Middle east https://www.morningsidecenter.org/ en Picturing the Syrian Refugee Crisis https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/picturing-syrian-refugee-crisis <!-- 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>Picturing the Syrian Refugee Crisis</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"><h4>To the teacher:&nbsp;</h4> <p>In 2011 violence erupted in Syria when thousands took to the streets to protest the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. &nbsp;The protests were in response to the arrest and torture of a group of schoolboys who had tagged their school walls with slogans opposing Assad.&nbsp; Although protesters were initially unarmed,&nbsp; opposition to the regime grew, and soon armed groups from within and beyond Syria joined the opposition, fuelling a vicious civil war that has now lasted for almost three years.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> The Syrian civil war has caused more than 2.5 million people to flee the country.&nbsp; Most have fled to neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, but some are looking for safety further afield. &nbsp;In the lesson plan that follows, students explore life in the immense Jordanian refugee camp of Za'atari by viewing and analyzing photos and consider the U.S. response to the Syrian refugee crisis. &nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Read more about history of the civil war in Syria at:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/should-united-states-strike-syria">Should the United States Strike Syria</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/syria-today-diplomatic-vs-military-responses">Syria Today: Diplomatic versus Military Responses</a></li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<br> <strong>Materials:</strong><br> &nbsp;<br> See pictures 14, 15, 16, and 17 from the James Nachwey's <a href="http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/23/syrian-refugees-by-james-nachtwey/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#14">Lightbox slideshow</a> in Time magazine.</p> <p>Either print up these pictures to share with your students, sequentially, or project them, one after the other, on the smart board in your classroom.&nbsp;&nbsp; Try not to show the captions accompanying the pictures, at least not in this first activity. &nbsp;(Other pictures to consider are 3 and 11.)<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>Gathering</strong></h4> <p>Standing on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, the Statue of Liberty welcomes visitors, immigrants, and returning Americans.&nbsp; Ask students to read and then respond to the last few lines of Emma Lazarus's sonnet "The New Colossus" which is inscribed on a bronze plaque mounted on the Statue of Liberty.<br> &nbsp;<br> Give me your tired, your poor,<br> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,<br> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.<br> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,<br> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!<br> &nbsp;<br> Ask students:</p> <ul> <li>What does this poem on the Statue of Liberty say about the U.S.?</li> <li>What does it say about the U.S. and its relation to immigration?</li> <li>Do you know whether the U.S. lives up to Emma Lazarus's famous words?</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Ask students about the different reasons people leave their home countries to come to the U.S.&nbsp; Elicit and discuss how some people come to seek out opportunities in the U.S., like an education, work, a better life for themselves and their families.&nbsp; Other people flee their home countries because of war, violence, extreme poverty, or other kinds of oppression.&nbsp; Explain that we often refer to the first group as immigrants; the second group as refugees.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <p>Ask students to raise their hands if they know their family came as immigrants.&nbsp; Ask the students to raise their hands if they know their family came as refugees.&nbsp; Ask a few volunteers to share their family's story.<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>Check Agenda and Objectives</h4> <p>Check agenda and explain that in today's lesson we'll be looking at the U.S.'s recent decision to ease some of its immigration rules.&nbsp; To begin exploring this immigration issue, we'll look at a set of images.&nbsp; From there we'll do some work in small groups, read excerpts from different publications on the issues and come back to the words of Emma Lazarus at the end of the lesson.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>Pictures of a Crisis</strong></h4> <p>Share these pictures from James Nachwey's <a href="http://lightbox.time.com/2014/01/23/syrian-refugees-by-james-nachtwey/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#14">Lightbox</a> slideshow in Time Magazine: 14, 15, 16, and 17. Also consider 3 and 11.&nbsp; Either print up the pictures and show them to students sequentially, or project them, one after the other, on your smart board.&nbsp;&nbsp; Try not to show the captions accompanying the pictures, at least not in this first activity.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> <u>Start by showing picture number 14:</u><br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 1: Objective Descriptions.&nbsp;&nbsp; </strong>Ask students to look at the first picture and describe what they see.&nbsp; Instruct them to describe what is in the image objectively, only what can be seen.&nbsp; If students draw any conclusions or make any interpretations, redirect them to what's actually in the image.<br> &nbsp;<br> Students might share that they see clothes hanging on a clothesline, they can see what appears to be a satellite dish, a large tent is somewhat central to the composition, partially hidden by the clothes, a container with a person on it stands to the left of the tent, and in the top left of the image, we see some more people and more tents and containers.&nbsp; There are clouds in the sky.&nbsp; Try to have students share as complete a description of the image as they can, by asking every time someone shares, what else students can see.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 2: Assign Adjectives. </strong>Now ask students to move beyond the mere description of the place. Ask: If you were to use adjectives to describe this place, what might they be?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What feelings does the place bring up for you?<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 3: Moving Beyond the Image.&nbsp; </strong>Next ask student: If you were the photographer and you zoomed out from this photo, what do you think you might see?&nbsp; What do you think is beyond the image?<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 4: Interpretations. </strong>Ask students to guess where and what this place may be.&nbsp; What might be going on here?&nbsp; Ask them to explain why they would think/say that?<br> &nbsp;<br> <u>Now show picture number 15 and take students through the same process:</u><br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 1: Objective Descriptions. &nbsp;</strong>Ask students to look at the picture.&nbsp; Explain that it was taken nearby in one of the tents.&nbsp; Instruct them once again to describe what they can see in the image, an objective description, like the number of people, how many adults, how many children, the food on the floor, etc.&nbsp; If they draw any conclusions or make any interpretations, redirect them to what can actually be seen in the image.<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 2: Assign Adjectives. &nbsp;</strong>Next ask students, again, if they were to use adjectives to describe this place, what might they be?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What feelings does the place bring up?<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 3: Moving Beyond the Image.&nbsp;&nbsp; </strong>If they were the photographer and they were to zoom out, what do they think they might see?&nbsp; What do they think is beyond the image?<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>Step 4: Interpretations. &nbsp;</strong>Based on the two images now, ask students to guess where and what this place may be.&nbsp; What might be going on here?&nbsp; Ask them to explain why they would think/say that?<br> &nbsp;<br> <u>Show the next two pictures, numbers 16 and 17, taking students through the same process, asking the same questions</u>.&nbsp; Explain that all these pictures are taken in the same vicinity.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>A Short History of the Syrian Civil War</strong></h4> <p>Picking up on what your students share in response to the images, explain that these are images of Za'atari refugee camp, in Jordan.&nbsp; Jordan is a country in what we in the U.S. refer to as the Middle East.&nbsp; It borders another country in that region called Syria.&nbsp; Ask students if they know why Syria has been in the news since 2011 and recently?&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Explain that in 2011 violence erupted in Syria when thousands took to the streets to protest the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. &nbsp;The protests were in response to the arrest and torture of a group of schoolboys who had tagged their school walls with slogans opposing Assad.&nbsp; Although protesters were initially unarmed,&nbsp; opposition to the regime grew, and soon armed groups from within and beyond Syria joined the opposition, fuelling a vicious civil war that has now lasted for almost three years.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Za'atari refugee camp first opened in July 2012 to house the many Syrians streaming across the border to escape the violence of the civil war that was ravaging their country.<br> The refugee camp lies in Jordan, just four miles south of the Syrian border.&nbsp; With up to 6,000 Syrians arriving at Za'atari a day, the sprawling camp has become Jordan's fifth largest city.&nbsp; The original capacity of the camp was 70,000 but in early February 2014 the camp's population was estimated to house 129,438 people, called "persons of concern" by the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR.&nbsp; Like most refugees around the world, the majority of these Syrians would like to go home.&nbsp; Living conditions in Za'atari are difficult and there is a constant worry about family and friends who have stayed behind to fight.<br> &nbsp;<br> Recent UNHCR reports have put the total number of Syrian refugees at over 2.5 million.&nbsp; The vast majority of refugees have fled to neighboring countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, but some are looking for safety further afield.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Read more about history of the civil war in Syria at:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/should-united-states-strike-syria">Should the United States Strike Syria</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/syria-today-diplomatic-vs-military-responses">Syria Today: Diplomatic versus Military Responses</a></li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>Za'atari Once More</strong></h4> <p>If laptops are readily available to your students, ask them to Google "Za'atari images."&nbsp; Explain that this is the context within which the James Nachwey's slideshow takes place.&nbsp; Here students may find out what they would see if they were able to zoom out from Nachwey's images.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> If laptops are not readily available, project the google images page of Za'atari onto the smart board, or print up a few of these photos&nbsp;<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2371311/Syrian-Zaatari-refugee-camp-home-160-000-Jordans-fifth-largest-city.html">website</a> for students to see.<br> &nbsp;<br> Ask students in small groups to discuss what additional adjectives they would use to describe Za'atari now?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What thoughts and feelings does the place bring up for your students now?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>U.S. Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis</strong></h4> <p>Ask students in small groups to discuss the excerpts below describing the U.S. response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Ask each group to address these questions:<br> &nbsp;<br> <strong>1. &nbsp;</strong>What do the excerpts say about numbers of refugees that have been allowed to resettle the U.S. so far?<br> <strong>2. </strong>&nbsp;How do these numbers compare to the numbers of refugees that have been allowed to resettle in Syria's neighboring countries?<br> <strong>3. </strong>&nbsp;What do the excerpts say about the recent easing of the U.S. immigration laws?<br> <strong>4. &nbsp;</strong>Do you think the U.S. response to the Syrian crisis is sufficient?&nbsp; Why or why not?</p> <p>When the whole group reconvenes, ask for a few volunteers to share their thoughts.<br> <br clear="all"> <br> &nbsp;<br> <a href="http://rt.com/usa/usa-syria-refugees-thousands-309/"><strong>U.S. ready to accept thousands of Syrian refugees</strong></a><br> RT News, August 9, 2013<br> &nbsp;<br> ... The Obama administration is responding to the rapidly deteriorating conditions [in Syria] by agreeing to take in 2,000 Syrian war victims who will be given permanent residence status. Even though the number will represent only a fraction of a percent of Syrian refugees in need of assistance, the administration's decision marks a major shift in policy. ...<br> &nbsp;<br> But the chosen victims - many of whom are expected to be women and children - won't be leaving the country anytime soon. ... The application process is expected to take months because of the State Department's extensive background screenings. U.S. officials will carefully select refugees who appear to have no ties to anyone with terrorist sympathies. Even though infants and young children are unlikely to be terrorists themselves, the concern is that they might have relatives in Al-Qaeda who would then have an easier chance of entering the U.S.. ...<br> &nbsp;<br> Refugees must also show signs of vulnerability, and Clements [the State Department's assistant secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration] said that the most eligible applicants are those "exposed to everything from torture to gender-based violence to serious medical conditions." They must also have no intentions of ever returning to Syria. <em>...</em><br> &nbsp;<br> About 6.8 million Syrians are currently in need of humanitarian assistance. Although permanent resettlement will help 2,000 lucky victims, it will hardly make a dent in the overall suffering of the millions who are fighting for survival, and it will hardly compare to the 564,000 registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon and the 454,000 in Jordan.<br> &nbsp;<br> "We are exceedingly frustrated to be quite honest," Clements said. "Because we can't keep up with the humanitarian need especially inside Syria."<br> &nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-aid-to-syrian-refugees-generally-stops-at-the-border/2013/12/27/30237496-68cc-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html"><strong>U.S. aid to Syrian refugees generally stops at border</strong></a><br> Anne Gearan, &nbsp;Washington Post, December 27, 2013<br> &nbsp;<br> Only a tiny number of the more than 2 million refugees fleeing Syria's civil war can meet the requirements to be resettled in the United States, frustrating international relief officials who say the numbers needing help could nearly double in the coming year.<br> &nbsp;<br> The Obama administration allowed only 90 Syrian refugees to make permanent homes in the United States from the start of the Syrian civil war through September. About 50 made the journey from camps outside Syria to live in the United States over the past year, including 20 admitted since Oct. 1.<br> &nbsp;<br> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-refugees-idUSBREA141ZQ20140205"><strong>U.S. eases rules to admit more Syrian refugees, after 31 last year</strong></a><br> Patricia Zengerle, Reuters, February 5, 2014</p> <p>President Barack Obama's administration announced on Wednesday that it had eased some immigration rules to allow more of the millions of Syrians forced from their homes during the country's three-year civil war to come to the United States.<br> &nbsp;<br> Only 31 Syrian refugees - out of an estimated 2.3 million - were admitted in the fiscal year that ended in October [2013], prompting demands for change from rights advocates and many lawmakers.<br> &nbsp;<br> Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been taken in by neighboring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. ... [But in the U.S. the "Material Support"] bar had made it impossible for anyone who had provided any support to armed rebel groups to come to the United States, even if the groups themselves receive aid from Washington. ...<br> &nbsp;<br> Easing some of the immigration laws "will help address the plight of Syrian refugees who are caught up in the worst humanitarian crisis in a generation," Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, chairman of the U.S. Senate subcommittee on human rights, said in a statement. ...<br> &nbsp;<br> By early January, 135,000 Syrians had applied for asylum in the United States. But the strict restrictions on immigration, many instituted to prevent terrorists from entering the country, had kept almost all of them out.<br> &nbsp;<br> Washington has provided $1.3 billion in humanitarian assistance to aid Syrian refugees. ...</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><strong>Closing</strong></h4> <p>Going back to the Emma Lazarus sonnet quote from earlier in today's lesson, ask students to recall their answers to the questions from earlier in today's lesson</p> <ul> <li>What does the plaque on the Statue of Liberty say about the kind of country the U.S. is?</li> <li>What does it say about the U.S. in relation to immigration?</li> <li>Based on what you read about the U.S. response to the Syrian refugee crisis, does the U.S. live up to what Emma Lazarus wrote?</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<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="2014-02-18T14:39:42-05:00" title="Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 14:39">February 18, 2014</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, 18 Feb 2014 19:39:42 +0000 fionta 546 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Syria Today: Diplomatic vs. Military Responses https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/syria-today-diplomatic-vs-military-responses <!-- 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>Syria Today: Diplomatic vs. Military Responses</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"><h4>Objectives</h4> <p>Students will:</p> <ul> <li>Share what they know about Syria</li> <li>Read an article about the conflict in Syria today</li> <li>Listen to different statements regarding Syria and decide what they think about&nbsp;them and why&nbsp;</li> </ul> <h4><br> Social and Emotional Skills</h4> <ul> <li>active listening</li> <li>sharing and listening to different perspectives</li> <li>exploring negotiation and diplomacy versus violence in conflict situations</li> </ul> <h4>&nbsp;<br> Materials needed</h4> <ul> <li>today's agenda on chart paper or on the board</li> <li>chart paper for listing questions&nbsp;</li> <li>signs that read COMPLETELY AGREE and COMPLETELY DISAGREE</li> <li>tape</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><br> &nbsp;Gathering</h4> <p>Syria has been in the news a lot in recent weeks.&nbsp; Ask students in pairs to share what they know about Syria and why it's been in the news.&nbsp; After a few minutes ask students to share out in the larger group what they discussed in their pairs.<br> &nbsp;<br> Elicit and explain that Syria is a country located in a region of the world that we in the West call the Middle East.&nbsp; Officially known as the Syrian Arab Republic, it is a country with a religiously and ethically diverse population. Over the past two and half years, Syrians have been embroiled in a brutal conflict, with the forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his regime fighting those seeking to oust him.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> These past few weeks Syria has been in the headlines because of a chemical weapons attack on August 21 that killed many civilians, including women and children on the outskirts of the capital Damascus.&nbsp;&nbsp; The international response to this attack, and to the Syrian conflict in general, will be the focus of today's lesson.&nbsp;</p> <h4>Check Agenda and Objectives</h4> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <p><br> Ask students to read the following background on the Syrian conflict.&nbsp;</p> <h4><br> Current Syria Conflict: A Short Background</h4> <p>The conflict in Syria started in March of 2011, when protests erupted against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Dara'a, a small city in the south of the country.&nbsp; A group of the town's teenage boys, inspired by the Arab Spring that was sweeping the region, had tagged their school walls with anti-Assad slogans.</p> <div>The boys' arrest and torture sparked widespread nonviolent protests in Dara'a that were met with violence by the country's security forces. The government put Dara'a under siege as the anti-Assad sentiment, anger and demonstrations spread. Following these events, tens of thousands of people from around Syria took to the streets, chanting "Dara'a is Syria" while demanding freedom, democracy and the end of corruption. These demonstrations were also met with violence from Syrian security forces, which claimed the lives of more and more civilians.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <p>Soon, armed groups with a range of political and religious outlooks joined the opposition. Young Syrians who had made their homes in surrounding countries, Europe and North America returned to their homeland to fight.&nbsp;</p> <p>But it's not just people of Syrian heritage who are signing up.&nbsp;Young Saudis, with tacit support from their government, are taking up arms against the Assad regime, while extremist groups around the region and beyond have been urging Muslim youth to join the fight in Syria.&nbsp; These include a growing number of "jihadists" (that is, those fighting in the name of their Muslim faith). According to an article published in <a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2013/06/13/Thousands-of-Jihadists-join-war-in-Syria.html">Al Arabiya</a> on June 13, 2013, "the number of jihadists in Syria will [soon] be a lot more than the number we've witnessed in the past 20 years in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia." The U.S., meanwhile, has leant support to what it considers a more "moderate" opposition group called the Free Syrian Army.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Events in Syria became major U.S. news on August 21, when the Syrian regime allegedly launched a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus.&nbsp; Many innocent men, women and children were killed.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> President Obama had warned the Syrian regime a little over a year ago that to use chemical weapons in their civil war would be crossing a red line.&nbsp; "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation," he said back then.