3: "No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.</p> <p>Article 4: "Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature."</p> <p>The Convention also declares, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."</p> <p>The United States has ratified the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture</p> <p><strong>What is torture?</strong></p> <p>"Acts of violence or intimidation" and "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted." The Third Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture use these words to define torture. For many years they were unchallenged.</p> <p>But soon after 9/11 Bush administration officials in the Justice Department introduced a new definition of torture. It had been requested by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales from Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. The latter wrote that "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." To be considered torture, the harm "must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent, damage." (8/1/02)</p> <p>After this memorandum became public in the summer of 2004, its extension of the meaning of torture created an uproar. The administration disavowed it, and in December 2004 issued a new legal opinion about torture. But it did not disclaim interrogation techniques authorized earlier or state specifically which of them the CIA continues to use. The president has said repeatedly that the U.S. does not torture prisoners, that such treatment is wrong. "Torture is wrong no matter where it occurs, and the United States will lead the fight to eliminate it everywhere." (6/24/04) But exactly what he and other U.S. officials mean by torture remains unclear.</p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>How adequate are the torture definitions in the Third Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture? Why? Can you write a better one?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>Which, if any, of the reported examples of prisoner treatment would you classify as torture? Why?</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Why do you suppose that Bush administration officials developed a new definition of torture after 9/11? Why do you suppose that later they disavowed it? Why do you think their definition of torture remains unclear?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>Document-Based Question</h4> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>DBQ Directions:</strong></p> <p>Read each item and then answer the question following it. After you have read all of the paragraphs, write an essay in response to item I.<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>A</strong></p> <p>[Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee] avowed that he was sure he was not the only member of the committee "more outraged by the outrage" over the photographs [of Abu Ghraib prisoners] than by what the photographs show. "These prisoners," Senator Inhofe explained, "you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in Cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals." It's the fault of "the media" which are provoking, and will continue to provoke, further violence against Americans around the world. More Americans will die. Because of these photos.</p> <p><em>Susan Sontag, "Regarding the Torture of Others," New York Times, 5/23/04</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> Why is Senator Imhofe more "outraged by the outrage" over the Abu Ghraib photographs than by what they show?</p> <p><strong>B</strong></p> <p>I was once [during the Vietnam War] physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron. I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.</p> <p><em>Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona), "Torture's Terrible Toll," Newsweek, 11/21/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> What potential problem does McCain see in using torture to elicit information?</p> <p><strong>C</strong></p> <p>The primary commodity, the primary weapon in this war with such an elusive enemy [as terrorists] is information. And the most reliable source of information comes from the people in al Qaeda you captured. The need for information from individual detainees is not as important in a normal nation-state world, where you can observe the other side's army and you know where their capital is. You have satellites and things, reconnaissance, where you can determine what's going on with the other side. You can't do that in a war with al Qaeda because they don't have territory, population or cities. And so the way to stop terrorist attacks is to get information from them.</p> <p>And the one thing I think we don't want is for the government to be hamstrung in the way it interrogates people who have knowledge of pending attacks against the United StatesÖ.We are facing a very aggressive, determined enemy to which the normal rules don't apply and they don't follow any rules as far as we can tell. What happens if we happen to capture Osama bin Laden? Are we going to restrict ourselves to reading [him] the Miranda rights, providing [him] with a lawyer and right to remain silent, and trying [him] in a federal court despite the fact that [he] must have knowledge, the names of al Qaeda operatives who may be in the United States and in Western Europe and who are planning attacks on the United States? I don't find any reasonable alternative being proposed by critics.</p> <p><em>John Yoo, deputy assistant attorney-general, 2001-2003, Frontline, pbs.org, 10/18/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> Why shouldn't the usual rules about prisoner interrogation apply to terrorists, in Yoo's opinion?</p> <p><strong>D</strong></p> <p>Let's take an example that is far from hypothetical. You capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan. He not only has already killed innocents, he is deeply involved in the planning for the present and future killing of innocents. He not only was the architect of the 9/11 attack that killed nearly three thousand people in one day. But as the top al Qaeda planner and logistical expert he also knows a lot about terror attacks to come. He knows plans, identities, contacts, materials, cell locations, safe houses. What do you do with him?....