Sen. Joe Lieberman (I- Conn.) warns that allowing detainees the right to a civilian trial would be affording them rights they simply do not deserve. While their acts of terrorism can be seen as acts of murder, said Lieberman, they are also acts of war and should be treated as such. (0:23)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
According to General David Petraeus, an educated American soldier that can bridge the cultural divide with the Muslim world can more effectively fight the War on Terror. This soldier would understand the social context they are operating within, and would understand the broad implications and consequences of military action.
General Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, discussed U.S. military strategy in the Middle East and South Asia while testifying today before Congress.
“While additional military forces clearly are necessary (in Afghanistan), they will not by themselves be sufficient to achieve our objective,” said the General. America’s objective, he said, is to make sure extremists do not have a haven from which to plan and execute another attack on the level of the 9-11 attacks.
A smarter military can better understand the necessary social infrastructure to facilitate lasting peace within a region. This combined with intelligent military action, international cooperation, the building of infrastructure and a swath of other initiatives will help America secure the region, according to Petraeus. “You cannot kill or capture your way out of an industrial strength insurgency,” the General said.
“We also need to expand just the basic knowledge of Afghanistan among our forces,” Petraeus said. He continued that greater knowledge will lead to a “nuanced and granular understanding” that will enable the Army to undertake the kind of sophisticated reconciliation processes in Afghanistan that were important in Iraq.
Congressman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) agreed that soldiers should be educated, and brought attention to the U.S. Army’s Homestead Program. Dicks said this program involves an Officer taking a year off from active service to live in a country, learn the language, and understand the culture. Retired Army General John Abizaid did a program similar to this. Abizaid was former Commander of U.S. Central Command.
The U.S. Army could not be reached for comment on the current funding of the program, but Dicks expressed concern on the small number of individuals enrolled in it.
The necessary approach to success involves placing security in the hands of the Afghans, Petraeus said, which means helping them collectively realize that the biggest security threat in the region comes from dissident extremist elements within the country, most notably Al-Qaeda. He emphasized that America’s presence in Afghanistan is not permanent, and that Afghanistan’s government and economy must be encouraged by its citizens.
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
General David Petraeus says before Congress that it is important for soldiers to have an expanded understanding of Afghanistan, so that the army can function better as a whole. (01:18)
International Commission of Jurists, on Feb. 27, 2009, held a panel at the Brookings Institution to outline their investigation into human rights during counterterrorism efforts. Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, reads the report’s recommendation to the U.S. to reaffirm its commitment to humanitarian law. (00:18)
The ICJ held a panel today at the Brookings Institution consisting of human rights experts, judges, and lawyers from around the world, who for the past three years have investigated over forty countries treatment of human rights in counterterrorism efforts. The report found that counterterrorism policies put international legal respect for human rights in jeopardy. The panel was the first presentation of the report to a U.S. audience, thus the focus was on U.S. obligation to end its practices since the “war on terrorism” was coined, that the state of war provides justification to set aside human rights safeguards.
The panel reports that human rights violations in counterterrorism come in many forms. Individuals are abducted and held in secret prisons, being tortured and ill treated, not given access to lawyers, courts, or fair trial. Additionally, the culture of secrecy has become pervasive to the point where “innocent victims find themselves with no avenue for redress.”
Suzanne Spaulding, Principal of Bingham Consulting Group, explained that by declaring a “war on terror,” the U.S. put human rights into jeopardy because collateral damage is accepted much more in war time and the president is given significant power and fewer checks and balances. Of the increase in presidential power, Spaulding stated, “I think that is one of the most damaging consequences of our having taken this very broad, global ‘war on terror’ approach.” Spaulding concluded that she feels very “gratified” that President Obama has not used the term “war on terror.”
Robert Goldman, Professor of Law at American University, outlined the process that should be taken when a human rights violation occurs. “When there is a serious human rights violation the remedies are clear. One, there has to be effective access to court.” When the government tries to plead “state secrecy” for actions which it knew were illegal, it is “utterly inconsistent with human rights law.” Second, in order to go along with international human rights law, each case deserves “thorough and impartial investigation.”
Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, presented the fact that some U.S. representatives have argued that human rights law does not apply in times of war. He then read the recommendation of the panel to the United States as a response to this point of view: “The incoming U.S. administration should reaffirm the U.S.’s historic commitment to fully uphold and faithfully apply international humanitarian law, the laws of war, during situations of armed conflict and recognize that human rights law does not cease to apply in such situations.” The concluding argument is that while the U.S. is at war, and must use force, this force needs to be “necessary and appropriate.”