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> The chemical weapons attack has been the focus of the international community since then.&nbsp; After two-and-a-half years of standing on the sidelines of this increasingly brutal conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry doubled down on President Obama's red line and threatened to respond with air strikes on Syria. But many Americans expressed opposition to such a strike and concern about what effect it would have. The Russians, who are long-time supporters of the Assad regime, stepped in and put a diplomatic solution on the table to counter the American threat of violence.&nbsp;President Obama took Russia up on its idea and initiated negotiations aimed at eliminating Syria's chemical weapons through diplomatic means. &nbsp;</p> <p>Whatever diplomatic agreement comes out of these negotiations, the war in Syria is likely to continue, and the&nbsp;people of Syria will continue to suffer greatly as a result of the violence.&nbsp; Already, over six million people have left their homes in search of safety and refuge. That number includes four million who are internally displaced within Syria, and two million who have left the country altogether. (Please see our TeachableMoment lesson on <a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/syria-today-what-it-means-be-syrian">Syrian refugees.</a>) &nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>Discussion:</h4> <p>Consider the following debrief questions:</p> <ul> <li>What are your thoughts and feelings about this article?</li> <li>What questions do you have about the article?&nbsp;</li> <li>What other questions did this bring up for you about the situation in Syria today?&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p>List questions that cannot be answered on the board to return to later in the lesson.<br> &nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><br> Human Barometer</h4> <p>In the Human Barometer activity students respond to a series of statements by placing themselves physically along a continuum that runs from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."&nbsp; Although people often think that things are either right or wrong, good or bad, there is usually a range of opinions in between.&nbsp; Because we all have different life experiences and have often been exposed to different information, our opinions tend to vary greatly.&nbsp; This activity explores different perspectives and opinions represented in your classroom.<br> &nbsp;<br> To prepare this activity, post one sign saying "STRONGLY AGREE" on one side of the class room and another saying "STRONGLY DISAGREE" on the other side.&nbsp; Move the desks to the edges of the classroom to create a space for students to stand between the two extremes of the continuum.&nbsp; If you like, you can use masking tape to create a line on the floor between the two signs to create a visual of the continuum.<br> &nbsp;<br> When introducing the activity, instruct students to place themselves along the continuum between the two signs, according to how much they agree or disagree with the statement you'll read to them (see below).&nbsp; Encourage students to take a real stand and not be in the middle of the room too often.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Stress that you'll be asking for opinions and a rationale for those opinions; there are no right or wrong answers. &nbsp;Encourage students to take a risk—when their opinion varies from others in the room, ask them to take a stand anyway, then explain why they believe what they do.&nbsp; This will allow everyone to gain a deeper understanding of the issues being explored today.<br> &nbsp;<br> Read the first statement and ask students to move to the place in the room that represents their current point of view most accurately. Then ask students to look around the room to see where other students have positioned themselves.&nbsp; Ask some volunteers to explain why they chose their spot on the continuum.&nbsp; Elicit a range of opinions and rationales before moving on to the next statement, beginning with opinions from the majority group then moving to the less popular opinions in the room.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Statements:</p> <ul> <li>The US should intervene in Syria to support the people of Syria, who have suffered for too long under the brutal Assad regime.</li> <li>Violence is more effective than diplomacy and negotiation.</li> <li>The US should provide the rebels with weapons to fight the Assad regime themselves.</li> <li>President Obama looked weak when he threatened to use force against the Assad regime, then backed down when a diplomatic solution became a possibility.</li> <li>When human rights abuses happen in other parts of the world, it is none of our business.&nbsp; We have enough to deal with at home.</li> <li>Human rights abuses should be addressed by international organizations like the United Nations, with support from the US and others.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<br> While students are still standing, ask them to consider another statement, made by the new leader of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani was asked whether he thought Obama looked weak when he backed off his threat of air strikes against Syria to enforce his "red line" against chemical weapons. (Note that Iran has been a close ally to the Syrian regime.) <a href="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20561148-irans-president-rouhani-we-will-never-develop-nuclear-weapons?lite">Rouhani replied,</a>&nbsp;"We consider war a weakness.&nbsp; Any government or administration that decides to wage a war, we consider a weakness.&nbsp; And any government that decides on peace, we look on it with respect to peace."<br> &nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>Ask students if they agree with Rouhani's statement that "War is a weakness," and to arrange themselves along the continuum.&nbsp; Then ask students to explain their thoughts.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<br> Now tell students that in an op-ed in the New York Times, Russian president&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">Vladimir Putin</a>, also a close ally of the Assad government in Syria, said:<br> &nbsp;</p> <div class="rteindent1">"There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated [several groups] ..., fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. ...&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all."</div> <p>&nbsp;<br> Ask students to arrange themselves in response to Putin's argument:</p> <ul> <li>We should not arm the Syrian opposition by providing arms because this is likely to strengthen terrorist organizations that pose a threat to all.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<br> Now ask students to arrange themselves &nbsp;according to this statement by Putin:<br> &nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States."</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;<br> Reiterate that both Rouhani of Iran and Putin of Russia are siding with the Syrian regime in the conflict we've been discussing today, whereas the American government has sided with one of the opposition groups, the Free Syrian Army. In some ways then, the leaders of Iran and Russia can be seen as standing on the other side from the U.S. government in this conflict.<br> &nbsp;<br> Ask students to arrange themselves according to the following thought:<br> &nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>Even when you're on opposite sides of a conflict, it's possible to find agreement (at least on some points).</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>Homework</h4> <p>Before wrapping up your lessons, make sure to assign students different outstanding questions on the list you created earlier in the lesson.<br> &nbsp;<br> Some questions the class might also &nbsp;consider going forward:&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>What are the alternatives to US military action or complete inaction in Syria?&nbsp;</li> <li>What role might the United Nations or other organizations play in the Syrian conflict - or other complex conflicts that involve human rights?&nbsp;</li> <li>What has the UN's role in Syria been so far? What limits and obstacles does the UN face in Syria? What problems does it face as an institution?</li> </ul> <hr> <h4>Closing</h4> <p>Ask some volunteers to share what stood out to them about today's lesson - it can be something they learned, something that surprised them, something they enjoyed about the lesson, or something they didn't enjoy.<br> &nbsp;&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="2013-09-20T14:44:59-04:00" title="Friday, September 20, 2013 - 14:44">September 20, 2013</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 Sep 2013 18:44:59 +0000 fionta 569 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org A Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians: A Resource Unit https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/road-map-israelis-and-palestinians-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>A Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians: 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 class="byline"><strong>by Alan Shapiro</strong><br> &nbsp;</p> <p class="rteleft"><b style="text-align: -webkit-auto; ">To the Teacher: </b></p> <p>With the acceptance of a new "Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians," Israelis, Palestinians and the "Quartet" (the U.S., Russia, the UN, and the European Union) have begun another effort to resolve tensions in the Middle East. This activity provides detail on the road map and on two major issues, Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the territories. Earlier sets of lessons on this website, "Israel, the Palestinians and the United States" and "The Current Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," include additional background readings for students on the history of the struggle, the refugee issue, U.S. support for Israel, suicide bombers, and the resistance of some Israeli soldiers to serving in the territories.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading l:</strong></h3> <h2>"A Clash Between Right and Right"</h2> <p>What are the major issues dividing Palestinians and Israelis?</p> <p><b>1.</b> As many as 800,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1948 during what they call al-Nakba, "the catastrophe" and Israelis call their war for independence. Those refugees are still alive and their descendants now number 4 million, many of them living for decades in refugee camps. They claim the right to return to their lost properties.</p> <p><b>2.</b> After its victory in a 1967 war with neighboring Arab nations, the Israeli government encouraged its citizens to make settlements on what had been Palestinian land. Today, 200,000 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem; another 200,000 live in 150 settlements dotting the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some 3.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and they have frequently been subject to Israeli military control. The Palestinian Authority wants the Israeli settlements closed down and the land returned to Palestinians.</p> <p><b>3.</b> The 1967 war also gave Israel complete control over Jerusalem, which had before that been divided between Israel and Jordan. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital.</p> <p><b>4.</b> Violence between Israelis and Palestinians has occurred on and off for decades. In recent years, the Israeli military has attacked Palestinian areas in what it says is an effort to destroy munitions and kill militants. Palestinian suicide bombers have killed civilians in Israeli settlements and cities. Each side wants security in its own state.</p> <p>Meanwhile people on both sides suffer and die. The very large and very profitable Israeli tourist business is virtually dead. The Israeli economy is in decline and unemployment grows. Israelis are blown up on buses taking them to work or to school, in shopping malls, walking down the street. Israelis decide not to go to a movie, not to eat in a restaurant, not to ride a bus. Israelis feel the fear of a personal attack. They fear what may happen to their children. And in Israeli schools children are learning how to identify people who might blow themselves up. Hundreds of Israelis have been horribly injured or killed over the past several years when people have done just that.</p> <p>Palestinians are worse off. They are prevented from leaving their towns and villages for months at a time. They watch as their houses are demolished, their vineyards and olive groves uprooted, their orange trees bulldozed, their land confiscated and turned into Israeli settlements. Thousands of Palestinians are imprisoned as suspects and without charge. Palestinians see their towns turned into ruins as Israeli tanks flatten cars, shops, and homes. They see their water pipes smashed, their electricity poles snapped, their telephone lines torn down. They see family members and friends shot or blown up. Many Palestinians are without work, without health care, without adequate food and water. More than 25% percent of Palestinian children suffer from malnutrition. Palestinians live with fear. Three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been maimed or killed over the past several years.</p> <p>Amnesty International, a human rights organization, has issued reports declaring that attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians are "crimes against humanity" and that some Israeli attacks on Palestinians are "war crimes."</p> <p>On both sides of the chasm between Israelis and Palestinians are individuals who see that the gap must be bridged or there will be no hope of a decent life for anyone. The Israeli novelist and essayist Amos Oz writes: "As I see it, the confrontation between the Jews returning to Zion and the Arab inhabitants of the country is not like a western or an epic, but more like a Greek tragedy. It is a clash between right and right (although one must not seek a simplistic symmetry in it). And, as in all tragedies, there is no hope of a happy reconciliation based on a clever magical formula. The choice is between a bloodbath and a disappointing compromise, more like enforced acceptance than a sudden breakathrough of mutual understanding....We are here because this is the only place where we can exist as a free nation. The Arabs are here because Palestine is the home of the Palestinians, just as Iraq is the homeland of the Iraqis and Holland the homeland of the Dutch." ("The Meaning of Homeland" in <em>Under This Blazing Light</em> )</p> <p>Sari Nusseibeh has been a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Like Amos Oz, he says that Israelis and Palestinians must each give up something of what they treasure most. Specifically he says that Palestinians must give up their claim that Palestinian refugees and their descendants should be allowed to return to homes they lost in 1948; and Israelis must give up most, if not all, of their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and must share sovereignty over Jerusalem. On Jerusalem, for example, he says that a Palestinian who rejects a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount "is blind to history. It's totally absurd to deny Jewish history in this land—the deep connections, emotional, historical, existential. [But] it is equally absurd to deny that Christians and Muslims have connections as well. Anybody who doesn't see the full richness and variety of the various religions and cultures in the very special geographic region is totally uneducated basically. It's a reflection of ignorance, and can only cause provocation and widen the gulf."</p> <p>A successful effort to make hope a reality for Israelis and Palestinians must answer four interrelated questions.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">What solution should there be for:</p> <p><b>1.</b> 4,000,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Israeli settlements on what Palestinians regard as their land?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Control of Jerusalem?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Israelis and Palestinians to live in security, each in their own state?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></h3> <h2>A "Road Map" to Peace?</h2> <p>There is a new peace plan for Israelis and Palestinians. A "Quartet," led by the United States and including Russia, the United Nations and the European Union, agreed to it in December 2002. The plan also has the support of three Arab nations—Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Quartet waited to present the plan formally to both sides until April 30, 2003, just after the end of the war in Iraq.</p> <p>The text of the plan opens by declaring: "The following is a performance-based and goal-driven road map, with clear phases, timelines, target dates, and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian, and institution-building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet. The destination is a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005, as presented in President Bush's speech of June 24 [2002]...."</p> <p>The plan does not lay out a detailed peace process. It does not state how the Israelis and Palestinians are supposed to reach the desired destination. And it offers no way to answer questions about the four major issues that have divided Israelis and Palestinians for a long time:</p> <ul> <li>What is to happen to the Palestinian refugees and their descendants?</li> <li>How is the problem of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to be resolved?</li> <li>What is to be the fate of Jerusalem?</li> <li>How is violence to be stopped and Israelis and Palestinians to live in security, each in their own state?</li> </ul> <p>The"road map" offers only a route and provides three phases which include "reciprocal steps." For example:</p> <p><b>Phase 1:</b> "Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism...." They take visible and strong efforts "to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." At the same time, Israelis stop attacks on civilians and "confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property....," and their military "withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000" (the start of the most recent conflict). Israel also is to close down all of the dozens of small settlements established in the West Bank since that time.</p> <p><b>Phase 2:</b> The Palestinian government builds "a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty," and at an international conference the Quartet launches "a process, leading to establishment of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders."</p> <p><b>Phase 3:</b> A second international conference leads to "a final, permanent status resolution in 2005, including on borders, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements...and progress toward a comprehensive Middle East settlement between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria...." And finally, "Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel and security for all the states of the region in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."</p> <p>Will the road map lead to an end of many decades of violence and to a compromise that Israelis and Palestinians can live with?</p> <p>Both sides have taken steps forward. Under intense international pressure, the Palestinian Authority's President Yassir Arafat named and shifted some power to a new, more moderate, prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen). In a speech accepting his new position before the Palestinian parliament, he denounced Palestinian terrorism and said, "We do not ignore the sufferings of the Jews throughout history. And in exchange, we hope the Israelis will not turn their backs on the sufferings of the Palestinians." He has accepted the road map.</p> <p>Israel's government has for the first time officially accepted a Palestinian claim to eventual statehood. It has also accepted the road map, although Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has a number of serious reservations about what his government regards as the needs of Israeli security. In the first high-level meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in more than two years, Sharon met with Abbas but resisted the "reciprocal steps" called for in the road map. Sharon first insists that all acts of Palestinian terror stop and that violent groups be disarmed. Abbas has stated repeatedly that he cannot take the security measures Israel wants unless, at the same time, Israel meets its own Phase 1 obligations.</p> <p>Sharon has said that Israel is willing to make "painful concessions" for peace. What exactly these are he has not publicly said. But according to the <em>New York Times</em> , Sharon's advisors say he "envisions a Palestinian state far different from the one outlined in the road map or sought by Mr. Abbas.... He is said to believe that only after years of peaceful coexistence will Israelis and Palestinians have the confidence to come to enduring terms on precise borders. Mr. Sharon sees a final Palestinian state as holding less than half the West Bank, with no presence in Jerusalem, no military and no control of its own airspace. This may be posturing before negotiations, but his allies say they doubt it." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 4/25/03)</p> <p>Meanwhile, Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said peace talks would be meaningless unless Israelis begin dismantling settlements. "It's either settlements or peace," he said. "Both cannot go together." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 5/14/03)</p> <p>"Sharon would dismantle settlements only under the pressure of the Americans and Europeans," Yaron Ezrahi, a political science professor at Hebrew University, told the <em>New York Times</em> . 'The Israeli economy is very fragile now and depends heavily on American aid. The United States, only secretly of course, only behind the scenes, could definitely use this to force him to move more forcefully and more quickly on the issue of settlements." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 5/4/03)</p> <p>Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad oppose any two-state solution for they oppose the continued existence of Israel. They made their opposition explosive with a series of five attacks, just as the first meeting between Abbas and Sharon was taking place. The attacks killed or injured scores of Israelis. There are also Israelis who oppose a two-state solution and hard-liners in the settlements who would almost certainly resist an agreement that required them to turn the settlements over to Palestinians. In the meantime, Israeli troops in Gaza and the West Bank continue their efforts to capture or kill Palestinian militants and to uncover bomb-making operations, but in the process kill or wound Palestinians who are not militants and who are not making bombs.</p> <p>President Bush, however, believes in the road map, even though he expects it to be "a bumpy road." He has also declared his personal commitment to the road map process, saying he would "make it very clear that my country, and I, will put in as much time as necessary to achieve the vision of two states living side by side in peace."