Human rights https://www.morningsidecenter.org/ en Food Stamp Cuts: Is Food a Human Right? https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/food-stamp-cuts-food-human-right <!-- 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>Food Stamp Cuts: Is Food a Human Right?</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><br> To the Teacher:</h4> <p>Congress recently cut the nation's food stamp program (officially called Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP) and is now debating even more cuts. If passed, these cuts will be the steepest ever in the program's 50-year history. &nbsp;With 47 million Americans &nbsp;- one of every seven people - relying on food stamps, the cuts have touched off a national discussion about hunger in our society and what we should do about it.<br> &nbsp;<br> This lesson consists of two student readings. The first reading takes a closer look at the current cuts to food stamps and their effect on families. The second reading looks more broadly at the issue of food support, comparing the US government's food programs with those in other countries.<br> &nbsp;<br> Questions for student discussion follow each reading.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h4>Student Reading 1<br> Food Stamp Cuts in the News</h4> <p>Congress recently cut the nation's food stamp program (officially called Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP) and is now debating even cuts. One in seven Americans relies on food stamps. As the New York Times reported on November 7, 2013, "The reduction in benefits has affected more than 47 million people... It is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964."<br> &nbsp;<br> Now lawmakers are debating even steeper cuts. This has touched off a national discussion about hunger in our society and what we - and our government &nbsp;-&nbsp;should do about it.<br> &nbsp;<br> The food stamp cuts are coming at a time when many Americans are in need. The number of people using food stamps to get their food has soared since 2008, when the Great Recession began. At the program's height in 2012, roughly one in five American adults was enrolled. While the US economy as a whole has improved over the past few years, the gains have not been shared equally by all Americans, and progress has been especially slow for lower-income workers and families.<br> &nbsp;<br> According to the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&amp;id=3899">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a>, 22 million children get food through SNAP, and 10 million of these children live in "deep poverty," with family incomes below&nbsp;half&nbsp;of the poverty line. Another 9 million people on SNA P are elderly or have a serious disability.&nbsp; The cut enacted in November will be the equivalent of taking away 21 meals per month for a family of four, or 16 meals for a family of three, based on calculations using the $1.70 to $2 per meal allocated by the program.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Food banks and other charities say they don't have enough food to make up for all the government cuts. "We will have to do what low-income people do, which is reduce the amount of food we hand out and ration," Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, head of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, told the <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2013/11/food_stamp_cuts_take_effect_to.html">Cleveland Plain Dealer</a>. She expects "increased hunger in the state, affecting the health of senior citizens and people with disabilities and forcing more school children to go to classes without eating..."&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> In New York, Margarette Purvis, president of Food Bank for New York City, the nation's largest food bank, said that the cuts will "take away more food in our city than we distribute in an entire year." (<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fresh-cuts-food-stamp-program-hurt-article-1.1498308">New York Daily News</a>)<br> &nbsp;<br> Conservatives are now pushing for even deeper cuts, which they would deliver as part of the farm bill now going through Congress. House Republicans passed legislation that would have resulted in an additional cut of nearly $40 billion in food stamps over 10 years. But in a later deal, the cut was reduced to $9 billion over 10 years. The bill has yet to be passed, so the amount is subject to change. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/politics/farm-bill-talks-hit-snag-on-dairy-and-catfish-programs.html?hpw&amp;rref=us&amp;_r=0">New York Times</a>)&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> Republicans in Congress defended their proposed cuts by arguing that much of the federal spending on food stamps is wasted on people who abuse the program. As Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee explained in December 2013: "Given this explosion in spending, finding $4 billion in waste, fraud or abuse from this program annually should be possible without significantly impacting those most in need of food security." Representative John Duncan aimed his fire at the government workers who administer the program: "Eligibility requirements have been eased, and those who run the program have no incentive to keep people off. They will get bigger offices, staffs and funding if even more people get food stamps." (<a href="http://www.