Debate_Position_Paper_Gitmo_Yes

Debate_Position_Paper_Gitmo_Yes - Alexander Muhr PPD 225...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Alexander Muhr PPD 225 – Public Policy and Management Debates and Position Paper Prof. Michael Moody March 28, 2006 Guantanamo Bay: Putting t T he Country’s Safety Ahead of Terrorists “We will answer history’s call to protect America and preserve our way of life.” – President Bush 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
After the September 11 th attacks on the World Trade C c enter and the Pentagon, policies on defending a particular way of life changed forever. The customs before dictated to only strike if there was “imminent” danger or there was an outright attack. Following that day, the United States decided to no longer wait for complicated and tedious international diplomacy to defend itself. Instead, there was a fundamental shift towards a “pre-emptive” style of defense and protection of the unique American way of life. In the process, military campaigns were launched against on Afghanistan and Iraq due to situations that were deemed dangerous to the United States. Specifically in Afghanistan, there were, or still are, many suspected al-Qaeda members that were being harbored in the country, and when found were brought back to the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The question has developed if these detainees should be held indefinitely for being suspected or proven terrorists without the privileges of the Geneva Conventions? The answer is yes, and the maximum access to a trial should be limited to a military tribunal. The attacks on the United States were the major catalyst in how our country now decides how to defend itself from threats inside and outside the borders. Before, for the most part, international law was more of a reactionary stance towards terrorism and was standard procedure for the US in order to be more of a diplomatic way to appease the international community. When the bombings on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya occurred, there was clear evidence that al-Qaeda was behind them, and President Clinton was given the opportunity to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. There was evidence that he would be in a specific place at a certain time somewhere in Afghanistan and a missile could reach that point. Unfortunately, the policy at the time was not a “pre-emptive” one and they decided to wait too long and basically rearranged 2
Background image of page 2
rubble in the depths of Afghanistan. Most people would like to believe that a type of “pre-emptive” defense is a novel idea, but that is not the case. Under “the United Nations Charter for either and actual attack or an “imminent threat” of attack,” (Issues For Debate 302) there is reason for invasion. With this in
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This essay was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PPD 225 taught by Professor Lewis during the Spring '07 term at USC.

Page1 / 7

Debate_Position_Paper_Gitmo_Yes - Alexander Muhr PPD 225...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online