</p> <p>Let's posit that during the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we got intelligence about an imminent al Qaeda attack. And we had a very good reason to believe he knew about it. And if we knew what he knew, we could stop it there is waterboarding, a terrifying and deeply shocking torture technique in which the prisoner has his face exposed to water in a way that gives the feeling of drowning. According to CIA sources cited by ABC News, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "was able to last between two and 2 and ½ minutes before begging to confess." Should we regret having done that?....</p> <p>And what if he possessed information with less imminent implications? Say we had information about a cell that he had helped found or direct, and that cell was planning some major attack and we needed information. &nbsp;A rational moral calculus would surely permit measures beyond mere psychological pressure. Such a determination could not be made with an untroubled conscience. It would be troubled because there is no denying the monstrous evil that is any form of torture. And there is no denying how corrupting it can be to the individuals and society that practice it. But elected leaders, responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, have the obligation to tolerate their own sleepless nights by doing what is necessaryóand only what is necessary, nothing moreóto get information and prevent mass murder.</p> <p><em>Charles Krauthammer, contributing editor, "The Truth About Torture: it's time to be honest about doing terrible things," Weekly Standard, 12/5/02</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> Why does Krauthammer believe that even though torturing prisoners is evil, it is a duty of our leaders, under certain circumstances?</p> <p><strong>E</strong></p> <p>It is possible to concede that, in an extremely rare circumstance, torture may be used without conceding that it should be legalized. One imperfect but instructive analogy is civil disobedience. In that case, laws are indeed broken, but that does not establish that the laws should be broken. In fact, civil disobedience implies precisely that laws should not be broken, and protesters who engage in it present themselves promptly for imprisonment and legal sanction on exactly those grounds. They are saying that laws do matter, that they should be enforced, but that their conscience in this instance demands that they disobey them.</p> <p>A rough parallel can be drawn for a president faced with [a] horrendous decision. &nbsp;He may have to break the law [because] a president might well decide that, if the survival of the nation is at stake, he must make an exception. At the same time, he must subject himself to the consequences of an illegal act. Those guilty of torturing another human being must be punishedóor pardoned ex post facto.</p> <p><em>Andrew Sullivan, Senior Editor, "The Abolition of Torture, The New Republic, 12/19/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> How does Sullivan think the use of torture in some circumstances might be similar to the use of civil disobedience?</p> <p><strong>F</strong></p> <p>The abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have become international embarrassments for the United States, and by many accounts have helped to recruit young people to join al Qaeda. The U.S. has squandered the sympathy it had on September 12, 2001, and we now find ourselves in a world perhaps more hostile than ever before. With respect to detainees, the U.S. is now in an untenable bind: on the one hand, it has become increasingly unacceptable for the U.S. to hold hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without trying them; on the other hand our coercive and inhumane interrogation tactics have effectively granted many of the prisoner immunity from trial. Because the evidence we might use against them is tainted by their mistreatment, trials would likely turn into occasions for exposing the United States' brutal interrogation tactics.</p> <p><em>David Cole, "What Bush Wants to Hear," The New York Review, 11/17/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> What is the "bind" the U.S. has created for itself in its handling of prisoners, in Cole's opinion?</p> <p><strong>G</strong></p> <p>As a journalist who had reported on torture and torture victims, and who therefore thought he knew something about the subject, I was surprised that I was finding it harder than most commentators and most people I knew to take a fixed view of coercive force in interrogation. I didn't know whether it was effective, whether it had any potential, as sometimes claimed, to save thousands of lives by preventing a catastrophic attack. How many lives would have to be demonstrably saved before such intimidation and punishment achieve a kind of moral sanction? If it could be shown with some certainty that, say, 10,000 lives would be saved, few purists would argue against the infliction of pain. If the number was a much smaller multiple of 10 and the degree of uncertainty candidly acknowledged, the true murkiness of the issue in the real world would have to be faced.</p> <p><em>Joseph Lelyveld, "Interrogating Ourselves," The New York Times, 6/12/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> Why is the writer uncertain about the usefulness of torture?</p> <p>H</p> <p>Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. The tortured person is bound and helpless. The torturer stands over him with his instruments. To abuse or kill a person in such a circumstance is as radical a denial of common humanity as possible. It is repugnant to learn that one's country's military forces are engaging in torture. It is worse to learn that the torture is widespread. It is worse still to learn that the torture was rationalized and sanctioned in long memorandums written by people at the highest level of government. Torture destroys the soul of torturer even as it destroys the body of his victim. The boundary between humane treatment of prisoners and torture is perhaps the clearest boundary in existence between civilization and barbarism.</p> <p><em>Jonathan Schell, writer, "What Is Wrong with Torture," The Nation, 2/7/05</em></p> <p><strong>Question:</strong> What are two reasons Schell believes torture is wrong?