</p> <p>At a meeting in June 2003, President Bush and prime ministers Sharon and Abbas affirmed their intention to make the road map work. But almost immediately afterward, Israeli and Hamas attacks continued, wounding and killing dozens on both sides, most of them civilians, including children. Israel aims its attacks at Hamas militants who are quickly replaced by others. The Hamas suicide bombings result in renewed Israeli efforts to kill Hamas members. Commented Yaron Ezrahi: "Both sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self-destruction." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 6/15/03)</p> <p>However, at the end of June, Abbas persuaded Hamas and other militant Palestinian organizations to accept a three-month truce. At the same time, Sharon ordered the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. But by the middle of August the cycle of violence resumed: Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli strikes at Hamas militants that also killed and wounded innocent bystanders.</p> <p>Neither Prime Minister Abbas nor Prime Minister Sharon had met their<br> Phase 1 commitments by September, when Mr. Abbas resigned, complaining,<br> "The fundamental problem was Israel's unwillingness to implement its<br> commitments to the road map." But he also complained that the Bush<br> administration had not pushed Israel hard enough and that Yasir Arafat,<br> the Palestinian leader, had not given him enough support. Ahmed Qurei, a<br> close Arafat associate, accepted the prime ministership even though he<br> had said he wouldn't unless Israel halted its military operations. But<br> Israeli military attacks against Hamas leaders continued as did the<br> Palestinian suicide bombings (more than 100 have occurred in the pasts<br> three years). The Israeli government also threatened to seize and expel<br> Mr. Arafat. The road map peace process seemed to be barely alive.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3 style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 3:</h3> <h2>The Problem of Jerusalem</h2> <p>Jerusalem is a major issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides claim the city as their capital. Both sides describe a history of the city supporting that claim. Both sides ignore the claim of the other. For example, Israelis distributed information sheets on the 3,000th anniversary of David's establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The sheet celebrated "the unique and eternal bond between this city and the Jewish people," but said nothing about Arab history in Jerusalem. In the Museum of Islam on Haram al-Sharif ("Noble Sanctuary"), which Jews call Temple Mount, there is no mention of Jewish history in Jerusalem.</p> <p>In his history of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti asks, "Who is right?" and answers, "The question is superfluous. The chronicles of Jerusalem are a gigantic quarry for which each side has mined stones for the construction of its myths—and for throwing at each other." But a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a resolution to each side's claims to Jerusalem.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">A few facts about Jerusalem:</p> <ul> <li>In the Hebrew language, Jerusalem is Yerushalyim, meaning "City of Peace." in Arabic, it is Al-Quds, meaning "The Holy,"</li> <li>Much of Jerusalem's history is based on archaeological excavations, not historical records, so only approximate dates are possible.</li> <li>Semitic tribes called Canaanites who were probably from Arabia arrived in the area about five thousand years ago in 3000 BC.</li> <li>Hebrew tribes invaded about 1800 years later, in 1200 BC. In 1000 BC, the Hebrews, under the leadership of David, conquered a Cannanite tribe, the Jebusites, and established Jerusalem. Some years later in Jerusalem King David's son Solomon built the First Temple.</li> <li>About 800 BC came the first of a series of conquests of Israel by Assyrians and then Babylonians, both of whom drove Hebrew people into exile. The Persians conquered the Babylonians in 515 BC and permitted exiles to return.</li> <li>Over the next 1000 years Greeks, Romans and, again, Persians ruled Jerusalem. During the latter period the Jewish population dwindled.</li> <li>Arab forces took control of Jerusalem in 638 AD, and for almost 1300 years, Jerusalem became an Arab city under a succession of Arab dynasties—Omyyad, Abbasid, Fatamid, Ayoubid, Mamluk and Ottoman. During this time there were several relatively short periods of Christian Crusader rule, most of it in the 12th century.</li> <li>The defeat of the Ottomans in World War I ended Arab rule and led to British control from 1920-1947.</li> <li>Following Israeli's victorious war of independence over Arab nations in the area, Jerusalem was divided between Israel (West Jerusalem) and Jordan (East Jerusalem). But the city was unified under Israeli control after the six-day war of 1967. More than 200,000 Palestinians live under that control and more than 1,000,000 Palestinians live in the area.</li> <li>Jerusalem is sacred to three religions, each of which has holy sites in the city: (1) <b>Judaism</b> has many biblical associations with Jerusalem. Jewish temples once stood on Temple Mount—the first of these was destroyed by the Babylonians and then rebuilt but destroyed by the Romans. A remnant of the Second Temple stands today as the Western or "Wailing" Wall, where Jews pray. (2) <b>Muslims</b> have two mosques in Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa (built in the century after Arabs took over the city). Both stand on the mount that Muslims call Haram al-Sharif, from which, according to Islamic belief, the prophet Mohammad took his night journey to heaven. (3) <b>Christians</b> view Jerusalem as sacred because of the city's many associations with Jesus Christ. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, according to Christian belief, was built over the places where Jesus was crucified and buried and from which he ascended to heaven.</li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Is there a solution to the problem of Jerusalem?</p> <p>Serge Schmemann, a long-time <em>New York Times</em> correspondent in Israel, writes, "For most Jews any talk of dividing Jerusalem is blasphemy." ( <em>New York Times</em>, 10/27/96) They regard Jerusalem as "the eternal capital of Israel." Many Arabs believe that Jerusalem belongs to them. Sheik Mohammed Hussein, director of Al-Aqsa Mosque on Haram Al-Sharif, has said, "This is a place for Muslims, only Muslims....There is no place for argument."</p> <p>Others see only two paths for Jerusalem: Either unending violence or some sharing of sovereignty. A.S. Khalidi, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Chicago, writes: "There is no good reason why Jerusalem cannot have two separate coexisting sovereignties within nominal, open borders that demarcate the Arab and Jewish areas. Freedom of movement and access to holy places could be guaranteed without redivision of the city." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 2/11/97)</p> <p>John V. Whitbeck, a lawyer who has written frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, says, "In the context of a two-state solution, Jerusalem could form an undivided part of both states, constitute the capital of both states and be administered by an umbrella municipal council and local district councils....In the proper terminology of international law, Jerusalem could be a 'condominium' of Israel and Palestine." ( <em>The Nation,</em> 6/9/97)</p> <p>Adam Goodheart, a writer and editor of <em>Civilization</em> magazine, insists, "Any resolution of Jerusalem's status that settles exclusive control on one group will be not simply unjust but untrue to its past." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 10/1/96)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3 style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 4:</h3> <h2>The Settlements</h2> <p>In 1978 Yoel Tzur was one of the original settlers in Beit El, near the Palestinian city of Ramallah. He has a number of children, but his wife and youngest son were killed in a drive-by shooting by Palestinians in 1996. But Yoel Tzur has an unshakeable vision. "All the prophets prophesied that the people will return to the land of Israel....It is a divine promise. We believe it will come true."</p> <p>Beit El is a small Jewish settlement in the West Bank, where more than two million Palestinians live. But for Yoel Tzur the West Bank is the Judea and Samaria of the Bible and it was now liberated. "After 1967," he says, "....Jews returned to the land of Israel. This process cannot be stopped." As for the Palestinians living in the area, he believes some solution will be found—"population exchanges or compensation." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 4/6/98)</p> <p>1967 is the key year in the history of settlements like Beit El. In that year, Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies massed on Israel's borders. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared, "Our basic objective will be to destroy Israel."</p> <p>Instead, in what has become known as the Six-Day War, Israel defeated the Arab countries and took over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula (since returned in a later peace agreement), the Gaza Strip (also in Egypt), the Golan Heights of Syria, and East Jerusalem and the West Bank (of the Jordan River), which had been under Jordanian control.</p> <p>Successive Israeli governments then encouraged settlements in what had been Arab land and where Palestinians had lived for centuries. They offered significant incentives to settlers, including sharp reductions in mortgage rates and tax breaks. Israelis like Yoel Tzur, however, moved into a settlement for religious, not economic, reasons. Like many other settlers, he believes that God gave the land to the Jewish people. But according to a 2002 study by the Israeli group Peace Now, 80 percent of the settlers moved to settlements for the better quality of life made possible by government financial incentives and the lower cost of living in settlements.</p> <p>Successive Israeli governments have also seen political and military reasons for the settlements. They create "facts on the ground." The physical presence of Israelis and the towns they built, Israeli leaders thought, would prevent Palestinians from establishing their own state and deter invasions from Jordan or Iraq. The settlements, they thought, would make the country more secure.</p> <p>The table below shows how the numbers of Israelis have increased in the occupied Palestinian territories:</p> <table border="1" cellpadding="1" height="165" width="95%"> <tbody> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td><b>West Bank and Gaza</b></td> <td><b>East Jerusalem</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>1972</b></td> <td>1,500</td> <td>6,900</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>1992</b></td> <td>110,000</td> <td>141,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td><b>2001</b></td> <td>214,000</td> <td>170,400</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Today, more than 400,000 Israelis live in the above areas amid a population of 3,500,000 Palestinians.According to estimates made in 2001, the Israeli government spends at least $1 billion yearly to subsidize, develop, and defend<br> its settlements. The U.S. finances this policy indirectly through the approximately $4 billion in support it provides to Israel each year.</p> <p>But where Israelis have seen flourishing settlements, Palestinians have seen their land confiscated. They have been forced to live under the control of the Israeli military. Their communities have been squeezed into small areas served by poor roads and an inadequate water supply (Israeli settlements use a disproportionate amount of the available water). Their applications to build new roads, new schools, water pipelines, improved homes—have all been denied.</p> <p>Nothing has radicalized Palestinians more than the growing West Bank and Gaza settlements. During the second "Intifada" (Palestinian uprising) that began in 2000, organized Palestinian guerrillas began attacking settlers on the roads near settlements and occasionally even in their homes. The Israeli settlements have also contributed to Palestinian anger at the United States. This is because the U.S. grants Israel yearly $2 billion in security assistance and approximately $1 billion in economic aid that help make the settlements possible.</p> <p>According to David Grossman, an Israeli writer, "The majority of Israelis take comfort today in believing that the horrifying deeds committed by Palestinian terrorists [means] that all the guilt for the current state of affairs rests on Palestinian shoulders....Of course, the Israeli occupation is not the entire story....Palestinians contributed their share to the march of blood and folly....And we must not forget that the Six-Day War was not a war that Israel wanted. Yet despite this, the historical story that Israel chooses to tell itself is astoundingly obtuse and superficial.</p> <p>"The story that now reigns nearly unchallenged in the media and political discourse obliterates more than 33 years of roadblocks, thousands of prisoners, deportations and killings of innocent people. It's as if there were never long months of closures to cities and villages, as if there had been no humiliations, no incessant harassment, no searches of houses, no bulldozing of hundreds of homes, no uprooting of vineyards and olive groves, no filling up of wells and, especially, no construction of tens of thousands of housing units in settlements and large-scale confiscation of land, in violation of international law." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 10/1/02)</p> <p>According to international law (Article 49 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention), which Israel signed, "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."</p> <p>Israel's position has been that legally the territories are not "occupied" because the West Bank was taken from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and neither of those countries had internationally recognized sovereignty over these areas. Therefore the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories," whose future must be settled by negotiations. Israel also claims that the words "deportation" and "transfer" were used in the Geneva Convention to refer to Nazi practices and have no relevance to Israelis who move voluntarily to places in the "disputed territories."</p> <p>A number of United Nations resolutions going back to 1967 also point to the illegality of the settlements. A 1980 resolution, for example, declares Israel's policies and practices in the territories to "have no legal validity." Israel's answer is the same as that for the Geneva Convention.</p> <p>For more than a year, Israel has been building what is projected to be a 200-mile fence to separate it from Palestinians. The Israelie say the fence is a temporary security measure. But it has already had serious consequences. The fence surrounds three sides of the Palestinian town of Qalqilya, where it has wiped out Palestinian farmland, groves of olive and fruit trees, and greenhouses.</p> <p>The fence, which will have guard towers, will appropriate about 10 percent of the West Bank. It is to encompass most of the Israeli settlements in the territories but also takes in many Palestinian towns and villages that are close to the settlements. Estimates are that this will add another 150,000 Palestinians to the Israeli population who will not be citizens. More than 200,000 non-Israeli citizens already live in East Jerusalem. Grossman writes, "Does anyone seriously believe they will not turn to terrorism? When that happens, they will be inside the fence, not outside it, and they will have unobstructed passage to Israel's city centers. Or will Israel confine them behind yet another second fence?" ( <em>New York Times,</em> 7/12/02)</p> <p>No Israeli official is more responsible for the nation's settlement policies than Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. As the minister in charge of the occupied territories in two Israeli governments, he was a driving force in creating settlements. But on May 25, 2003, he announced Israel's official support—with some reservations— for the "road map" peace plan, which requires Israel to freeze settlement activities and will eventually mean the withdrawal of many settlers.</p> <p>A member of the prime minister's party, Likud, asked him what the settlement freeze meant for Jewish families in the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon's answer: "There is no restriction here, and you can build for your children and grandchildren, and I hope for your great-grandchildren as well." At the same Likud meeting Sharon also said, "Ruling three and a half million Palestinians cannot go on indefinitely. You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. Holding 3.5 million Palestinians is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy." How the prime minister intends to resolve what appear to be contradictory statements remains to be seen.</p> <p>One settler in a community south of Jerusalem was upset by Sharon's statement. "I was very, very surprised by the prime minister, and angry. I don't feel like one who occupies area. It's our area, our homeland." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 6/1/03)</p> <p>In an earlier interview with the writer Avishai Margalit, another settler said, "We are here because every Israeli government told us that here is where we should be. We are obedient citizens, and if we are told to leave, we'll leave. All we ask is to be offered a respectable solution." Margalit added, "I believe most of the settlers—who are driven neither by nostalgia nor ideology—would agree with them. A 'respectable' solution can and should be offered to all the settlers. As for the settlers who reject such a solution, they will fiercely resist and threaten a civil war." ( <em>New York Review,</em> 8/22/01)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>CLASSROOM SUGGESTIONS</h3> <p style="font-weight: bold"><br> 1. An Inquiry-Oriented Approach</p> <p>Begin with a question: What are shuhada? Probably no one will know the answer.</p> <p>Shuhada is the Arabic word for martyrs, people who in American media are usually called suicide bombers and, sometimes, murderers. What do students know about these people? Why do they deliberately blow themselves up to kill as many Israelis as possible? What do they hope to accomplish?</p> <p>Divide the class into groups of three for five to ten minutes' worth of discussion. Ask each group to name a reporter to summarize its conversation for the class.</p> <p>Reconvene the class and list student responses on the chalkboard without comment. Then invite discussion:</p> <ul> <li>Which explanations seem most reasonable? Why?</li> <li>What uncertainties do students have? What additional questions?</li> <li>Examine these questions as detailed in "The Doubting Game" section of "Teaching Critical Thinking" on this website and begin an inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The readings in "A Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians" can provide some of the background.</li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold"><br> <br> 2. A Current News Approach</p> <p>Discuss with students the latest events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially any having to do with the Quartet's road map to peace. On the basis of this discussion, use the readings and other classroom suggestions in "A Road Map for Israelis and Palestinians" for a study of basic issues.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold"><br> 3. Discussion Questions for the Readings</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Reading 1:</p> <ul> <li>What are the four basic issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians?</li> <li>In each case, why has this issue not been resolved over the past half century?</li> <li>What does Amos Oz mean by calling the struggle "a clash between right and right"?</li> <li>Do you agree with him? Why or why not?</li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Reading 2:</p> <ul> <li>What are some of the road map's ingredients?</li> <li>Where is the map intended to lead?</li> <li>What problems are likely to arise?</li> <li>Why does Mr. Ezrahi regard American pressure as vital?</li> <li>Why do you think he said that it must be exerted "secretly" and "behind the scenes"?</li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Reading 3:</p> <ul> <li>Why is Jerusalem an obstacle to peace?</li> <li>Summarize Israeli and Palestinian views on Jerusalem and why they hold them</li> <li>What are possible solutions to the problem?</li> <li>Why are they difficult to achieve?</li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Reading 4:</p> <ul> <li>Summarize the reasons why Israelis have settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.</li> <li>Why do Palestinians oppose the settlements?</li> <li>Is Israel in violation of international law? Why or why not?</li> <li>What problems do you think Prime Minister Sharon would have if he ordered the dismantling of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?</li> <li>What problems if he doesn't?</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">4. Writing Assignments</p> <p>Discuss one of the following quotations, offering specifics to support your opinion of it:</p> <p><b>A.</b> "...there is no hope of a happy reconciliation [for Israelis and Palestinians] based on a clever magical formula. The choice is between a bloodbath and a disappointing compromise." —Amos Oz, <em>Under This Blazing Light</em></p> <p><b>B.</b> "The Israelis humiliate us. They occupy our land, and deny our history."<br> —Responses of volunteer shuhada (martyrs) or suicide bombers when asked why they are willing to kill themselves and others. Nasra Hassan's "An Arsenal of Believers," <em>The New Yorker,</em> 11/19/01</p> <p><b>C.</b> "The only peace worth its name is an exchange of land for peace on the basis of rough parity between the two sides."—Edward Said, <em>The Nation,</em> 9/8&amp;15/97</p> <p><br> <b>5. For Further Inquiry</b></p> <p><b>A.</b> What are the major reasons why the United States provides Israel with some $3 billion per year in security and economic assistance?</p> <p><b>B.</b> Why didn't Palestinians accept the 1947 United Nations decision to divide Palestine into two states?</p> <p><b>C.</b> Why did about 800,000 Palestinians become refugees during Israel's war with Arab countries in 1948?</p> <p><b>D.</b> Why does Hamas oppose a two-state solution to the conflict as well as the continued existence of Israel?</p> <p><b>E.</b> What are major reasons why the Oslo peace process launched in 1993 failed?</p> <p><br> <b>6. For Student Action</b></p> <p>Possible student activities on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict include writing letters to U.S. officials expressing their views of the situation and what the U.S. should do about it, organizing school-wide informational programs on the subject and polling neighbors and relatives for their views. (This activity which would probably call for instruction on how to prepare and conduct a poll)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Sources</p> <p><em>The New York Times</em> (various issues)<br> <em>The New York Review</em> (various issues, including R. F. Sheehan, "The Map and the Fence," 7/3/03)<br> Anti-Defamation League, ww.adl.org<br> Meron Benvenisti, <em>City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem</em><br> Max Dimont, <em>Jews, God and History</em><br> Amos Elon, <em>The Israelis: Founders and Sons</em><br> NOW with Bill Moyers, 6/6/03<br> Roane Carey, "Bumps in the Road Map," <em>The Nation,</em> 6/30/03<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <p><br> <em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We</em> <em>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="2011-11-07T21:51:20-05:00" title="Monday, November 7, 2011 - 21:51">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 02:51:20 +0000 fionta 1039 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org American Treatment of Iraqi & Afghan Prisoners: Who is to Blame? https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/american-treatment-iraqi-afghan-prisoners-who-blame <!