In a meeting today at the Brookings Institution, Senator Lieberman (I- Conn.) said, “Despite the missteps and difficulties in Afghanistan, I am still confident we can turn the tide there.”
Lieberman spoke about how the overall goal should be to secure the civilian population, and stated that although reaching this goal will be a long and difficult task, there are many reasons to be hopeful.
The first reason for optimism which the Senator pointed out is the appointment of Richard Holbrook as the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “The combination of Dick Holbrook and Dave Petraeus, working under Bob Gates and Hilary Clinton is not a team that I would bet against,” he said.
Lieberman showed that he believes it is of utmost importance that the US remain steadfast and determined in Afghanistan, for it is the front line of the war against Islamic extremism. “We all agree our foremost interest in Afghanistan is preventing that country from becoming a terrorist safehaven. But the only realistic way to prevent that from happening is through the emergence of a stable and legitimate political order in Afghanistan backed by capable indigenous security forces. Neither of those realities is going to materialize without a significant and sustained American commitment,” he stated.
Lieberman showed that with full U.S. commitment and help from allies, we can promise a better life for millions of Afghani civilians, while the extremists will not. “That ultimately is how I believe the war on terror will end,” he concluded.
Senator Lieberman (I-Conn.) speaks on how bringing a better life to civilians in Afghanistan will bring a secure end to the war on terror. January 29, 2009, at the Brookings Institution. (00:47)
Moving to make good on one of his key campaign pledges, President Obama this morning signed a series of executive orders to close the detention facility at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The orders, signed at a West Wing ceremony, specify the closure should occur within 12 months. Obama is also ending what the new administration believes are harsh interrogation techniques used previously. Obama has said the United States will fight terrorism “in a manner consistent with our values and ideals.”
The timetable means the clock is ticking on figuring out just what to do with the 245 detainees being held at Gitmo. Among them: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
A senior administration official says detainees will eventually be classified into various groups, ranging from those who could be released, to those who cannot. The official said that some detainees could still be “in detention for years,” but added “but not without due process.”
Among the options at the administration’s disposal for detainees: repatriation to their home country or a willing third country, civil trials in the U.S., or a special civil or military process. The official told reporters that prisoners would be released or transferred on a rolling basis, based on how their individual cases are determined.
The administration is now in contact with foreign governments to take detainees who may be released at a future date. The official said detainees would not be sent to countries with a reputation for torturing prisoners; he did not say what countries were under consideration. No countries have stepped forward and volunteered to accept anyone to date; the official said “We hope some will help us.”
Future interrogations of detainees will be done within the parameters of the Geneva Conventions, the official said, and will use only techniques listed in the Army Field Manual – a reference to waterboarding, which will be discontinued.
The administration’s review process for detainees will be overseen by a high level committee comprised of the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The relationship between the United States and Afghanistan will improve under the new American president said Said Tayeb Jawad-Ambassador of Afghanistan to the U.S. at a conference today. Jawad added that Afghanistan is “working hard with our American friends” to help in “not only fighting
terrorism,” but helping the economy and well-being of Afghan citizens.
Jawad said he was happy with the recent improvement in the economy in Afghanistan, but there was “further business potential.” He said the greatest improvements in Afghanistan’s economy have been made in telecommunications and mining. He added that “promoting investment opportunities” in Afghanistan internationally is important as well.
Chairman of the Institute for State Effectiveness, Ashraf Ghani said Afghanistan is at a “fork at the road” between a vicious circle and a virtuous circle. Ghani stated that the vicious circle included an economy that created an atmosphere where “people are forced to embrace the gun.” That would also create “new enemies” for the country, according to Ghani. He said that a virtuous circle would mean a
“stable” economy where the poor become “stakeholders in the system.”
Ghani added that Afghanistan had five “latent assets” that could drastically improve the economy of the country if used properly. He said they were water, geology, agriculture, location, and money. He
called these assets latent because they were not being used currently by the government. Ghani also said that water specifically was “critical to the region” and would be as valuable as oil in time.
Ambassador of Afghanistan to the U.S. Said Jawad says that the U.S.-Afghanistan relationship will improve no matter who the next president is. He also says he is impressed by both candidates. (0:55)