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>I</strong></p> <p>Opinions differ about how prisoners who are suspected of being terrorists and of having vital information should be treated.</p> <p>Using information from the above statements about prisoner treatment and any&nbsp;other knowledge you have on this subject, write a well-organized essay&nbsp;that includes an introduction, several paragraphs and a conclusion in which&nbsp;you:</p> <ul> <li>compare and contrast different viewpoints on prisoner treatment</li> <li>discuss your own viewpoint and the reasons for it</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>Classroom Activities</h4> <p><strong>1. Classroom discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>a.</strong> Have students read both parts of the two-part reading.</p> <p><strong>b.</strong> After they complete the reading, assign them to write two good questions about the torture issue. A good question is one which, if answered well, would lead them to a better insight into that issue. The question need not be one they can answer.</p> <p><strong>c. </strong>Write on the chalkboard without comment a sampling of student questions. Which three or four would students most like to discuss? Have them consider the nature of each questionóits clarity, the kind of answer it calls for, whether any words need definition. (See "the doubting game" section of "Teaching Critical Thinking" on this website for further suggestions.)</p> <p>d. Do a "go-around" with the following question: For vital information-gathering about terrorist activities, should the U.S. government, in crucial cases, permit torture? Why or why not?</p> <p><strong>e.</strong> Periodically, summarize major points.</p> <p><strong>f.</strong> If the discussion becomes heated, stop for a moment and do a feeling/reality check. How are students feeling about the discussion? Try to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Look for common ground. Discuss the differences between dialogue and debate.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>2. Fish Bowl</strong></p> <p>Invite five to seven students to begin a conversation about their reactions to different viewpoints about torture. Ask them to make a circle with their chairs in the middle of the room. Try to ensure that the group reflects diverse points of view.</p> <p>Ask everyone else to make a circle of chairs around the fish bowl. Only people in the fish bowl can speak. The others are to listen carefully. Facilitate the discussion by using student-generated questions and any others on the torture issue that seem appropriate. Each student in the fish bowl should have the opportunity to speak before a larger discussion takes place. Invite clarifying questions when appropriate</p> <p>After 15 minutes or so, invite students from the larger circle to participate in the fish bowl conversation by tapping a fish bowl student on the shoulder and moving into that student's seat.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>3. Debate</strong></p> <p>Organize a classroom debate on the following subject. "Resolved, that the U.S. government should permit torture of selected high-level prisoners to obtain vital information about terrorist activities.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>4. For Inquiry</strong></p> <ul> <li>The origins of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture</li> <li>Findings of the various investigations into U.S. treatment of prisoners</li> <li>Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross</li> <li>The Taguba Report</li> <li>The Schlesinger Panel Report</li> <li>The Fay-Jones Report</li> <li>The Church Report</li> <li>The Robb-Silberman Report</li> <li>Bush administration policies on prisoner treatment and how they were developed</li> <li>Individual casesóKhaled al-Masri, Maher Arar, both of whom are suing the U.S. government for mistaken arrest and mistreatment</li> </ul> <p><strong>5. For Citizenship</strong></p> <p>Letters and e-mails to representatives, senators, and the president expressing views on the torture debate. If there is a class consensus, students might be interested in drafting a detailed letter to such officials.</p> <p>Consider with students the possibility of having the debate suggested above for a school assembly.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a></em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T14:39:11-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 14:39">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:39:11 +0000 fionta 728 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org WEB RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/web-resources-teachers-about-iraq-war <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>WEB RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To teach about the Iraq war is, inevitably, to enter a minefield of controversy. But it is also an opportunity to promote a major educational goalóto increase understanding of a vital issue and of the country and the world we live in.</p> <p>Morningside Center is committed to social responsibility and social justice, to engagement with the lifeblood of education, the great controversial issues of our time. Education means critical inquiry—learning how to ask probing questions and how to pursue intelligent answers. It means opening ourselves to perspectives different from our own as well as scrutinizing and challenging them. It means expressing opinions and listening carefully to those of others in an environment free from student ridicule or teacher condemnation. It also means acting on our understandings and beliefs.</p> <p>On this website, TeachableMoment, Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility offers multiple sets of materials on the Iraq war that attempt to embody this educational philosophy. The most recent include the following.</p> <ul> <li>Bloody Iraq and Its Future details about what is going right and what is going wrong in Iraq; proposals of critics for getting out of Iraq; suggestions for "bringing Iraq into the school" and opportunities for student action.