-- 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 Treatment of Iraqi &amp; Afghan Prisoners: Who is to Blame?</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>By Alan Shapiro</p> <p><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></p> <p>American treatment of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners has created an international scandal and raised profound questions for the citizens of our country. The two readings and accompanying activities below explore whether these events are the result of a few individuals acting alone or are the result of broader government decisions. You may want to begin the class exploration of this issue with another lesson from this website, American Treatment of Iraqi and Afghan Prisoners: An Introduction.</p> <hr> <p><strong>Student Reading 1:</strong></p> <h3>The actions of a few?</h3> <p>In the spring of 2004, a series of photos of American soldiers and Iraqi prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison came into public view. President Bush called the photographs "disgusting" and said "...there will be a full accounting for the cruel and disgraceful abuses of Iraqi detainees....they are an affront to the most basic standards of morality and decency." He also said that Abu Ghraib "became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops."</p> <p>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility....I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees....It is important for the American people and the world to know that while these terrible acts were perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military, they were also brought to light by the honorable and responsible actions of other military personnel." He also said, "My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture."</p> <p>But are more than "a few" or "a small number" of low-ranking American soldiers shown in the photographs responsible for "disgraceful conduct" and "terrible acts"? According to newspaper and magazine reports as well as human rights groups, similar behavior took place elsewhere in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where hundreds of Afghan fighters were sent after the U.S. overturned Taliban rule in Afghanistan in December 2001.</p> <ul> <li>The <em>Washington Post</em> reported on December 25, 2002 that prisoners held in the CIA interrogation center at Bagram air base, Afghanistan "are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours in black hoods or spray-painted goggles....At times they are held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights-subject to what are known as 'stress and duress' techniques."</li> <li>Other techniques approved for use at Guantanamo by its commander Major General Geoffrey Miller included: "the use of harsh heat or cold; withholding food...naked isolation in cold, dark cells for more than 30 days." (<em>Newsweek</em>, 5/24/04)</li> <li>Amnesty International, a worldwide human rights organization, says that in July 2003 it reported "allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by U.S. and Coalition forces" to the U.S. Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq. The allegations included beatings, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, hooding, and prolonged forced standing and kneeling. It received no response nor any indication from the administration or the CPA that an investigation took place." Amnesty International added, "Numerous people held in the U.S. Air Bases in Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan say they were subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in U.S. custody." (Amnesty International press release, 5/7/04)</li> <li>On January 31, 2003 the executive directors of human rights groups wrote to President Bush demanding statements by him and his cabinet officers that "torture in any form or manner will not be tolerated."</li> <li>In mid-January 2004 Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Red Cross, complained about prison abuses in a meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.</li> <li>In February 2004 the Red Cross reported that its investigators had made 29 staff visits to 14 places of detention in Iraq between March 31 and October 24, 2003, and that they had reported about 200 allegations of abuse to the U.S. military as early as May 2003. In July it reported 50 allegations of abuse at a detention center called Camp Cropper, Iraq. The report called some of the treatment "tantamount to torture." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/11/04)</li> <li>In the past, military lawyers have supervised prisoner interrogations to ensure that they are conducted humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (international rules about the fair treatment of prisoners). But in Iraq they have been kept away, said a human rights lawyer, Scott Horton, who met with senior military lawyers. "Mr. Horton said the officers who met with him were disturbed by what they called the administration's disdain for international law." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/19/04)</li> <li>Army officials are now investigating the deaths of at least 40 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, for there is evidence that at least several died during or after interrogations of "blunt force injuries" or "asphyxiation." In a number of cases of deaths under suspicious circumstances, the military did not perform autopsies.</li> </ul> <p>After U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners became public, a <em>New York Times</em> reporter wrote the following (5/5/04): "Across the Arab world and beyond, the tormenting of Iraqi prisoners by their American guards shredded already thin support for Washington's invasion of Iraq and its vow to install democratic values and respect for human rights." The article's survey of worldwide reaction included the following:</p> <ul> <li>Abdelmonem Said, the director of Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, Egypt, said, "Saddam was a butcher who tortured people; now the United States is torturing people."</li> <li>A headline in <em>Al Quds al Arabi</em>, a London-based Arab newspaper, read "Abu Ghraib's pictures disclose America: torture, sexual abuse against Iraqi prisoners."</li> <li>France's most popular daily newspaper said, "Countries like America that exempt themselves from international rules are vulnerable to such excesses."</li> </ul> <p>So where does the responsibility lie for the treatment of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners?</p> <p>In August 2004 the results of two investigations into American treatment of prisoners were made public.</p> <p>1. "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." There were about 300 reported incidents of mistreatment and "66 substantiated cases." ("Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations," headed by James Schlesinger, Defense Secretary under President Nixon)</p> <p>The panel found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers; and the Commander of the Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid should have known about and responded to "the serious limitations of the 800th Military Policy Brigade at Abu Ghraib" and recognized the need for more and better-trained military police. (<em>New York Times</em>, 8/25/04)</p> <p>According to one member of this panel, Tillie Fowler, a Republican and former congresswoman from Florida, "We found a string of failures that go well beyond an isolated cellblock in Iraq. We found fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to the Central Command and to the Pentagon. These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed the abusive practice to take place."</p> <p><br> 2. "This investigation identified 44 alleged instances of events of detainee abuse committed by M.P. [Military Police] and M.I. [Military Intelligence] soldiers, as well as civilian contractors....This investigation found that certain individuals committed offenses in violation of international and U.S. law to include the Geneva Conventions.... leadership responsibility and command responsibility, systemic problems and issues also contributed to the volatile environment in which the abuse occurred. These systemic problems included: inadequate interrogation doctrine and training, an acute shortage of M.P. and M.I. soldiers, the lack of clear lines of responsibility..., the lack of a clear interrogation policy for the Iraq campaign, and intense pressure felt by the personnel on the ground to produce actionable intelligence from detainees....What started [at Abu Ghraib] as nakedness and humiliation, stress and physical training carried over into sexual and physical assaults by a small group of morally corrupt and unsupervised soldiers and civilians."</p> <p>"At 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." This report also criticized Army medical staff members who did not prevent or report abuses and torture."</p> <p>("Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade," headed by Maj. Gen. George Fay and Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones)</p> <p>At a Pentagon press conference, General Fay told reporters, "There were a few instances when torture was being used."</p> <p>Some comments on these reports:</p> <p>"When you put these reports together, the clear message is that the system failed in a widespread manner." (Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina, member of Senate Armed Services Committee, reported in the <em>New York Times</em>, 8/26/04 )</p> <p>"The Fay-Jones report has further widened the circle of accountability. What is still missing is any sort of accountability in Washington for the policies and incompetence that gave rise to the abuses." (Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat, Massachusetts, member of House Armed Services Committee, reported in the <em>New York Times</em>, 8/26/04)</p> <p>"The (Independent Panel) report talks about management failures when it should be talking about policy failures. The report seems to go out of its way not to find any relationship between Secretary Rumsfeld's approval of interrogation techniques designed to inflict pain and humiliation and the widespread mistreatment and torture of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo." (Reed Brody, special counsel with Human Rights Watch, reported in the <em>New York Times</em>, 8/25/04)</p> <p><br> Additional reports continue to be made public:</p> <p>Confidential reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross that became public in late November 2004 revealed that the Red Cross had charged the American military with intentionally using psychological and physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After an inspection team visit there that lasted most of June 2004, the Red Cross reported treatment of prisoners that included "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." In what it called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics," the report also charged that some doctors and other medical workers were participating in planning interrogations and disclosing to interrogators personal information about prisoners' mental health and weaknesses. Rejecting these charges, a Pentagon spokesman said, "The United States operates a safe, humane and professional detention operation at Guantanamo that is providing valuable information in the war on terrorism." (<em>New York Times</em>, 11/30/04)</p> <p>In FBI documents released in December 2004, one reported such treatment of civilian prisoners in Iraq as "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations." An FBI agent who witnessed treatment of these prisoners stated: "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 own hair out throughout the night."</p> <p>In its coverage of this report, the <em>New York Times</em> said, "the newly disclosed documents are the latest to show that such activities were known to a wide circle of government officials." (12/21/04) The release of this and other information about prisoner abuse and torture was the result of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. A press release about its findings includes the report of an FBI agent's conversation with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, Guantanamo's commander, "who defended the use of interrogation techniques the FBI regarded as illegal on the grounds that the military 'has their marching orders from the Sec Def'" [Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld].'" (washingtonpost.com, 12/24/04)</p> <p>According to a report in the <em>New York Times</em>, in late December 2004 the U.S. Justice Department "broadened its definition of torture, significantly retreating from a memorandum in August 2002 that defined torture extremely narrowly and said President Bush could ignore domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security....'Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms,' said the new memorandum....</p> <p>"Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has sued the administration over its interrogation policies, said...that the redefinition 'makes it clear that the earlier one was not just some intellectual theorizing by some lawyers about what was possible. It means it must have been implemented in some way. It puts the burden on the administration to say what practices were actually put in place under those auspices.'" (<em>New York Times</em>, 1/1/05)</p> <p><strong>For Discussion</strong></p> <p>1. What questions does this reading raise for students? Can they be answered? How?</p> <p>2. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says he is "accountable" and takes "full responsibility" for prisoner treatment. What do "accountable" and "full responsibility" mean to you? If, for example, you admit accountability and responsibility for something you have done that is wrong, what, if anything, do you expect to do or to happen as a result?</p> <p>3. Based on what you have read and perhaps seen on TV, would you describe the prisoner treatment as "abuse"? "torture"? something else? Why?</p> <p>4. Reports and complaints about prisoner treatment were made by responsible organizations months before the photographs became public late in April. The army assigned Major General Taguba to investigate Iraqi detention centers. The military also launched investigations into the behavior of individual soldiers shown in the photographs. Should anything else have been done by the President, the Pentagon, or army officials in Iraq? If so, what and why? If not, why not?</p> <p>5. What is your tentative response to this question: Who is responsible for the treatment of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners?</p> <p>6. Senator James Imhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is investigating the treatment of prisoners, said he was "more outraged by the outrage" over the photographs than by what the photos show. "These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations....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 these individuals." Do you agree with the senator? Why or why not?</p> <hr> <p><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></p> <h3>Timeline</h3> <p><strong>October 2001</strong></p> <p>A month after the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. The U.S.'s stated purpose was (1) to capture or kill as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible and (2) to overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan that supported Al Qaeda. Soon the U.S. had hundreds of Afghan prisoners.</p> <p><strong>January 2002</strong></p> <p>On January 29, 2002, John Yoo of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel co-authored an advisory memo. Its chief conclusion: neither the laws of war nor the Geneva Convention applied to the war in Afghanistan.</p> <p>White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in a memo advised President Bush to declare the prisoners in the "war on terror" to be outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions (for a description of the Geneva Conventions, please see American Treatment of Iraqi and Afghan Prisoners: An Introduction). "As you have said," he wrote to the President, "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...."</p> <p>This new situation, he concluded, "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Gonzales also argued that declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply would avoid the possibility of American officials being subject to war crimes prosecution. A 1996 U.S. law forbids "war crimes," which are defined to include "any grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions.</p> <p><strong>February 2002</strong></p> <p>The White House announced that the U.S. would apply the Geneva Conventions to the Afghan prisoners but that they would not be given prisoner-of-war status. Administration officials called these prisoners "unlawful combatants." From the Pentagon's point of view Al Qaeda followers have no rights under the Geneva Conventions that it is bound to follow. But Geneva Convention III states: "Should any doubt arise," all fighters are covered by the rules of the Geneva Conventions until "a competent tribunal" decides they are not. To date, no tribunal has been created because the Bush administration "insists that there is no doubt that those it has detained are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status." (Ronald Dworkin, "Terror and the Attack on Civil Liberties," <em>The New York Review</em>, 11/6/03)</p> <p>The Pentagon decision, however, "set the stage for the new interrogation procedures ungoverned by international law," according to <em>Newsweek</em> magazine (5/24/2004). Some time after February 7, Bush "signed a secret order granting new powers to the CIA. According to knowledgeable sources, the President's directive authorized the CIA to set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness....The administration also began...delivering terror suspects to foreign governments for interrogation." Newsweek says it was informed by "Congressional sources" that CIA Director George Tenet had suggested that "it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive methods."</p> <p>Newsweek charged that the new policy allowed the administration to "sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war....and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliations<span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(66, 66, 66); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">—</span>methods that the Red Cross concluded were 'tantamount to torture.'"<br> (All quotes above, <em>Newsweek</em>, 5/24/04)</p> <p><strong>December 2, 2002</strong></p> <p>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized such interrogation techniques as the following for suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who were captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: "hooding prisoners, using dogs to terrify them, forcing them into 'stress positions' for long periods, stripping them, shaving them and isolating them. All this was prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, but President Bush had already declared on Feb. 7, 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda." (<em>New York Times</em> editorial 8/26/2004)</p> <p>After Navy criticisms, Secretary Rumsfeld directed in January 2003 that these interrogation techniques could be used only with his approval. But not until April of that year did he issue a final list of approved methods for use at Guantanamo. (An independent panel appointed to review them stated in August 2004 that these changes "were an element contributing to uncertainties in the field as to which techniques were authorized" and that the harsher techniques "migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq where they were neither limited nor safeguarded.")</p> <p><strong>January 2003</strong></p> <p>In his State of the Union address, President Bush tried to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda: "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." (Bush later clarified that the administration has not, however, discovered any link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.)</p> <p><strong>February 2003</strong></p> <p>In his February 6 radio address President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. 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 1990s 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>These remarks by Bush appear to be in conflict with a report of investigators for the commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Released publicly on June 16, 2004, this report states that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994. "Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."</p> <p><strong>March 2003-May 2003</strong></p> <p>In a March 2003 legal memorandum, Bush administration lawyers wrote: "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." This memorandum also discussed how torture is to be defined: "...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...." 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."</p> <p>On March 20, the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq .</p> <p>On May 1 Bush declared "major combat operations" over. During this period and in the following weeks, American troops captured and imprisoned thousands of Iraqis.</p> <p>Despite overall U.S. control of Iraq, by the summer of 2003 American troops were being ambushed, hit by rocket-propelled grenades and surprised by roadside bombs that exploded under army vehicles. A growing resistance seemed to include a number of Iraqi militias that had not been disarmed, loyalists to Saddam Hussein and a small number of foreign fighters.</p> <p>More than a year after the completion of "major combat operations" in Iraq, Bush tried to link Iraqi fighters with "terrorism": "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror....elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists." (5/25/04)</p> <p><strong>September 2003</strong></p> <p>The U.S. Defense Department and the military were eager to get more information from prisoners to help the military in its continuing conflict with Iraqi fighters. A decision was made to send Guantanamo commander Major General Geoffrey Miller to Iraq in September 2003. His job was "to review Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence," according to Major General Antonio Taguba, who was charged by the Army with investigating "detention and internment operations" by the 800th Military Police Brigade (which had been assigned to the Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad).</p> <p>According to the Taguba report, Miller's recommended that "Detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation." Miller also briefed military commanders in Iraq on interrogation methods used at Guantanamo: sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions for agonizing lengths of time." (Seymour Hersh, "Chain of Command," <em>The New Yorker</em>, 5/17/04)</p> <p><strong>September-October 2003</strong></p> <p>Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander at the time in Iraq, on three occasions issued and revised interrogation rules approving harsh methods intended to be limited to Guantanamo detainees and confusing interrogators. (According to high-level Army investigators in a report of August 2004, a result was that interrogators acted in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions, which they did not understand well, though they should have.)