NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Political Philosophy (1) The realities of post-modern era result in affecting the classical concepts of domestic and foreign policies on ever-increasing scale. This especially became apparent after events of 9 / 11, when the concept of international terrorism assumed global proportions. It became apparent for many people in U. S. and abroad that the principles of international law need to be redesigned, in order for them to be able to address the objective reality in effective manner. We can say that U.
S. government is trying to initiate this process, even though that many countries remain very skeptical, in regards to our countrys stance on terrorism. In this paper we will analyze different prospective's on what the term enemy combatant stands for and how the new understanding of this term resulted in American government adjusting its foreign policy. The history of civilization is the history of war. Since the dawn of times, nations used to engage in military hostilities for conquering enemy's land, eliminating a military threat, on the part of jealous neighbors or simply to capture slaves. Even in ancient times, it was a customary practice for the enemy's soldiers to be treated humanly, while in captivity.
This was a result of profession of soldiers being held in very high regard by traditional societies. Soldiers are people whose professional duties consist of defending their country, while being ready to sacrifice their lives, if necessary. As the art of warfare progressed, the military leaders strived to impose ethical code of behavior upon their soldiers, which they were supposed to practice, while in combat. This was because wars objectives were becoming increasingly secularized.
In other words there was no logical reason for civilians to suffer, during the war, for as long as the rules of civilized warfare were observed. The most progressive code of military ethics is called a Geneva Convention. In 1949, 65 worlds nations had signed its most recent version. According to it, after being captured in combat, enemy's combatants cannot be killed.
They also cannot be charged criminally. Enemy's soldiers fully retain their civil rights, even though that they are being interned for the duration of military conflict. During the Second World War, for example, captured American, British, and Canadian troops were able to receive parcels from home, on regular basis. Officers were able to keep their daggers on them. They were also allowed to leave internment camps for a few hours unescorted, for as long as they would give officers word that they would not try to escape. Soviet prisoners of war, on the other hand, were deprived of all this, because Stalin refused to sign a Geneva Convention.
Many Soviet veterans complain that they were being very badly treated by Germans, while in fact; they should be blaming their own government, which was using them as cannon meat, without having any concerns about their well-being as individuals. After 9 / 11, it became apparent that the traditional definition of what term lawful combatant stands for could not be applied to terrorists. This is because terrorists do not officially represent any country, even though that they often enjoy an unofficial governmental support. At the same time, terrorists main objective is causing as much harm as possible to the country, which they consider the enemy. This situation creates a legal precedent.
On one hand, terrorists are intended on killing people of enemy's nation, on the other they are often the subjects of foreign countries that are not in the state of war with U. S. It prevents American army from engaging them directly, because this would be considered as act of aggression. Geneva Convention does not provide a clear definition of lawful combatant.
However, it does include a paragraph, which describes the conditions, under which; person cannot be given a status of prisoner of war, after being captured. Mercenaries are not considered POWs, while in captivity. Enemy's spies are also being treated as common criminals, after being arrested. Children under 15 cannot be held in captivity, even if they were being captured with weapons in their hands, while fighting on the side of enemy. On October 17, 2006 President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law. This Act includes a definition of unlawful combatant, who is described as someone who participates in hostilities against U.
S. , without being affiliated with an enemy state. Thus, members of terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaeda or Taliban, automatically get to be treated as unlawful combatants, after being captured. The status of unlawful combatant deprives person of virtually all of his civil rights, while in captivity. There are currently about 460 people are being held in military jail at Guantanamo, without being charged with anything.
Theoretically, they can be kept there forever, because Military Commissions Act does not provide a legal ground for dealing with suspected terrorists. (2) Many countries are becoming very concerned over Americas intention to hunt down suspected terrorists, without basing its war on terror on international law. Even American traditional allies, such as France and Germany, argue that even terrorists have a right to a fair trial. What bothers them the most is the fact that American government implies that war on terror is global in it nature. We are being continuously told that we need to adopt a global vision of this problem, in order to be able to deal with it. Still, the word global is not being clearly specified. How do we go about fighting global terrorism?
Maybe we should allow British military planes to bomb Boston, because that is where the most of IRA financing comes from? Maybe we should help Russia to raise Chechen villages to the ground, as they do now, because they consider it as being a part of war on global terror, or maybe we should round up all citizens of Arab descend in America and ship them back to where they came from? This would definitely solve the problem of Islamic terrorism in America, but communists like Hillary Clinton would not allow us to do this anyways. The reason why many countries criticize American practice of applying the notion of unlawful combatants to terrorists is that it directly affects Americas foreign policy. It allows our government to bomb sovereign nations around the world, without declaring war, which is a blatant transgression of international law. While proclaiming war on terrorism, America deploys terrorist methods to accomplish its task.