</li> <li>A series of lessons on Iraq war coverage includes a DBQ on Correspondents as Targets (about the challenges of reporting from Iraq); a reading and DBQ on Reporting Civilian Deaths, and a Background Reading that explores such topics as what it means to be "embedded" and how the media covered the pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue and the attack on Fallujah.</li> <li>American Treatment of Iraqi and Afghan Prisoners: Who Is to Blame? explores official and unofficial inquiries into the issue as well as the question of "war crimes" and offers suggestions for student action</li> </ul> <p>Here is a briefly annotated list of some of the internet materials we have used to compile these activities, including the presentation of competing points of view.</p> <h3><br> Opinion &amp; Analysis</h3> <p><strong>Alternet</strong> (<a href="http://www.alternet.org">www.alternet.org</a>), <strong>Cursor.Org</strong> (<a href="http://www.cursor.org">www.cursor.org</a>) and<strong> CommonDreams.Org</strong> (<a href="http://www.commondreams.org">www.commondreams.org</a>), are liberal/left sites that initiate as well as reprint articles on Iraq and offer many links to newspapers worldwide and other sources. Lakshmi Chaudhry, a senior editor at Alternet, currently has on its site a lengthy article, "Rethinking Iraq," which is worth pondering, whatever one's views.</p> <p><strong>The Heritage Foundation</strong> (<a href="http://www.heritage.org">www.heritage.org</a>). The Heritage Foundation describes itself as "a research and educational institute—'a think tank'—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." It researches, reports on, and offers opinion about Iraq and offers articles by such analysts as Charles Krauthammer and Oliver North. Another conservative organization, the <strong>American Enterprise Institute</strong> (<a href="http://www.aei.org">www.aei.org</a>) also offers materials and analyses on Iraq.</p> <p><strong>Juan Cole</strong> (<a href="http://www.juancole.com">www.juancole.com</a>). Cole, a professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, has a daily blog in which he reports and comments on events in Iraq—attacks, mosque sermons, political figures, forces, philosophies, background history. The blog offers links to a number of major sources about Iraq past and present. Cole's current research focus is Shiite Islam in Iraq and Iran and Muslim radicalism. He has lived in the Muslim world for extended periods, speaks Arabic and Persian, and writes extensively about modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. If you have time to read one blog daily on Iraq, try Cole's "Informed Comment."</p> <p><strong>TomDispatch.Com, a project of The Nation Institute</strong> (<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com">www.tomdispatch.com</a>). Writer Tom Englehardt gives much attention to Iraq and U.S. policies in dispatches e-mailed two or three times a week to subscribers. He engages issues with feeling and intelligence and frequently includes articles by others. A January 2005 example is "Dahr Jamail in Devastated Iraq" (Jamail is an unembedded reporter who travels widely in Iraq interviewing ordinary Iraqis and describing the horrendous condition of the country.)</p> <p><strong>The Wall Street Journal's</strong> online editorial page (<a href="https://www.wsj.com/news/opinion">www.wsj.com/news/opinion</a>). The site includes editorials and op-eds from a strongly conservative perspective. (The Journal's editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, now has a Friday night program on PBS.)</p> <h3><br> Government Websites</h3> <p><strong>US Agency for International Development</strong> (<a href="http://www.usaid.gov">www.usaid.gov</a>). This official government website focuses on the progress of Iraqi reconstruction projects. In its monthly summaries it provides statistics and specific details of ongoing work.</p> <p>The websites of the <strong>White House </strong>(<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov">www.whitehouse.gov</a>), <strong>State Department</strong> (<a href="https://www.state.gov/">www.state.gov</a>); and <strong>Defense Department </strong>(<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil">www.defenselink.mil</a>) offer regular reports of presidential speeches and press releases, news and official analyses on Iraq.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h3>International Media</h3> <p><strong>Aljazeera</strong> (<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage">http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage</a>). This Arabic news network's TV coverage of the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a significant factor in shaping opinion in the Arab world. Other Middle East journalism sources worth checking are the Cairo-based online edition of <strong>Ål-Ahram</strong> (<a href="http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/">http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/</a>), the<strong> Middle East Times</strong> (<a href="http://www.metimes.com">www.metimes.com</a>), and <strong>Asia Times </strong>(<a href="http://www.atimes.com">www.atimes.com</a>).</p> <p><strong>The Guardian</strong> (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">www.guardian.co.uk</a>). In addition to regular news reports on Iraq, this British newspaper makes available an archive of information, including a chronology of events, key documents, interactive guides, special reports, and links.</p> <h3><br> Other Useful Websites</h3> <p><strong>American Civil Liberties Union</strong> (<a href="http://www.aclu.org">www.aclu.org</a>). An ACLU lawsuit forced the Bush administration to release documents on Afghan and Iraqi prisoner abuse and torture, details of which are available at this site. <strong>Amnesty International</strong> (<a href="http://www.amnesty.org">www.amnesty.org</a>) and <strong>Human Rights Watch</strong> (<a href="http://www.hrw.org">www.hrw.org</a>) also report on this issue.</p> <p><strong>Carnegie Endowment for International Peace</strong> (<a href="http://www.ceip.org">www.ceip.org</a>). The organization says it is "dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States" whose work is "nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results." Its website's Iraq materials include "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications," which "distills a massive amount of data into side-by-side comparisons of pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence, and what is now known about Iraq's programs."