</p> <p><strong>November 2003</strong></p> <p>Colonel Thomas Pappas, commander of the 205th Intelligence Brigade, took charge of interrogations of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib during November. He "was under enormous pressure from his superiors to extract more information from prisoners there, according to senior army officers." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/19/04)</p> <p>Taguba's investigatory report included evidence from sworn statements to Army investigators, one of whom stated, "he had heard MI [military intelligence] insinuate to the guards to abuse the prisoners. When asked what MI said he stated: 'Loosen this guy up for us.' 'Make sure he has a bad night.' 'Make sure he gets the treatment.'" (Seymour Hersh, "Torture at Abu Ghraib," <em>The New Yorker</em>, 5/10/04)</p> <p>Since the publication of the photos from Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004, there has been intense discussion about who was responsible.</p> <p>"The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal," Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker magazine, "lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focused on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq....According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation...encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."</p> <p>The chief spokesman for the Pentagon, Lawrence Di Rita responded to such charges: "No responsible official in this department, including Secretary Rumsfeld, would or could have been involved in sanctioning the physical coercion or sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/16/04)</p> <p>Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, told Hersh: "Since September 11th...the military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the world on detainees....'We're giving the world a ready-made excuse to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar.'" ("The Gray Zone," <em>The New Yorker</em>, 5/24/04)</p> <p>President Bush, however, gave Secretary Rumsfeld strong praise, saying he has done "a superb job."</p> <p>"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," said the Red Cross's director of operations, Pierre Krahenbuhl, in a Geneva news conference. The Army Times, the weekly trade journal of the uniformed military wrote: "This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essentialóeven if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war." (Both quotes are cited in <em>The New Yorker</em>, 5/24/04)</p> <p>A number of investigations by U.S. officials, both military and legislative, are underway. The New York Times reports, however, that "No investigation completely independent of the Pentagon exists to determine what led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison." (June 6, 2004). John D. Hutson, who was the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said of the current investigations: "I think in a very narrow sense we'll see that justice was done for the seven low-level soldiers, or whatever number it ends up being. Whether justice is done for the more senior people implicated remains to be seen. I don't hold out great hope that any of these investigations are going to result in that." (<em>New York Times</em>, 6/6/04)</p> <p>So who is responsible for the abuse and torture of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners? The New York Times declared in an editorial (5/14/04): "Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld should...stop trying to dump the blame on the shoulders of America's enlisted men and women. The entire chain of command in Iraq must be part of the investigation." That chain of command includes:</p> <ul> <li>Colonel Thomas Pappas, commander of a Military Intelligence Brigade. Pappas was placed in charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib in November 2003 and supervised those who questioned prisoners</li> <li>Major General Geoffrey Miller, the Guantanamo commandant and advisor on Iraqi prisoners</li> <li>Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Seven (in Iraq)</li> <li>General John Abizaid, Commander, United States Central Command (Middle East)</li> <li>General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff</li> <li>Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, who said that he was "accountable" and takes "full responsibility" for the treatment of prisoners</li> <li>George Bush, President of the United States and, according to the Constitution, the commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces</li> </ul> <p><strong>For Discussion</strong></p> <p>1. What questions do students have about this reading? Can they be answered from the reading? If not, how? Does this reading help students to answer any of their earlier unanswered questions?</p> <p>2. Why do you think that White House Counsel Gonzales concluded that as a result of the "war on terror" the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete" and "quaint"? What was his concern about war crimes trials?</p> <p>3. It appears as if the Bush Administration chose to ignore Geneva Convention. Why?</p> <p>4. Why would the U.S. send "terror suspects" to some other country for interrogation? What do you think of this procedure and why?</p> <p>5. Why were officials so eager to get information from Iraqi and Afghan prisoners?</p> <p>6. How has the President connected the war in Iraq with the war on terror? What evidence is there that Iraq is or isn't "the central front in the war on terror"?</p> <p>7. What do you understand General Miller to mean by: "Detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation"?</p> <p>8. According to Newsweek and Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, what are the "roots" of the prisoner treatment scandal? Do you agree? Why or why not?</p> <p>9. Why do you suppose that Bush and Roth disagree about the quality of Rumsfeld's service as defense secretary?</p> <p>10. What tentative conclusions do you reach about responsibility for the prisoner treatment scandal? Why?</p> <p><br> <strong>Additional Classroom Suggestions</strong></p> <p><strong>Obeying orders: A Microlab</strong></p> <p class="rteindent1">"On the one hand, the military's manual for courts-martial says orders requiring the performance of 'a military duty or act' are lawful and are 'disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.' On the other, it says this 'does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.' A lawful order must 'be a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act.' Rather than a regulation or policy, such an order 'must be directed specifically to the subordinate.'" (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/16/04)</p> <p class="rteindent1">A lawyer defending one of the soldiers shown in the photographs says: "Our defense says he was following orders and that he believed the orders were lawful." One defendant, Private Lynndie R. England, the soldier shown pulling a dog leash attached to a naked prisoner, said on a Denver radio program, "I was instructed by persons in higher ranks to stand there and hold this leash." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/16/04)</p> <p>Divide students into groups of three or four for a microlab. A microlab allows participants to deepen their understanding of an issue through speaking and listening. It is not a time for dialogue. Each student, in turn, is given 45 uninterrupted seconds to respond to the following question:</p> <p class="rteindent1"><strong>Assuming that Private England was, in fact, ordered by a person in a higher rank to hold the leash attached to the naked prisoner, should she have refused to obey the order? Why or why not?</strong></p> <p>After 45 seconds let the groups know that it is time for the next person to speak. Continue until each student has had a chance to respond. Then invite students to participate in a whole-class discussion.</p> <p>Some students may be aware that the issue of obeying unlawful orders is not new. The defense of many of the Nazi defendants on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II was similar to Lynndie England's. So was the defense of Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for organizing transportation for Jews from all of Eastern Europe to the Nazi death camps. Similar defenses continue to this day in places like Bosnia and Rwanda where genocidal acts were committed. If students do not know about these events, the teacher may find it useful to bring them up for consideration in class discussion.</p> <p><strong>Debate</strong></p> <p>Organize a classroom debate on the following:</p> <p>Resolved, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign or be fired from his position because of his responsibility for the abuse and torture of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners.</p> <p><strong>Writing</strong></p> <p>Write a well-organized essay on one of the following subjects:</p> <ul> <li>"To refuse to call what took place in Abu Ghraib...by its true name, torture, is...outrageous."<br> Susan Sontag, "The Photographs Are Us," <em>New York Times</em>, 5/23/04<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>Most people will say they don't support torturing prisoners. But what if there were reason to believe that torturing a prisoner could produce information that would save many lives? Would you then support torture? Why or why not?<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>"...torture is torture. It permanently scars the victim even when there are no visible marks on the body, and it leaves other scars on the lives of those who perform it and on the life of the nation that allowed and encouraged it."<br> Adam Hochschild, <em>New York Times</em>, 5/23/04</li> </ul> <p><strong>For further inquiry</strong></p> <p><strong>Obedience to orders.</strong></p> <p>During the Civil War thousands of Union soldiers were held at a prison camp in Andersonville, Georgia and treated so inhumanely that many of them died. Saul Levitt's play, The Andersonville Trial, is about the 1865 trial of Andersonville's commander, Henry Wirz, and focuses on the following question: Did Wirz have a moral duty to disobey the orders of his superior, General Winder? Students might read this play and respond to that question in writing or in a presentation to the class. Similar assignments might focus on the Nuremburg trials or on the trial of Eichmann.</p> <p><strong>War Crimes.</strong></p> <p>An inquiry might pursue one or more of the following questions:</p> <ul> <li>What is a "war crime"?</li> <li>How is it defined in U.S. law?</li> <li>Is that law relevant to the Afghan and Iraqi prisoner abuse and torture scandal?</li> <li>Was the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War a war crime?</li> <li>Who was held accountable and responsible for My Lai? How?</li> <li>Who was not held accountable or responsible? Why not?</li> </ul> <p><strong>Other inquiries.</strong></p> <ul> <li>Why is the U.S. holding prisoners indefinitely without charge or access to lawyers at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? What are the arguments pro and con for this kind of imprisonment?</li> <li>What evidence is there that Saddam Hussein was associated with and supported Al Qaeda or any other international terrorists? What evidence is there for President Bush's assertion that Iraq is now "the central front in the war on terror"?</li> <li>What are the origins of and reasons for the International Committee of the Red Cross?</li> <li>What are the origins of and reasons for the Geneva Conventions?</li> </ul> <p><strong>Opportunities for student citizenship</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Letters</strong>. Students might write letters expressing their views on the treatment of Afghan and Iraqi prisoners and what, if anything, should be done about this treatment. The letters could be sent to President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Senator Warner (chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that is investigating what happened in Abu Ghraib) or to the students' own senators and representatives.<br> &nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Investigatory Committee.&nbsp;</strong>Students might form an investigatory committee to learn as much as they can about U.S. treatment of prisoners. Students could consider the moral and ethical implications of prisoner abuse or torture for our country. The committee could also conduct a continuing study of the results of official investigations, determinations of responsibility, courts-martial, etc. It could prepare presentations for school assemblies and PTA meetings, promote similar studies and programs by students in other schools and create links with such groups for other activitiesófor example, visiting representatives and senators to make their views known and creating publications to distribute in their schools.</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: lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org</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="2011-11-07T21:50:01-05:00" title="Monday, November 7, 2011 - 21:50">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 02:50:01 +0000 fionta 1038 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 Bloody Iraq & Its Future: Part II https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/bloody-iraq-its-future-part-ii <!-- 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>Bloody Iraq &amp; Its Future: Part II</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 conventional wisdom about Iraq is that, despite the bloody mayhem there, the U.S. cannot "cut and run," must "stay the course." Having examined "the course" the Bush administration has taken in the American occupation of Iraq, a number of people outside the administration have written that our country must find a way to extricate itself from a disastrous and chaotic course.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The president stated the essence of his view of the course he wants Iraq to take in the speeches of 5/12/04 and 12/7/04 quoted in the first reading, "Iraq: What Has Gone Right; What Has Gone Wrong." In the following reading, critics offer ideas for a different course.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <hr> <h3><strong>Reading:</strong></h3> </div> <h2>Iraq: How to Get Out</h2> <div>Here are four views opposing current U.S. policy in Iraq and suggesting others.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1. Jonathan Schell, Harold Willens Peace Fellow at The Nation Institute</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the United States, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgment of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end of an argument. To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something to offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The United States should supply it. Perhapsóit's hard to find outóthey also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker or a C-5A. It is a homegrown construct, which must flow from the will of the people involved....The more the United States tries to force what it insists on calling democracy on Iraq, the more the people of Iraq will hate the United States, and even, perhaps, the name of democracy. There is no definition of an obligation that includes attacking the supposed beneficiaries' cities with F-16s and AC-130 gunships.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"There are still many things that the United States can do for the people of Iraq. Continued economic assistance is one. Another is to help international organizations to assist (but only to whatever degree is wanted by the local people) in the transition to a new political order. But all combat operations should cease immediately and then, on a fixed and announced timetable, the American forces should withdraw from the country....The United States should never have invaded Iraq. Now it should leave." (<em>The Nation</em>, 5/24/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. Howard Zinn, historian and author of A People's History of the United States</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"Any practical approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for what to do now, must start with the understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally unacceptable....The truth is no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay, and the uncertainty of what will follow if we leave.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The UN should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for an international group of peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds and work out a solution for self-governance that would give all three groups a share in political power. Simultaneously, the UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States and other countries, as well as engineers to help rebuild the country. The one thing to be avoided is for the United States...to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that case, terrorism would surely flourish....It is for the international community, particularly the Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi people a chance. Continued U.S. occupation gives them no chance." (<em>The Nation</em>, 5/24/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>3. Erik Leaver, Insitute for Policy Studies</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"It becomes clearer every day that U.S. operations and policies are fueling violence and instability....As a first step to withdrawal, the U.S. should declare an immediate ceasefire and reduce the number of troops deployed in Iraq....Congress needs to make clear that it is committed to the principle of responsible withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq....that it has no interest in controlling Middle Eastern oil or in suppressing Muslims....Give Iraqis direct authority over reconstruction funding. The U.S. government and its contractors have failed to restore public services and public safety, strengthen institutions, or provide jobs....Postpone national elections and hold elections for provincial governments. Given that war is raging in most of Iraq's Sunni regions, prospects for free and fair elections in January are dim....Once provincial elections are completed, illustrating that the U.S. is willing to cede power, and a guarantee that Sunnis will be included in the political process is in place, national elections will become more viable." (<em>Foreign Policy in Focus</em>, alternet.org, 12/15/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>4. Peter Galbraith, former U.S. ambassador to Croatia</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"In my view, Iraq is not salvageable as a unitary state....I feel strongly that it is impossible to preserve the unity of a democratic state where people in a geographically defined region almost unanimously do not want to be part of that state. I have never met a Kurd who preferred membership in Iraq if independence were a realistic possibility. But the problem of Iraq is that a breakup of the country is not a realistic possibility for the present. Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have substantial Kurdish populations, fear the precedent that would be set if Iraqi Kurdistan became independent....The Sunni Arabs do not have the resources to support an independent state of their own....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In the south, Iraq's Shiites want an Islamic state....Federalismóor even confederationówould make Kurdistan and the south governable because there are responsible parties there who can take over government functions....We can hope that if the Sunni Arabs feel more secure about their place in Iraq with respect to the Shiites and the Kurds, they will be relatively more moderate. Autonomy for the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq is a way to provide such security....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"These republics would be self-governing, financially self-sustaining, and with their own territorial military and police forces. The central government would have a weak presidency rotating among the republics, with responsibilities limited to foreign affairs, monetary policy, and some coordination of defense policy....some sharing of oil revenues would be essential....This model would solve many of the contradictions of modern Iraq....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"The three-state solution would permit the United States to disengage from security duties in most of Iraq....Still, a loose federation will have many drawbacks, especially for those who dreamed of a democratic Iraq that would transform the Middle East. The country would remain whole more in name than in reality....</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"In administering elections and allowing a federation to emerge, the U.S. would badly need the help of the UN and other international organizations, and, if it can get it, of the principal European nations as well. The alternative is an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq in which we have fewer and fewer allies. It is an occupation that the U.S. cannot afford." (<em>The New York Review of Books</em>, 5/13/04; a second article on Iraq in the same publication repeats this proposal, 9/23/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>1. What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>2. The first three writers urge the withdrawal of US troops and a quick end to the American occupation, which Zinn calls "morally unacceptable." Why? Do you agree? Why or why not?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>3. Schell thinks the president's plan for democracy in Iraq is unrealistic. Why? Do you agree? Why or why not?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>4. Why do you think that Zinn and Galbraith support shared power by Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds? What problems do you think might result from any attempt at power-sharing?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>5. Consider the president's proposal for Iraq's future and those proposed here. Which proposal or what combination or proposals would you favor and why?<br> &nbsp;</div> <h3>&nbsp;</h3> <hr> <h3>Suggested Classroom Activities</h3> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h4><strong>Constructive Controversy</strong></h4> <div>1. Divide students into groups of four, forming two pairs within each group. Ask each pair to take opposite positions on the following statement:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>President Bush's Iraq policies are gradually succeeding and will lead to a free, democratic Iraq.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>2. Assign each group the common goal of reaching a group consensus and presenting a group report after all differences of opinion have been thoroughly explored.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>3. Review or teach the necessary collaborative skills: active listening skills, particularly paraphrasing and summarizing another's position; being able to disagree with ideas while confirming the competence of those holding them; consensus-achieving skills, such as building on others' ideas.