This creates a situation when the goals of terrorists often collide with American geopolitical aspirations. The most recent example of it is bombing of Serbia in 1999. In his article Our Revolutionary Right Dr. William Pierce refers to American attack on Serbia as: Not just an attack on Serbia, it was an attack on America as well. This was a case of the common enemies of Serbia and America using American military and economic resources against Serbia now, with the plan to use them against America in the future. If the New World Order gang successfully compels everyone to toe the line, it will be American freedom which will be sacrificed as well as Serb freedom (Pierce).
Back then, we were helping Albanian Muslims, who see the Islamisation of Balkans as their long-term goal. Thus, Clinton was indirectly assisting Al-Qaeda. It is understandable why many countries are being very disturbed with the way our government conducts foreign affairs. This is because its definition of unlawful combatants can be interpreted in variety of different ways. As practice shows, terrorism is rarely the full time occupation for majority of terrorists. In the Middle East, terrorism is like a hobby for most of Muslims.
They can be law-abiding peasants by day and terrorists by night. Therefore, when we attack them while they look after the herds of sheep, we will inevitably be branded as murders of civilians. This is often the case when our planes bomb terrorist targets in Afghanistan, for example. This is why we cannot effectively fight against the abstract threat of global terrorism. It is whether we designate certain countries as such that support terrorism and bomb them into the Stone Age, or simply stop talking about it. There is no third option.
Countries like Iran or North Korea have traditionally been a rogue states. Therefore, their attitude to American foreign policy has always been negative. Nevertheless, even countries of European Union suggest that America has gone too far with its war on terrorism. Today Americans are being told that evil Islamic fundamentalists cannot physically stand the fact that American women wear short skirts and walk around with their faces uncovered.
It causes them to hate America so much, that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives and lives of many innocent Americans, in order to spread terror. Is it really so? There is no doubt that such approach is childish, to say the least. Hatred does not just appear out of blue, it caused by frustration. If there is consequence, there also has to be a cause one does not have to be a scientist to understand that. America has traditionally been considered Israelis best ally, because of powerful Jewish lobby.
This is why we became the target for the attacks. There is nothing global about it. If America changed its foreign policy, in regards of the conflict in Middle East, it would be more effective, as the mean of preventing terrorist attacks, then taking toothpaste from people, before they board the planes. (3) There are only three countries in the world that openly engage in practicing political assassinations: U. S. , Israel and Russia. The notions of national sovereignty does not exist for Russian, American and Israeli secret agents, who place a remote detonated bombs under the cars, put poison in peoples food or simply shoot the political opponents with a sniper rifles. Matthew Machon in his monograph Targeted Killing as an Element of U.
S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror provides us with a recent example of U. S. government killing a high ranking terrorist in Yemen: On 5 November 2002, an armed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operated Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) launched a lethal missile strike, killing Qaeda Salim Sinan al-Harethi, a high ranking al-Qaeda member and suspected architect of the USS Cole bombing, in an isolated and sparsely populated region within Yemen. While it is uncertain how many unacknowledged strikes the US has conducted, now that al-Qaeda has decentralized its operations around the globe, it's likely that the war against the network will assume an increasingly covert nature, involving intelligence cooperation and targeted strikes against al-Qaeda suspects rather than major conventional military offensives (Machon). This practice is nothing but a state sponsored terrorism, although it is being officially referred to as legitimate means of fighting the war on terror whose legality must be judged on the basis of the laws of armed conflict.
Still, it is quite unclear how placing poison in persons cup of tea, for example, can be thought of in terms of morally justified act. The problem with targeted killing is the fact that terrorists are considered unlawful combatants, yet, they are being dealt with as if they were legally affiliated with countries of their residence. It is often the case, during the war, for civilians to fall victims to bombings. However, as practice shows, targeted killing often results in needless deaths of innocent civilians, which equals this practice to acts of regular terrorism, even though that it is being perpetrated by the countries that never get tired of engaging in anti-terrorist rhetoric. Israel is especially famous for its blatant disregard to international law. Daniel Byman in his article Do Targeted Killings Work?
describes how Israelis liquidated Salah Shehada, who was a senior Hamas leader: And on July 22, 2002, Shehada died a violent death: an Israeli F- 16 dropped a 2, 000 -pound bomb on his apartment building, obliterating it with him inside. Shehada was killed -- but so were at least 14 civilians, including his daughter and eight other children (Byman). In order for the countries diplomatic efforts to fight terrorism to be effective, they would have to proclaim that they would refrain from deploying terrorist practices themselves... Rightly or wrongly, U. S.