</p> <p><strong>PBS's NOW</strong> (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/now">www.pbs.org/now</a>). For years, NOW with Bill Moyers offered a passion for social justice through its critical documentaries and commentaries. Moyers retired from the program in December 2004, but it continues under David Brancaccio The program's website provides an archive of materials on Iraqóinterviews and reviews of evidence (for instance, a damning December program analyzing Condoleezza Rice's comments about Iraq and "the war on terror").<br> &nbsp;</p> <h3>For Teachers</h3> <p>In addition to<strong> TeachableMoment:</strong></p> <p><strong>Rethinking Schools</strong> (<a href="http://www.rethinkingschools.org">www.rethinkingschools.org</a>). This magazine, aimed at educators, promotes "equity and the vision that public education is central to the creation of a humane, caring, multiracial democracy." It is an activist publication, addressing key policy issues, including Iraq. The website offers extensive resources for teachers, lesson plans, and lists of teacher groups against the war.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>This resource list was compiled for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a></em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T14:39:11-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 14:39">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:39:11 +0000 fionta 724 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Iraq War Coverage: Correspondents as Targets. DBQ https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/iraq-war-coverage-correspondents-targets-dbq <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--title--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--title.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--title.html.twig * field--string.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <span>Iraq War Coverage: Correspondents as Targets. DBQ</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The following quotes describe some of the problems faced by correspondents covering the war in Iraq and reveal why their reporting may result in incomplete or even inaccurate accounts. The materials here can be used to prepare students for the DBQ (document-based question) on standardized tests such as the New York State history regents (items A-G) or, as indicated in item H, for small-group and class discussions.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3>Directions:</h3> </div> <div>Read each paragraph, then answer the question following it. After you have read all of the paragraphs, write an essay in response to the question in F.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>A.</h4> <div>"Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest....I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>?Farnaz Fassihi, a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, in a September 2004 e-mail to friends that was later made public.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question:</strong> What do you think is the reason that Fassihi "can't and can't"?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>B.</h4> <div>"Here at the <em>New York Times</em>, where we have spared no expense to protect ourselves, the catalogue of hits and near-misses is long enough to chill the hardiest war correspondent: we have been shot at, kidnapped, blindfolded, held at knifepoint, held at gunpoint, detained, threatened, beaten and chased....In the writing of this essay...two rockets and three mortar shells have landed close enough to shake the walls of our house...</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"To be an American reporter in Iraq, any kind of American is not just to be a target yourself, but it is to make a target of others, too....Just the other day, for instance, an Iraqi man I had met with several times before asked me not to speak English in the hallway leading to his office....In another case, a senior Iraqi government official whom I have met several times often asks that I meet his armed guards in front of a local mosque, who then drive me to his house. Better not to have an American reporter's car parked in front of his house.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"The real consequence of the mayhem here is that we reporters can no longer do our jobs in the way we hope to. Reporters are nothing more than watchers and listeners, and if we can't leave the house, the picture from Iraq, even with the help of fearless Iraqi stringers [part-time reporters], almost inevitably will be blurry and incomplete."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>?Dexter Filkins, a correspondent for the<em> New York Times</em>, 10/10/04</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question: </strong>Why can't reporters in Iraq "do our jobs the way we hope to"?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>C.</h4> <div>"In no prior conflict...have journalists been singled out for such sustained and violent attack. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, thirty-six journalists have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war-nineteen at the hands of the insurgents. Two French journalists seized in August remain missing. Until this fall, many journalists at least felt safe while in their heavily guarded hotels. Then, in October, Paul Taggart, an American photographer, was seized by four gunmen after leaving the Hamra Hotel complex, one of the main residences for Western journalists....[Later] it was discovered that the captors had a floor plan of the hotel with the name of every journalist in every room. Facing such perils, many correspondents packed up and left."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>?Michael Massing, "Iraq, the Press &amp; the Election," New York Review of Books, 12/16/04</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question: </strong>Why did many correspondents leave Iraq?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>D.