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>4. Pairs study: In groups of four, pairs each study a different side of the issue, gathering information and preparing arguments. They may consult with pairs from other teams.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>5. Pairs present: Each side presents its case; other listen, except for clarifying questions.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>6. Pairs challenge: Each side challenges the other side's arguments and presents the strongest case it can for the opposite side of the argument.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>7. Pairs switch: Each side now prepares a new set of arguments and presents the strongest case it can for the opposite side of the argument.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>8. Group discussion: As a group, decide which arguments are most valid from both sides and seek a statement, resolution, or synthesis that incorporates the best thinking of the group as a whole.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>9. Group report: As a group, prepare a written or oral report for presentation to the class. If no agreement can be reached, prepare a minority report as well, and/or a report on areas of agreement and areas of continuing disagreement.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After the lesson, process or reflect on what was learned in terms of both content and group skills. Give special recognition to examples of creative synthesis of opposing positions. Have students set goals for improving their process next time.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>("Constructive controversy," while somewhat mechanistic, aims to develop a range of skills, cooperative group work, and a familiarity with diverse points of view on a controversial issue. The approach was originated by David and Roger Johnson.)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4><strong>Independent and small-group inquiries</strong></h4> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>1, Following discussion of the two readings, assign students to formulate three good questions on the situation in Iraq. A "good" question in this context means a question that if answered well would lead to a fuller, better understanding of an Iraq issue.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>2. Divide the class into groups of four in which students will read and discuss their questions. The group's assignment is to pick its two best questions and report them to the class.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>3. The teacher writes student questions on the chalkboard without comment and then invites class analysis of them.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>For a detailed discussion of this process, see The Doubting Game section of "Teaching Critical Thinking," which is available on this website. It includes an approach to class analysis of questions followed by suggestions for independent and small-group inquiries.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <h4><strong>Two citizenship activities</strong></h4> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>1. A Statement to Public Officials</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After class discussions and, possibly, participation in a constructive controversy or inquiry, have students reached any consensus about U.S. policy in Iraq? Do differences of opinion remain? Specifically, how do students answer the following questions:</div> <ul> <li>Should the U.S. occupation of Iraq continue until President Bush declares that his goals have been reached? What, exactly, do you understand those goals to be? How will Americans know if and when the goals have been attained?</li> <li>Or, should the U.S. end its occupation speedily? Why or why not? If so, what other steps along the lines of those suggested in Reading 2 should the U.S. take? If not, why not?</li> </ul> <div>If a class consensus has been achieved, have students prepare a detailed letter on its views to be sent to the president, the secretary of defense, the students' two senators, and local newspapers.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>If no class consensus exists, have individual students or groups of student that do share a consensus prepare such letters to be sent to the same officials and newspapers.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>2. Bringing Iraq into the School</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Iraq is the great public issue of the day. Every day Americans and Iraqis are being maimed and killed over the future of that country. While news of these events is carried daily in the media, there is not much public discussion of them. Nor is there much public discussion about decisions made in Washington directly affecting large numbers of Americans and Iraqis and indirectly affecting all Americans and Iraqis.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Students often feel that they have no say in our public life, that they cannot make a difference on an issue of importance to them. What, after all, can students do about Iraq? How can students bring Iraq into their school? Those are questions the teacher might put to his or her class for serious discussion.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>To develop a more fully informed student body and to promote understanding, the class might engage in such activities as the following:</div> <ul> <li>educating themselves further</li> <li>preparing periodical newspapers or magazines for distribution throughout the school</li> <li>making regular PA announcements and, if the facilities are available, preparing TV presentations</li> <li>holding after-school discussion groups</li> <li>inviting speakers representing different points of view to address students</li> <li>soliciting the participation of the PTA</li> <li>organizing an all-school forum with student, PTA, and outside speaker presentations</li> <li>seeking students in other high schools to promote joint efforts</li> </ul> <div>For action projects, the class might consider such efforts as the following:</div> <ul> <li>writing letters individually and collectively to local newspapers as well as to representatives and senators, the secretary of defense, and the president</li> <li>sending delegations to meet with public officials</li> <li>joining community groups whose programs students find worthy of support</li> <li>organizing demonstrations</li> <li>soliciting media coverage of class activities</li> </ul> <div>Any activities will of course require not just teacher support, but also student commitment and leadership and should therefore not be entered upon lightly. There will probably be differences of opinion in the class about what the U.S. should do about Iraq. Some activitiesóan all-school forum, for exampleóare clearly open to a diversity of views; others, such as demonstrations, call for unity of purpose.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Whatever students views may be, the main aim is to enable students to be involved as citizens in a public issue of life-and-death importance.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div> <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> <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="2011-11-07T13:00:00-05:00" 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 682 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Bloody Iraq & Its Future: Part I https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/bloody-iraq-its-future-part-i <!-- 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>Bloody Iraq &amp; Its Future: Part I</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><br> &nbsp;</p> <div><strong>To the Teacher:</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The student readings in Part I and Part II of "Bloody Iraq and Its Future" offer assessments of the situation in Iraq. The reading in Part I summarizes the Bush administration's perspective and then that of its critics. The reading in Part II presents a selection of proposals for ending the American occupation and getting out of Iraq. At the end of Part II are suggestions for classroom activities based on the readings.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>If students need more background information, the teacher might find useful the following, all of which are available on this website:</div> <ul> <li>Iraq and the United States: The Road to War includes a capsule history of Iraq, a profile of Saddam Hussein, the weapons of mass destruction issue and the United Nations</li> <li>A Democratic Iraq? includes a capsule history of Iraq and discussion of the prospects for democracy in that country</li> <li>American Misconceptions about the War on Iraq covers Bush administration statements during the period before the war and public opinion polls</li> <li>American Treatment of Iraqi and Afghan Prisoners and American Treatment of Iraqi and Afghan Prisoners: Who Is to Blame? cover charges of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere and determining responsibility</li> </ul> <div>A note on terminology: Various terms are used in the media and by U.S. officials to name those opposing the U.S. occupation and the interim Iraqi governmentóterms such as rebels, terrorists, anti-Iraqi forces, thugs, criminals, and insurgents. Here it seems fairest to refer to the apparent variety of opposing forces as insurgents. According to Webster's Collegiate, an insurgent is "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." The civil authorities in Iraq are a blend of American troops and American-appointed and/or trained people. There is no "established government" and won't be even if, as scheduled, elections take place on January 30, 2005 for a provisional national assembly. <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <div> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading</strong></h3> </div> <h2>Iraq: What Is Going Right and What Is Going Wrong?</h2> <div><strong>What is going right in Iraq?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The removal from power of Iraq's tyrannical ruler, Saddam Hussein, his capture, and his coming trial as a war criminal would probably be high on most people's list of what has gone right in Iraq since the U.S. attack on March 20, 2003. Most of the other top Iraqi leaders have also been captured. They and Saddam Hussein are unquestionably responsible for such terrible crimes as the torture and murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis, chemical attacks against other Iraqis as well as Iranians, and the brutal repression of a dictatorship that lasted for 25 years.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Since the American occupation of Iraq began, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the lead U.S. agency in the reconstruction and redevelopment of Iraq. It offers on its website (usaid.gov/iraq) a detailed accounting of the many projects it oversees and states: "The emergency relief and reconstruction aid delivered to Iraq during the 12 months since the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 was the biggest U.S. foreign aid program since the Marshall Plan [which aimed to rebuild Europe after World War II], delivering $3.3 billion in help to Iraq's people."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>A partial list of USAID-supported projects in Iraq include:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <ul> <li>Restoring and repairing the electric power grid, bridges, water systems, sewage systems, the Baghdad telephone system and providing new railroad track construction. Iraq now has more electric power capacity than it did before the war.</li> <li>Repairing and rehabilitating health clinics and hospitals and more than 2,400</li> <li>schools; providing desks, chairs, books and other furniture and supplies for schools.</li> <li>Vaccinating over 3 million children and 700,000 pregnant women; supplying doses of Vitamin A for more than 600,000 children and 1.5 million lactating mothers.</li> <li>Providing teacher, health educator, and administrator training.</li> <li>Restoring marshland devastated by Saddam Hussein in vengeance against the people who lived and worked there.</li> <li>Expanding tracts of land for farming, providing high-quality wheat seed to farmers, and vaccinating animals.</li> <li>Supporting the development of local and national Iraqi governing councils and preparations for national elections.</li> <li>Helping local groups to tackle a variety of community projects.</li> </ul> <div>The U.S. military has been training Iraqi troops "so they can fight off the thugs and the killers and terrorists who want to destroy the progress of a free society," said President Bush at a news conference on December 12, 2004. He added that "there were some really fine [pro-American Iraqi] units in Falluja...in Najaf, that did their duty....Recruiting is strong."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom," the president has announced. "We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraq people." (5/24/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In a speech to Marines at Camp Pendleton, California (12/7/04), the president declared, "Next month, Iraqis will vote in free and democratic elections. As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists. You see, the terrorists understand what is at stake. They know they have no future in a free Iraq because free people never choose their own enslavement. They know democracy will give Iraqis a stake in the future of their country. When Iraqis choose their leaders in free elections, it will destroy the myth that the terrorists are fighting a foreign occupation and make clear that what the terrorists are really fighting is the will of the Iraqi people. The success of democracy in Iraq will also inspire others across the Middle East to defend their own freedom against extremists on the fringe of society with no agenda for the future except tyranny and death...."</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Bush has also said that "the idea of democracy taking hold in what was a place of tyranny and hatred and destruction is such a hopeful moment in the history of the world. I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq." (12/21/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said to reporters, "There is violence in Iraq, to be sure. But notwithstanding that, hundreds of refugees are returning to Iraq every week. It's estimated that over 140,000 refugees have returned already. Why would they do this?....Clearly these refugees returning home see better days ahead." (12/22/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>President Bush holds up the prospect of an Iraqi election, scheduled for January 30, 2005, as the brightest hope for Iraq. In that election, the U.S. and its allies in Iraq hope that 14 million eligible voters will create a provisional national assembly,18 provincial councils, and a regional Kurdish parliament. Running for offices in religious, secular, and tribal coalitions, are members of Iraq's three major groups:</div> <ul> <li>Shiite Muslims, most of whom live in the south and make up about 60 percent of the country's population of 25,000,000</li> <li>Sunni Muslims, who live in the central area of Iraq and account for 20 percent of the population</li> <li>Kurds, mostly northerners, who also make up some 20 percent of Iraq's people</li> </ul> <div>The task of the provisional national assembly is to draft a permanent constitution to be submitted to the Iraqi people for ratification by October. If approved, voters will elect a fully constitutional government by the end of 2005.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>What is going wrong in Iraq?</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Critics say that going to war in the first place was wrong.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>All of President Bush's repeated statements about Iraq's "direct threat" to U.S. security were wrong. Bush-appointed search teams found no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, as the president said there were. Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, as he said it did. According to the Bush-appointed 9/11 commission, there is "no credible information that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated in attacks against the United States," as the president suggested they had. Nor, reported the commission, did any contacts "appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, as the president said there had been.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>U.S. troops were not greeted with flowers, as some administration officials had predicted, but with a rising, violent insurgency. And now, terrorists from outside Iraq are being drawn to the country by the U.S. attack and occupation.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Going to war has meant the deaths and maimings of countless Iraqi soldiers, the deaths of as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and the maimings of many others. More than 1300 American soldiers have died, and some 10,000 have been wounded. After suffering the stress and mayhem of war, many tens of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqis will suffer mental health problems for years to come. Continuing U.S. bombings have devastated Fallujah and other Iraqi towns and left many people homeless.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Revelations about the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have horrified Americans and the world. Contrary to statements by U.S. officials that illegal acts had been committed by a few, a Red Cross director said, "We are dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts." White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's [that is, the internationally recognized Geneva Conventions'] strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." So far, only soldiers and their immediate superiors have been charged with abuse and torture or responsibility for them. But, critics charge, responsibility in the chain of command reaches to generals, the secretary of defense, and ultimately the president.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Critics have said repeatedly that there were not and are not enough American troops to control the country. They charge that except for Britain's 8,500 soldiers, most of the other forces in the coalition are too few to make a significant difference. The U.S. failed to secure enough international support and international troops because of widespread world opposition to the American invasion. As a result:</div> <ul> <li><strong>Looting.</strong> After the American invasion, there were not enough soldiers to prevent widespread, uncontrolled Iraqi looting. Libraries, museums, theaters, and universities,were stripped of priceless books and archaeological treasures, computers, and furniture. Stockpiles of munitions were taken from weapons depots. And biological agents and radiological material was stolen from public health institutions. Now a rising insurgency has attracted fighters and terrorists to Iraq.</li> <li><strong>Kidnappings and execution-style murders of Iraqis.</strong> Everyone from laundresses to interim government ministers associated with the American occupation have been kidnapped and executed. Insurgents regularly attack and kill American-trained Iraqi police and other security forces and are responsible for car bomb explosions at police stations and other security facilities. They also attack Shiite Muslim leaders and mosques in what appears to be an attempt to foment civil war with Sunni Muslims, many of them former supporters of Saddam Hussein.</li> <li><strong>Danger for U.S. forces.</strong> On December 21,as soldiers were eating lunch at their military base in Mosul, a suicide bomber exploded a powerful bomb that ripped through their large tent. Twenty-two people were killed, including fourteen U.S. troops. Dozens of others were wounded. Road bomb explosions amid American truck and military convoys carrying supplies, soldiers, and Marines are frequent. For example, the 20-kilometer road between the Baghdad International Airport and the heavily fortified Green Zone is the most dangerous road in Iraq. (Included in the Green Zone are offices and housing for hundreds of American Embassy employees and the headquarters for the Iraqi provisional government.) This crucial road is so insecure that supplies and troops are being ferried, at high expense, by helicopters. If the U.S. cannot ensure security for its troops in their mess hall or on a road between the major Iraqi airport and its own headquarters, how can it ensure the safety of Iraqis at thousands of polling places on January 30?</li> <li><strong>Difficulties training Iraqi forces.</strong> According to President Bush, the U.S. has had only "mixed" success in training Iraqi security forces. It was "unacceptable," he said, that some Iraqi units had fled when they faced insurgent fire, and "the whole command structure necessary to have a viable military is not in place." (12/20/04) While as of November 2004 the U.S. military had recruited and trained 114,000 Iraqis for security forces, they are "bottom level," in the view of Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, who had recently returned from a visit to Iraq (12/19/04). Targeting American-trained Iraqi security forces, insurgents have killed hundreds of police officers over the past year. Many Iraqi police officers now wear face masks while on duty because they are so frightened of retribution. (New York Times, 12/29/04)</li> <li><strong>Poor decision-making.</strong> Paul Bremer, the former chief American administrator in Iraq, disbanded without pay the Iraqi army, creating a new army of 350,000 unemployed men ripe for the insurgency. He added to that insurgency by banning the hiring of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, many of whom had joined the party only because it was virtually required in order to get a higher-level job. Economic and social planning was mostly placed in the hands of Americans hired more for their political loyalty than for their competence and knowledge of Iraq. Congressionally authorized spending for reconstruction has been slow and at times misdirected.</li> <li><strong>Inadequate planning.</strong> The U.S. Pentagon was not prepared for the strong Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents have repeatedly dynamited pipelines intended for oil that was supposed to pay much of the cost of the occupation. They have sabotaged electrical power facilities, leaving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis without heat and light during cold winter days and fans or air conditioning during the torrid summers. Nor did the Pentagon planners prepare sufficiently for the equipment needs of U.S. troops, notably body armor and armored vehicles. As a result, American troops have been needlessly killed and wounded.</li> <li><strong>Growing insurgency.</strong> While it is impossible to say how many insurgents there are in Iraq, it is clear that there are thousands. They attack daily, especially in the region extending from Baghdad in central Iraq to towns to the north and west. In December 2004, every day there were many dozens of attacks. For instance, Saturday, December 4, 2004, saw the following:</li> </ul> <div class="rteindent2">- Mortar attack on Green Zone in Baghdad.