supports Israel with every possible mean. While forcibly imposing the democratic values onto the foreign nations, American government looks away from the fact that Israel is based on the principle of racial apartheid. Jews have always been the proponents of multiculturalism and tolerance, yet in their own country, they are doing something opposite. This, of course, results in the rise of anti-Israeli sentiment in Arab countries. It is because of this sentiment that many Muslims decide to become terrorists. Nevertheless, the worst thing about it is that America has become a legitimate target, because of its support of Israel.
For as long as we deny the right of fair trial to unlawful combatants and for as long as our government continues to strive towards their physical elimination, while disregarding the most basic principles of international law, they will continue targeting civilians, because in their eyes it is equally justifiable. (4) It is the fact that America is being hated throughout the world like never before, even by countries that used to revere our nation, up until recently. I think we need to ask ourselves why? Partially, the answer becomes self-evident, after we get to hear a Liberal rhetoric for long enough. Today our country depends largely on our supreme technology, when it comes to providing security to its citizens, yet this technology has a very nasty characteristic it tends to spread among nations that now are being made enemies, because of our wise foreign policy. We, as Americans, need to have the courage and determination to fight terrorism, when it comes to our homeland.
However, we also need to be smart and try to eliminate the roots of international terrorism rather than fighting with its consequences, as we have been doing so far. America needs to withdraw its support of Israel - it is not our business trying to bring peace to that region. The bloody bacchanalia had never stopped there, since the state of Israel was founded, and it is not likely to stop, before one side or another is being physically eliminated. This tiny country boldly ignores UN resolutions, while being backed by USA that is the main cause of international tension in the world. In addition, we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq or to just simply occupy this country and impose our own rules, without regards to democracy and similar nonsense. Victors are not judged.
We cannot play in democracy at the expense of lives of our soldiers there. The time has come for America to realize that we all live in twenty first century and our every act on international arena will have an impact on our own country. Bombing people into a Stone Age and then dropping them food parcels from the planes will never make America more popular among other nations of the Earth. Finally we need to change our immigration policy. There are enough hard-working people in Europe, who will prosper within a few years, after coming to U. S.
Instead, we bring welfare recipients from Third World countries that come here to exploit America rather than to benefit it. This would not be so bad, but some of them are committed to causing intentional harm to our society, because they hate America. They are the ones who engage in terrorist activities. It is only the absurd policy of multiculturalism that allows gaining American citizenship by the people who hate our country with passion. Some of them do not get directly involved in terrorist activity, although they provide financing to terrorists. How do we describe them, lawful or unlawful combatants?
Do we simply leave them alone out fear of being branded as racists? Before we fight enemy combatants abroad, we need to expose their sympathizers within our own society. In 2003 French government has banned wearing Muslim turbans by students in schools. This issue was surrounded by the hysteria, raised by human-rights activists.
They were pointing out that under no circumstances people could be restricted in how they behave. Yet, majority of French people are strongly in favor of putting an end to their country turning into New Pakistan. Ever since, the threat of terrorism in France was being significantly lowered. America needs to follow Frances example, because only then our domestic and international policies can be properly balanced. There has not being a better method of dealing with enemy combatants then putting a hole in their skulls.
Nevertheless, America cannot continue to ignore the principles of international law, because there might not be enough bullets left for all enemy combatants. In order for us to be able to deal with the threat of international terrorism, our society must get back to sanity. Otherwise, we will lose this fight, even before it begins. Bibliography: Byman, D. Do Targeted Killings Work? . 2006.
Foreign Affairs. Retrieved April 27, 2007 from web Glasser, S. U. S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism.
April 27, 2005. Washington Post. Com. Retrieved March 30, 2007 from web Pierce, W. Our Revolutionary Right July, 1999. Free Speech.
National Alliance Site. Retrieved April 27, 2007 from web Machon, M. Targeted Killing as an Element of U. S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror. 2005. School of Advanced Military Studies.
Retrieved April 27, 2007 from http: // 209. 85. 135. 104 /search? q = cache: aug 6 LHyAYJ: web See, T. Lets Face It America - We Are Fighting World War III. January 8, 2004. American Daily. Com.
Retrieved March 30, 2007 from web
Free research essays on topics related to: war on terror, geneva convention, u s government, u s foreign policy, enemy soldiers
Research essay sample on U S Foreign Policy U S Government