</h4> <div>"The current books about the war in Iraq do not uncover the pathology of war. We see the war from the perspective of the troops who fight the war or the equally skewed perspective of the foreign reporters holed up in hotels, hemmed in by drivers and translators and official minders. There are moments when war's face appears..., perhaps from the back seat of a car where a small child, her brains oozing out of her head, lies dying, but mostly it remains hidden....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"War is presented primarily through the distorted prism of the occupiers. The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency, one I have felt myself, to protect those who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the unit and are, in effect, captives. They have no relationships with the victims, essential to all balanced reporting of conflicts, but only with the Marines and soldiers who drive through desolate mud-walled towns and pump grenades and machine-gun bullets into houses, leaving scores of nameless dead and wounded in their wake. The reporters admire and laud these fighters for their physical courage....And the reporting, even among those who struggle to keep some distance, usually descends into a shameful cheerleading."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>?Chris Hedges, for 20 years a war correspondent for the <em>New York Times</em> ("On War," New York Review of Books, 12/16/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question: </strong>Why are embedded reporters "in effect, captives"?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>E.</h4> <div>"I strained to listen for signs of humanity in the darkened city. I imagined holocaust-city blocks in flames, families running and screaming. But the only sounds were the baying of frightened dogs and the indecipherable chanting of muezzins, filling the air with a soft cacophony of Koranic verse.... [According to the Arab network Al-Jazeera, the "chanting of muezzins" was actually appeals for ambulances and for Fallujans to fight the Americans]</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"We knew people were running out of food, and we heard rumors of clinics flooded with the dead and wounded. But the few Fallujans we encountered were either prisoners with handcuffed wrists and hooded heads, or homeowners waiting sullenly for their houses to be searched, or refugees timidly approaching military checkpoints with white flags....Sometimes on patrols, people approached us reporters and pleaded for help in Arabic, but there was nothing we could do."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>?Pamela Constable, an embedded correspondent with the Marines in Fallujah in April 2004 for the <em>Washington Post </em>(quoted in Michael Massing, "Unfit to Print?" the<em> </em>New York Review of Books, 6/24/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question: </strong>How did a lack of knowledge of the Arabic language affect the reporter?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>F.</h4> <div>"Iraq was the most dangerous place for journalists to work [in 2004] with 23 killed there so far this year, up from 13 last year, said...the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York. Most of those who died there were Iraqi reporters killed by insurgents, and many of them died while working for American or other Western news outlets...At least 22 journalists were kidnapped in Iraq, the group said." (<em>New York Times</em>, 12/11/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>Question:</strong> Why do you suppose that most of the reporters killed in Iraq during 2004 have been Iraqi reporters?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>G. Essay</h4> <div>Reporters have a difficult and dangerous job in any war, but the war in Iraq has been especially difficult and dangerous for them. Using information from the documents and your knowledge of events in Iraq, write a well-organized essay that includes an introduction, several paragraphs and a conclusion in which you:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <ul> <li>describe problems that war correspondents have in covering the events in Iraq</li> <li>discuss why such problems can lead to incomplete and inaccurate reporting</li> </ul> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4>H. Discussion</h4> <div>After students have read the quotes, divide the class into groups of four to six to discuss their responses to the questions following the quotes and then the essay question . A reporter from each group can summarize those responses for the class, followed by whole-class discussion.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: <a href="mailto:lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org">lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</a>.</em></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> </div> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--uid--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--uid.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--uid.html.twig * field--entity-reference.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'username' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> <span>fionta</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/user/templates/username.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--uid.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--created--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig x field--node--created.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--created.html.twig * field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <span> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'time' --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> <time datetime="2011-07-23T14:39:11-04:00" title="Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 14:39">July 23, 2011</time> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/system/templates/time.html.twig' --> </span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--created.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'links__node' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * links--node.html.twig x links.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/system/links.html.twig' --> Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:39:11 +0000 fionta 723 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org