</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Attack on Baghdad police station, killing at least 16</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Baghdad car bombing killing 18 outside a Shiite mosque</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Roadside bomb killing of one U.S. soldier near Kirkuk in northern Iraq</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Discovery of ten bodies in Mosul, including 9 Iraqi National Guardsmen</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Discovery of five bullet-riddled bodies in Sinjar, west of Mosul</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Killing of two American soldiers</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Car bombing in Mosul alongside bus bringing in Kurdish militiamen, killing 18</div> <div class="rteindent2">- Killing of 3 Turkish truckers by roadside bomb near Mosul</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The Pentagon's original plan was by the end of 2003 to reduce U.S. forces to 50,000. The plan now is to increase U.S. forces to 150,000, especially for security during the scheduled January 30, 2005 Iraqi elections. Insurgent attacks on candidates and polling stations to sabotage the elections have already begun.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Leading Sunnis are urging a voters' boycott, arguing that a fair election is impossible when there is so much daily violence, especially in Sunni areas. If, as a result, Sunnis are underrepresented in the provisional national assembly, they will view it, and any constitution it produces, as illegitimate. This will almost certainly fuel further insurgent violence.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials. The cable [was] sent last month." (<em>New York Times</em>, 12/7/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>"A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq....The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war....The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic, and security terms. 'There's a significant amount of pessimism,' said one government official who has read the document...."</div> <div>(<em>New York Times</em>, 9/16/04)</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><strong>For discussion</strong></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>1. What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>2. Can students add to the accounts of what has gone right and what has gone wrong in Iraq?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>3. Consider the president's five-step plan "to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom." What accomplishments to date support the president's vision? Which of the steps do students think will be hardest to accomplish? Why?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>4. In the judgment of students, what are the worst things that have gone wrong in Iraq? How do they account for them?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>5. Why, according to a National Intelligence Estimate, does Iraq face the danger of civil war? What do students know about the three major divisions in Iraqi society—Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds? Other groups, such as Christians and Turkmen, are very small minorities.<br> &nbsp;</div> <div> <hr><br> <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> <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="2011-11-07T13:00:00-05:00" 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 668 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 A Democratic Iraq? https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/democratic-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>A Democratic 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>President Bush said repeatedly that a major purpose of the Iraq war was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. Such efforts have begun but face significant difficulties. This, then, is a unique teachable moment to help students better understand basic elements of democracy and freedom and how they have developed, particularly in the U.S.<span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(66, 66, 66); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">—</span>and to consider the effort to introduce democracy and freedom in Iraq. In the coming weeks and months, students will have an opportunity to build on their understanding by following events in Iraq.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON ONE</h3> <p><strong>1.</strong> Read the class this quote from President Bush (2/26/03): "There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values [after World War II]. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources, and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom...."<br> Ask: What does it mean to move toward democracy and to live in freedom?</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>Ask students to write for 10 minutes in response to the following: Imagine you are visiting a country for the first time, know very little about it, and want to know if the people live in a democracy and are free. Make a list of things you would look for. Be specific.</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Have students form pairs to share their responses for a few minutes.</p> <p><strong>4.</strong> Have students share their responses with the whole class. As they do so, note them on the chalkboard. When you have made a substantial list, ask students to consider the three they regard as most important.</p> <p><strong>5. </strong>For discussion:</p> <p>Are these three elements present in the United States? If yes, what do students know about the origin and development of each? For example, if students have prioritized, say, a constitution, what do they know about the origins of the U.S. Constitution? If they have prioritized freedom to vote, what do they know about who was able to vote after the U.S. became free of Britain?</p> <p>It will be helpful for a later discussion of developments in Iraq for students to be well aware that various freedoms and aspects of democracy in the U.S. required long struggles, that African-Americans, for example, were enslaved, did not become citizens until a Constitutional amendment was approved in 1868 and were prevented from voting in a number of Southern states until Civil Rights acts in the 1960s. Women could not vote until the approval of another Constitutional amendment in 1920. Respect for diversity, tolerance for dissent, and maintaining civil liberties remain ongoing battles.</p> <p>It may also be useful to point out that a nation like the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin had a constitution guaranteeing freedoms and democratic rights, but this did not prevent arbitrary arrests and lengthy imprisonments, denial of freedoms of speech and the press, and the murders of millions of citizens. Similarly, having the right to vote in today's Zimbabwe does not necessarily mean the votes will be counted fairly. The forms of democracy may be present but not their content.</p> <p><strong>Assignment</strong></p> <p>Assign Student Reading 1: Some Background on Iraq, below.</p> <p>After reading this material, students should write down and bring to class three questions which, if answered well, would help them gain a greater understanding of Iraq's background and potential for democracy.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 1:</strong></h3> <h2>Some Background on Iraq</h2> <p>For almost a quarter of a century (1979-2003), Saddam Hussein was the leader of the Baath Party, the chief executive and dictator of Iraq. Iraq's legislature and judiciary were under his iron control and, with the help of the secret police and army, so were some 24,000,000 Iraqis. Any dissent, either political or religious, was suppressed. Saddam Hussein's rule was secular (non-religious), though he and most members of his government were Sunni Muslims, a minority in the country. He persecuted the Shiite Muslim majority (about 60 percent of Iraq's people) as well as the Kurdish ethnic minority. Arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and murder were commonplace. Even worse, if possible, Saddam Hussein ordered the poison gassing of many Kurdish villages and towns, causing thousands of deaths and maimings and suffering that continue to this day.</p> <p>For hundreds of years and well into the 20th century Iraq was a province in the Ottoman Turk empire. After the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I, Iraq came under the colonial rule of Britain, which named an ally as king of the newly created country. In the 1930s Britain granted formal independence to Iraq, which agreed to align its foreign policy with Britain's. In 1958 the military overthrew Iraq's king and established a dictatorship. Saddam Hussein's Baath Party came to power in 1963, and Hussein became the supreme leader in 1979.</p> <p>From the 1930s into the 1950s Iraq had multiparty elections, but they were largely controlled by a small number of landlords. In the 1970s, Iraq nationalized many of its largest industries, including its significant oil industry. (Iraq's oil reserves are the second-largest in the world.) Some of the money generated by these industries was invested in education and health systems. As a result, into the 1980s literacy rates and educational standards in Iraq were higher than those in other Arab nations. There was also a significant artistic and intellectual life and many professional societies. "In short, they had a lot of what we would call the building blocks for a...liberal democratic opening," says Michael Hudson, a professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University. But after Saddam Hussein took firm control "a lot of these institutions, I think, were pulverized." (PBS)</p> <p>Can this "liberal democratic opening" be reborn? President Bush thinks so: "The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom," he said just weeks before the war that removed Saddam Hussein and put the United States in charge of Iraq's future. That future is now. After Hussein was deposed, much of Iraq was looted. Now the U.S. is supervising the distribution of food and medicine; trying to get disorganized hospitals and ambulance services back in business; restoring electric power; and rebuilding water towers, schools, offices, telephone exchanges and homes. Progress to date has been slow, and the U.S. is struggling to win the confidence of Iraq's war-scarred people and its diverse factions and to prepare the way for a free and democratic nation.</p> <p>In his statement declaring Iraq's capacity to move toward democracy, President Bush noted that Japan and Germany had become successful democracies after their defeat in World War II. But Japan and Germany were conquered; while the U.S. says Iraq has been "liberated.". The U.S. says it wants to turn over control of Iraq to its people as soon as possible. In contrast, the U.S. and its allies controlled both Japan and Germany for years and dictated the forms of government for both. Japan and Germany had homogeneous populations, while Iraq includes three major groups with a history of conflict: Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and the Kurdish people in the north.</p> <p>A major challenge in developing a democratic Iraq is its religious and ethnic diversity. The population is 75 percent Arab and 20-25 percent Kurd, most of it Muslim. The Muslims include Shiites who want to establish an Islamic state like that of Iran, Shiites who support a secular state, and Sunnis who would like to reestablish Baath Party rule. Iraqi exiles who have returned to their country have competing ideas about its future (one such group even has its own militia, which has clashed with American troopsóeven though the group has Pentagon support). Kurdish parties support a federal system that would continue the autonomy Kurds have had, under U.S. and British protection, since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. There are deep-seated conflicts among these groups. For example, in northern Iraq, Saddam Hussein once forced Kurds from their homes, which were then occupied by his Arab supporters. Now, with Hussein out of power, Kurds are forcing Arabs from their homes.</p> <p>Nations bordering on Iraq also have ideas and concerns about the nation's future. Iran's Shiite rulers have sent agents into Iraq, apparently to promote the development of an Islamic state in Iraq. Iran's leaders are also worried about increasing American political and military influence in the region. American troops are in Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to its east. To its north are American bases in central Asia, to its south, American naval and air forces in the Persian Gulf.</p> <p>The situation is complex. For example, the Americans detained an Iranian-backed brigade of Iraqi exiles in northern Iraq. But the U.S. also agreed to a ceasefire with an Iranian guerrilla group based in Iraq that is opposed to Iran's governmentóeven though the U.S. regards the group as a terrorist organization. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's religious leader, accused the U.S. of hypocrisy, saying "bad terrorists are only those who are not America's servants." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/2/03) Another Iranian leader urged suicide attacks to force the Americans to leave Iraq.</p> <p>Other neighboring countries are also greatly concerned about what happens in Iraq. Syria is on the U.S.'s list of nations supporting terrorist organizations, but Syrian leaders are now showing signs of trying to establish better relations with America. Turkey, which has a large Kurdish population that wants greater independence, is very worried about any independence movement by Iraqi Kurds. The royal rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan know that democratic change in Iraq can affect their own undemocratic regimes.</p> <p>Another issue affecting Iraq's development is what role the United Nations will have in the process. European Union leaders want the UN to have a "central role" in Iraq's political and economic reconstruction. The U.S., however, wants the world organization to help with humanitarian aid but not have a larger role. However, the Iraqi economy is still mostly under UN control through what is known as the oil-for-food program. The program was created in 1995 to alleviate the suffering that was caused by the economic boycott of Iraq after the Gulf War. It allowed Iraq, under UN control, to sell some of its oil and to use the proceeds to buy food for Iraqis.<br> Later this spring the UN Security Council is likely to debate what part the UN should play in Iraq's economic and political future.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON TWO</h3> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1. </strong>Divide the class into groups of four to six students. Ask students in each group to share their questions and then to reach a consensus on what they regard as the three best questions. The group should name one student to report their conclusions.</p> <p><strong>2. </strong>As each group reports, write their questions on the chalkboard. Which can be answered immediately? Which are unclear and need to be reworded? Which contain assumptions or words requiring clarification? Which require factual information? Where might it come from? Which call for someone's opinion? Whose? Why? (For a detailed examination of student question-asking, see "Teaching Critical Thinking" on this website).</p> <p><strong>3.</strong> Among the issues raised by this reading are Iraq's history up to the deposing of Saddam Hussein (admittedly this is a very brief summary); factional differences among Iraqis; concerns related to bordering countries; and questions about the role of the UN. Students should have a grasp of these matters before going on to the next reading.</p> <p><strong>Assignment</strong></p> <p>Assign Student Reading 2: Democracy in Iraq?, below. Once again ask students to prepare three thoughtful questions about the reading.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></h3> <h2>Democracy in Iraq?</h2> <p>Every society, regardless of its form of government, requires law and order. Since the second half of April 2003 the U.S. military has been mostly in control of Iraq. But as of early May it lacked complete control. When major combat operations ended, looters broke into stores, palaces, museums, government offices, and homes throughout the country. Sporadic looting continues. Supporters of Saddam Hussein have ambushed American soldiers, and firefights occur daily. There have been anti-American demonstrations, some of which have turned deadly. In Falluja, a town west of Baghdad, American soldiers killed more than a dozen demonstrators and wounded many others during two days of clashes in which each side accused the other of firing first.</p> <p>Other anti-American demonstrations have been peaceful though angry. In the holy city of Karbala where hundreds of thousands of Shiites came for a major religious holiday, a sheik and deputy to the country's most senior Shiite cleric, said: "Our celebration will be perfect only when the American occupier is gone and the Iraqi people are able to rule themselves by the principles of Islam." (<em>New York Times</em>, 4/22/03)</p> <p>Shiite leaders in Iraq's holiest city, Najaf, have been providing money and appointing clerics to run key Iraqi cities. These religious leaders, in turn, have been appointing officials to run basic services like post offices and to establish their authority over the Shiite population, including large areas of Baghdad. They want to build an Islamic state similar to that ruled by Shiite clerics in Iran (though other Shiites oppose this plan.) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, "A vocal minority clamoring to transform Iraq in Iran's image will not be permitted to do so. We will not allow the Iraqi people's democratic transition to be hijacked...by those who might wish to install another form of dictatorship." (<em>New York Times</em>, 4/26/03)</p> <p>But one of the most influential Shiite clerics recently issued a fatwa, or religious edict, declaring, "People have to be taught not to collapse morally before the means used by the Great Satan (the United States), if it stays in Iraq. It will try to spread moral decay, incite lust by allowing easy access to stimulating satellite channels, spreading debauchery to weaken peoples' faith in schools, governments, and homes." (<em>New York Times</em>, 5/3/03)</p> <p>The U.S. and Britain sponsored two political gatherings of Iraqis in April 2003. These gatherings included Shiite clerics, Kurds, tribal sheiks, and exile leaders. The U.S. envoy to the first meeting, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the gathering, "We have no intention of ruling Iraq. We want you to establish your own democratic system based on Iraqi traditions and values." The majority of people at the two meetings agreed to work for democracy on such principles as federalism, nonviolence, respect for diversity, and a role for women. At the end of May, a national conference is supposed to pick a transitional government. This government will decide whether Iraq will have a single head of state or a leadership council.</p> <p>What are the prospects for freedom and democracy in Iraq? An author of Shiite history and a professor at the University of Michigan, Juan Cole, says, "It's going to be a difficult process....Democracy in the sense of a large public with lots of civil society organizations being deeply involved in running the country, that's something that modern Iraq really hasn't experienced; and the necessity to cooperate, to compromise, all of those things are things that the current political forces are going to have to learn." (PBS)</p> <p>"What is called democracy in the West," writes Newsweek columnist and author Fareed Zakaria, "is really liberal democracy; a political system marked not only by free elections but also the rule of law, the separation of powers, and basic human rights, including private property, free speech, and religious tolerance. In the West, this tradition of liberty and law developed over centuries, long before democracy took hold. It was produced by a series of forcesóthe separation of church and state, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, capitalism, and the development of an independent middle class....</p> <p>"Washington officials often say that American democracy is not necessarily the model for Iraq. Perhaps, but the central philosophy behind the American Constitution, a fear of concentrated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789. 'In framing a government,' wrote James Madison in Federalist No. 51, 'you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.' Order, then liberty. In Iraq today, first establish a stable security environment and create the institutions of limited government—a constitution with a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, a sound central bank. Then and only then, move to full-fledged democracy." (<em>Newsweek</em>, 4/21/03)</p> <p>Another issue for Iraq is the fact that three-quarters of Iraq's people are Muslim. Are democracy and Islam at odds? While Islamic history records mostly autocratic rule, Islamic texts and political theory, says Professor Hudson, "place great emphasis on the importance of consultation, on the importance of developing consensus, a kind of sense of the meeting, and of course on the importance of rulers operating within some kind of law." (PBS)</p> <p>As Iraq's people have already shown, Muslims range from those who uphold strict adherence to Islamic law and a unity of mosque and state to those who have a secular point of view, who practice Islam but who want a separation of religion and politics. In the Middle East, neighboring Turkey is the best example of a country whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim but whose government is democratic. One Muslim thinker, Azizah Y. al-Hibri, has written, "The most significant debates are not about secularization versus promotion of Islamic forms of government." He supports democratization "in a manner consistent with Islamic law, a process... neither Western nor secular."</p> <p>The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan research group, published a study in January 2003 that reviewed the history of U.S. use of its military to overthrow a government. It reported that democracy followed in such places as Panama and Grenada. But in those places, unlike Iraq, there were few ethnic and religious rivalries and a constitutional system already existed. In Iraq one must be created from scratch.</p> <p>An author of the study, Minxin Pei, says, "I think we're going to have big trouble ahead. Germany and Japan were developed, modern societies, but developing countries like Iraq have so many internal characteristics that aren't conducive to that kind of change. High levels of inequality, a distribution of power that favors entrenched elites, a weak national identity—the odds are against you in the first ten years." (<em>New York Times</em>, 4/27/03)</p> <p>Some, like Joseph Montville, a diplomacy program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, think that the biggest question is not Iraq's history, but how committed the U.S. is to building democracy in Iraq. "We can get ourselves together enough to bomb somebodyóthat's not a problem," he says. "But after we've bombed, everything usually becomes kind of a mess. The military doesn't want to play policeman, and the administration doesn't want to get involved in nation-building." (This was the experience after U.S. takeovers in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.)</p> <p>But Tom Zeller of the <em>New York Times</em> writes, "So far in Iraq, the indication is that the investment—of time, of money, of skill—will be more substantial. Basic services are slowly being restored, oil is beginning to flow again and security is expanding...."</p> <p>In Iraq, as in Afghanistan, the future of nation-building, freedom, and democracy is unclear.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3>LESSON THREE</h3> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><strong>1.</strong> Consider student questions on the reading, as in Lesson Two.</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Important issues that students might not raise include the following. These may be important to clarify and discuss:</p> <ul> <li>elements of democracy such as federalism, respect for diversity, women's roles, separation of powers, head of state (a single executive or a leadership council?), civil society</li> <li>historical developments in democracy's history, including the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the rise of capitalism, the development of a middle class</li> <li>Madison's comments about control, especially the government's control of itself</li> <li>Islam and democracy</li> <li>the U.S. record on promoting democracy in countries under its control<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <h4><strong>For future classes</strong></h4> <p><strong>1. </strong>The reshaping of Iraq, whatever form the country eventually takes, will obviously be a continuing process. Teachers might find it useful to make regular student assignments about events in Iraq and what they reveal about the development of democracy and freedom. Consider having students frame a set of questions as a basis for examining events in Iraq. For example: What has happened in Iraq during the past week that does or doesn't promote democracy and freedom? Why? What significant problems must be solved? What are some possible solutions? How effectively are U.S. officials helping to solve them? What makes you think so? How satisfied are Iraqis with what is happening in their country? What makes you think so?</p> <p><strong>2.</strong> Opportunities abound for independent and small-group inquiries. For example:</p> <ul> <li>Why are there divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims? What is the historical background for them?</li> <li>-Who are the Kurds? What is their historical background?</li> <li>How did the Ottomans rule Iraq during their centuries of control?</li> <li>What is the early history of Iraqi civilization and such cities as Ur?</li> <li>What role did the Renaissance (or the Enlightenment or the Reformation) play in the development of democracy?</li> <li>How did the U.S. and its allies promote democracy in Germany or Japan after World War II?</li> <li>In her column in the <em>New York Times</em> (4/30/03), Maureen Dowd makes the argument that the U.S. is an empire (seeking to take control of other countries), but is reluctant to admit it. She quotes Niall Ferguson, an Oxford professor who has recently published a history of the British empire. He says: "The great thing about the American empire is that so many Americans disbelieve in its existence. Ever since the annexation of Texas and the invasion of the Philippines, the U.S. has systematically pursued an imperial policy. &nbsp;It's simply a suspension of disbelief by Americans. They think they're so different that when they have bases in foreign territories, it's not an empire. When they invade sovereign territory, it's not an empire." What is your view of this opinion?<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <p><strong>Sources</strong></p> <p>PBS, "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer," 4/28/03<br> <em>The Independent</em>, 4/5/03<br> <em>Newsweek</em>, 4/21/03<br> <em>New York Times </em>(various issues)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <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><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="2011-11-07T13:00:00-05:00" 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 665 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Afghanistan: The Return of the Taliban & Heroin https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/afghanistan-return-taliban-heroin <!-- 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>Afghanistan: The Return of the Taliban &amp; Heroin</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 class="byline"><b>To the Teacher:</b></p> <p>Americans are learning that the news about Afghanistan is not good. The Taliban are back. So are Al Qaeda and other jihadists. Poppy-fueled heroin smuggling is flourishing. And relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan are worsening.</p> <p>The three student readings below aim to offer insight into these developments and others that prevent Afghanistan from becoming more stable. Without that stability, as one knowledgeable analyst concludes, the country will continue to harbor terrorists and the global threat they pose.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><b>Student Reading 1:</b></h3> <h2>Background</h2> <p>Afghanistan was founded in the mid-18th century. Slightly smaller than Texas, it is landlocked and has an estimated population of 31 million. Afghans fought against British control in the 19th century but did not gain full independence until 1919. Under King Zahir Shah (1933-1973) the country had its longest period of stability.</p> <p>Since the 1970s Afghans have suffered almost continuous conflict. After a communist takeover in 1979, the Soviet Union invaded to support the coup and to fight a war with Muslim guerrilla fighters known as the Mujahideen (a term with both religious and military connotations). During the Carter and Reagan administrations, the U.S. supplied and funded the Mujahideen covertly against the Soviets. After the Soviets were forced to withdraw in 1989, U.S. interest in Afghanistan faded.</p> <p>A civil war for control of Afghanistan followed in the 1990s. Regional warlords battled each other and violent lawlessness gripped the countryside. These conditions helped build public support for a militant Sunni group called the Taliban ("seekers of knowledge"), which advocated a strict version of Muslim religious law. The Taliban, backed by Pakistan, seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. By 1998 they controlled most of the rest of the country. The Taliban provided Osama bin Laden a safe haven for the training of his Al Qaeda fighters. Under the Taliban, girls were not permitted to attend school nor women to hold jobs. Thieves had a hand or foot amputated. The Taliban also forced Afghan farmers to stop growing poppies, the source of opium and heroin and saleable at much higher prices than such traditional crops as wheat, cotton and rice.</p> <p>These two decades of war killed more than a million Afghans and made refugees of some six million more. War destroyed much of this poor country's infrastructure—roads, bridges, dams, irrigation systems—and left Afghanistan littered with land mines.</p> <p>The U.S. invaded and occupied Afghanistan after 9/11. But Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and their Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters escaped. They retreated to the rugged mountainous areas of southeast Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan.</p> <p>Warlord leaders of Afghan's tribal ethnic groups, who had lost much of their power under the Taliban, regained it after the U.S. invasion. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's war strategy included an emphasis on a small, mobile ground force. Needing additional troops, U.S. Special Forces and CIA officers "handed out $70 million in $100 bills" to regional warlord commanders" to get their support. (Pankaj Mishra, "The Real Afghanistan," <em>The New York Review of Books,</em> 3/10/05) But Northern Alliance warlords were not especially interested in pursuing either Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders.</p> <p>Instead, President Bush turned his attention away from Afghanistan and to Iraq. He and other administration leaders repeatedly and inaccurately associated Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks and with having weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to the U.S. and the world. Critics of President Bush have charged him with negligence in not finishing the job in Afghanistan and misleading the country into an unnecessary "war of choice" against Iraq.</p> <p>By 2004 Afghanistan had its first democratically-elected president, Hamid Karzai, and in 2005 National Assembly elections. But warlord leaders continue today to be major power sources. Tribal ethnic groups include Pashtuns, who make up 42 percent of the population, Tajiks 27 percent, Hazaras and Uzbeks 9 percent each, Turkmen 3 percent, and Balachs 2 percent.</p> <p>Eighty percent of Afghans are Sunni Muslims; most other people are Shia Muslims. They speak a number of different languages, but the official ones are Pashto and Persian (also known as Dari). An estimated 51 percent of Afghanistan's males are literate, but only 21 percent of the females can read and write.</p> <p><b>Additional Sources:</b><br> "The World Factbook," <a href="http://www.cia.gov">www.cia.gov</a><br> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan</a></p> <p><strong>For discussion</strong></p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why did the U.S. attack Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks?</p> <p><b>3.</b> What is your understanding of why the U.S. failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Bush administration officials say their belief that Saddam Hussein was associated with 9/11, that he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he represented a serious security threat were all due to inaccurate intelligence. Do you know of any other explanations? If not, how might you learn about them?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What is your understanding of why the U.S. turned most of its military attention away from Afghanistan to an invasion of Iraq?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><strong>Student Reading 2:</strong></h3> <h2>Afghanistan and Pakistan</h2> <p>Soon after their defeat by U.S.-led forces in 2001, Taliban leaders began recruiting new fighters in Pakistan's madrasas (Muslim religious schools)—the same place where the Taliban first got its start. In remote mountain tribal areas of Northern Pakistan, Afghan, Uzbek, and other Central Asian militants, as well as "what intelligence officials estimate to be 80 to 90 Arab terrorist operatives and fugitives," joined them. Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri" may have been among them. (Carlotta Gall and Ismail Khan, "Taliban and Allies Tighten Grip in Northern Pakistan, <em>New York Times,</em> 12/11/06)</p> <p>The 9/11 attacks forced Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to make a choice between continued support for the Taliban or cooperation with the U.S. He chose the U.S. But his political position is delicate, as two assassination attempts on him suggest. One important reason for Pakistan's original support for the Taliban was its desire to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan. (Pakistan and India have clashed over control over the Kashmir region and other issues.) Some top Pakistani army and intelligence officers continue to support the Taliban. According to Barnett Rubin ( "Saving Afghanistan," <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org">www.foreignaffairs.org</a>, January/February 2007), "circumstantial evidence" suggest that such aid to Taliban is headquartered in Quetta, Pakistan. The U.S. has pressured Musharraf to capture or kill Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, but Musharraf's own military and intelligence officials pressure him not to pursue them.</p> <p>Musharraf's presidency depends upon his ability to satisfy both sides. His military has had only modest results in trying to control Pakistan's lawless frontier areas, where the Taliban and their supporters thrive. Pakistani troops have captured or killed hundreds of jihadists. But many others continue to be based in training camps along parts of a 500-mile western border with Afghanistan.</p> <p>Inside Afghanistan, too, there is once again support for the Taliban. A senior American official said, "How much of this is support for the Taliban? How much is coerced? How much of it is gun for hire? How much of it is a young man who has nothing else to do and this sounds pretty exciting? Our analysis is that there's some degree of all of those." (David Rhode and James Risen, "C.I.A. Review Highlights of Afghan Leader's Woes," <em>New York Times,</em> 11/5/06)</p> <p>In a September 2006 agreement with Pakistan's government, jihadists said they would stop helping the insurgency in Afghanistan. In exchange Pakistani troops agreed to stop their attacks. Officials say the militants are ignoring this agreement. President Karzai complains frequently, publicly and to no avail that Pakistan is the source of its Taliban problem. Musharraf insists that Pakistan is not the source. The U.S. does not press Musharraf, fearing that the result might well be a revolt that would overthrow him.</p> <p>Today 40,000 NATO troops and special forces, including 20,000 American soldiers, are combating increasing numbers of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other jihadists in Afghanistan. (<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil">www.defenselink.mil</a>, 10/4/06) These groups have adopted tactics used by Iraqi insurgents to deadly effect—such as suicide attacks and use of improvised explosive devices. Suicide attacks rose from 18 in the first 11 months of 2005 to 116 in the first 11 months of 2006. (Anthony Cordesman, "One War We Can Still Win," op-ed, <em>New York Times,</em> 12/13/06)</p> <p>According to a United Nations report, the casualty rate in Afghanistan in 2006 was three or four times greater than it was in 2005. More than 2,000 people have been killed, about one-third of them civilians, the rest militants and NATO soldiers. A UN spokesman in Kabul said a third of the country is now unsafe for UN operations. ( <em>New York Times</em> , 10/3/06) Since the Taliban insurgency began several years ago, it has lost an estimated 7,000 fighters but has "an inexhaustible supply of foot soldiers." (Josh Meyer, "Pentagon Resists Pleas for Help in Afghan Opium Fight," <a href="http://www.latimes.com">www.latimes.com</a>, 12/5/06)</p> <p>"Fighting traditionally dies down in winter because of the inhospitable conditions in the mountains." But it is a "breeding season" for recruiting more fighters and for training. "'I expect next year to be quite bloody,' the United States ambassador in Afghanistan, Ronald Neumann, said in an interview last week... 'I don't expect the Taliban to win but everyone needs to understand that we are in for a fight.'" (Gall and Khan)</p> <p><b>For discussion</b></p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why did Pakistan support the Taliban in the 1990s?</p> <p><b>3.</b> What problems does Pakistani President Musharraf face in dealing with the United States, Afghanistan and his own military?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Why doesn't the U.S. insist that Musharraf eliminate all safe havens for Taliban in Pakistan?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 3:</span></h3> <h2>The drug trade, the Taliban and other problems</h2> <p>Soon after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Afghan farmers resumed poppy cultivation. One of every eight Afghans is now involved in this work. Opium, the dried gum taken from poppy seeds, is the main ingredient in heroin. Afghanistan produces 92 percent of the world's opium, which means that it produces 11 times more than all other countries combined.</p> <p>In such forms as gooey paste packaged in bricks, crystal (a sugar-like substance made from heroin) and pure heroin, smugglers ship their product via Iran and Pakistan into Europe, Asia and, more and more, the United States. The poppy crop represents 33 percent of the Afghan economy, earns $2.3 billion in profits and finances the Taliban insurgency. (Josh Meyer, "Pentagon Resists Pleas for Help in Afghan Opium Fight," <a href="http://www.latimes.com">www.latimes.com</a>, 12/5/06)<br> A reporter asked Manan Farahi, the director of Afghanistan's counterterrorism efforts, why the Taliban were so strong in Helmand, a southern province. "He said that Halmandis had, in fact, hated the Taliban because of Mullah Omar's ban on poppy cultivation. 'The elders were happy this government [Karzai's] was coming and they could plant again. But then the warlords came back and let their militias roam freely.</p> <p>"They were settling old scores—killing people, stealing their opium. And because they belonged to the government, the people couldn't look to the government for protection. And because they [the government] had the ear of the Americans, the people couldn't look to the Americans. Into this need stepped the Taliban. And this time the Taliban, far from suppressing the drug trade, agreed to protect it." (Elizabeth Rubin, "In the Land of the Taliban," <em>New York Times,</em> 10/22/06)</p> <p>According to David Kilcullen, a State Department strategist, the Taliban "are essentially armed propaganda organizations." They aim to convince the Afghans that they are unstoppable and "switch between guerrilla activity and terrorist activity as they need to." One example of this strategy is the Taliban's use of "night letters." "They have been pushing farmers...to grow poppy instead of regular crops, and using night-time threats and intimidation to punish those who don't and convince others to convert to poppy."</p> <p>The Taliban, says Kilcullen, is trying "to weaken the hold of central and provincial government... [and] are specifically trying to send the message: 'The government can neither help you nor hurt us. We can hurt you, or protect you—the choice is yours.' They [are] making an example of people who don't cooperate—for example, dozens of provincial-level officials have been assassinated this year... "</p> <p>Kilcullen thinks that "winning minds and hearts is not a matter of making local people like you" as some American authorities seem to believe. Instead, it's about getting local people to "accept that supporting your side is in their interest, which requires an element of coercion." "(Quoted in George Packer, "Knowing the Enemy," <em>The New Yorker,</em> 12/18/06)</p> <p>The U.S. Congress has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to stop the heroin trade. And yet, writes Elizabeth Rubin, "a United Nations report in September estimated that this year's [poppy] crop was breaking all records—6,100 metric tons compared with 4,100 last year. When I visited Helmand, schools...were closed in part because teachers and students were busy harvesting the crop... It requires a lot of workers, and you can earn $12 a day compared with the $2 you get for wheat." Smugglers bribe government officials and guards to smuggle opium and heroin out of the country. An Afghan like Razzaq "can earn $1,500 to $7,500 a month. Most Afghans can't make that in a year. Besides, he said, 'all the governors are doing this, so why shouldn't we.'"</p> <p>Military officials resist providing the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with more than token help to stop the smuggling even though the agency and congress members plead for it. DEA agents say they need helicopters to move through mountainous terrain and to back up troop support. "Military officials say they can spare no resources from the task of fighting the Taliban and its allies." Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, the drug trade is "a law enforcement problem, not a military one." (Meyer)</p> <p>But a report by the Pentagon and the State Department found that "the American-trained police force in Afghanistan is largely incapable of carrying out routine law enforcement work" and that "managers cannot say how many officers are actually on duty or where thousands of trucks and other equipment issued to police units have gone." Poor training by private U.S. contractors is partly to blame. The result "has contributed to the explosion in opium production, government corruption and the resurgence of the Taliban." (James Glanz and David Rohde, "U.S. Report Finds Dismal Training of Afghan Police," <em>New York Times,</em> 12/4/06)</p> <p>As for the courts, "In the halls of justice here [Kabul], almost everything is for sale. It can take one bribe to obtain a blank legal form and another to have a clerk stamp it. Lawyers openly haggle in corridors and the parking lots over the size of payoffs. A new refrigerator delivered to the right official might solve a long-running property dispute... Nostalgia for the ruthless rule of the Taliban is growing as the line between judges and criminals blurs." (Paul Watson, "In Afghanistan, Money Tips the Scales of Justice," <a href="http://www.latimes.com">www.latimes.com</a>, 12/18/06)</p> <p>A dysfunctional, corrupt police force and justice system are only part of the problem. There's also the U.S.'s failure to deliver on promises to farmers for alternatives to growing poppies; high unemployment; power shortages (people in Kabul today have less electricity than they did before 9/11); poor roads; the absence of equipment for the Afghan army; and widespread corruption among officials.</p> <p>"Particularly in dirt-poor rural areas, many Afghans believe their daily lot has improved little since Taliban times and tend to cast the blame on the same Americans they once hailed as liberators." Lack of security and poor living conditions are the main complaints. (Meyer)</p> <p>Barnett Rubin, a United Nations advisor on Afghanistan, concluded that the United States "has failed to transform the region where the global terrorist threat began and where the global terrorist threat persists. If the United States wants to succeed in the war on terrorism, it must focus its resources and its attention on securing the stability of Afghanistan."<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><b>For discussion</b></p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Since the Taliban eradicated most poppy cultivation when they were in power, why are they now encouraging, even demanding, it now?</p> <p><b>3.</b> According to David Kilkullen, what is the Taliban strategy?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Why has eliminating Afghanistan's drug trade been so unsuccessful?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What other problems does the Karzai government have?</p> <p><b>6.</b> What difference would a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan make to the U.S.?<br> &nbsp;</p> <p><b>For inquiry</b></p> <p>Assign independent or small-group investigations on such subjects as the following. Have students frame carefully worded questions that their inquiry will answer.</p> <p><b>1.</b> Covert U.S. support for the Mujahideen</p> <p><b>2.</b> The U.S. failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden</p> <p><b>3.</b> Bush administration public statements about the Iraq threat, 2002-2003</p> <p><b>4.</b> Madrasas</p> <p><b>5.</b> The origins of Al Qaeda; the Taliban</p> <p><b>6.</b> Alternatives to growing poppies for Afghan farmers</p> <p><b>7.</b> Training for the Afghan police</p> <p><b>8.</b> The Kashmir issue</p> <hr> <p><em>This lesson was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We</em> <em>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 655 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org