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/09/tennessee-house-republicans-back-food-stamp-cuts/3928201/">Gannett</a>)<br> &nbsp;<br> Low-income activists and advocates for food access point out that a record number of families, children, and elderly people are relying on food stamps to help make ends meet. As Atlantic correspondent <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-gops-cruel-crusade-against-food-stamps/281708/">Norm Ornstein</a> argues in a November 21, 2013 article, while there may be some people who take advantage of the system, the vast majority of those receiving food stamps are hard-working people who are struggling to get by. Moreover, Ornstein notes, while Republicans want to require food stamp enrollees to enroll in job training programs, they have not actually provided any additional funding for these programs:&nbsp;</p> <p class="rteindent1">Five percent of all American families run out of money for food before the month is out, including a large number of working people....<br> &nbsp;<br> [M]ost food-stamp recipients, including most of those added in the past five years as a result of the Great Recession, want to work and simply can't find jobs. Talk to anybody at a food bank, and they will tell you of seeing people come by for food who used to contribute to them. They don't want to take—they want to give—but find themselves, through no fault of their own, in dire straits. But what made [conservative] argument[s] so hollow was that [they] wanted to tie food-stamp eligibility to job training—without providing a dime for job-training programs, which have also been cut back...<br> &nbsp;<br> I would love for all sides to find common ground here: Provide the kind of job training that will enable people to find work and move out of poverty while helping them with the basics of food, shelter, health care, and transportation. But to cut, slash, and burn that aid mindlessly without regard for the human cost is stupid, cruel, and reprehensible.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For Discussion:</h4> <ol> <li>Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</li> <li>According to the reading, who will be affected by the recent cuts to food stamps?</li> <li>Based on the reading or on your own study, what are some of the arguments for or against providing greater funding for the food stamp program?</li> <li>Conservatives argue that there should be work requirements to receive food stamps. What do you think of this argument? How do advocates for food access respond?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</li> </ol> <hr> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h4>Student Reading 2<br> Food Assistance in an International Context</h4> <p>How do US policies on food and hunger look on a global scale?<br> &nbsp;<br> In other advanced industrial countries, food support is integrated into a more robust "social safety net" than that provided in the United States, and citizens in these nations tend to regard food as a human right.</p> <p><strong>Scandinavia</strong><br> &nbsp;<br> Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have stronger social safety nets than the US, though the nets have frayed somewhat in recent years. These countries do not provide a separate benefit for food assistance. Instead, the government aims to provide low-income people with enough financial support to obtain all basic necessities, from housing and heat to food.<br> &nbsp;<br> In a May 26, 2013 article in the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html">Huffington Post</a>, Bernie Sanders, the progressive US Senator from Vermont, described Denmark's approach to social spending:&nbsp;</p> <p class="rteindent1">In Denmark, social policy in areas like healthcare, childcare, education and protecting the unemployed are part of a "solidarity system" that makes sure that almost no one falls into economic despair. Danes pay very high taxes, but in return enjoy a quality of life that many Americans would find hard to believe. As the ambassador mentioned, while it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark no one is allowed to be poor. The minimum wage in Denmark is about twice that of the United States and people who are totally out of the labor market or unable to care for themselves have a basic income guarantee of about $100 per day.</p> <p>&nbsp;<br> <strong>Britain</strong></p> <p>Until recently, Britain, like the Scandinavian countries, did not have a separate benefit for food assistance. While Britain's spending on the social safety net was not as generous as that of countries like Denmark, it was nevertheless more generous than in the United States.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;<br> An extensive network of food banks provides a last line of defense against hunger in Britain. The global economic crisis forced more people to seek government assistance, and some have seen their benefits cut. So now food banks are hard-pressed to meet the growing demand for food.<br> &nbsp;<br> Recently Britain has moved a step closer to America's system by creating a benefit to be used specifically for food and other groceries. As Patrick Butler reported for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps">The Guardian </a>on March 26, 2013:<br> &nbsp;</p> <p class="rteindent1">"Food stamps" arrive in Britain next month, when tens of thousands of vulnerable people will be issued with food vouchers in lieu of money to tide them over short-term financial crises....Many of the 150 local authorities in England running&nbsp;welfare&nbsp;schemes have confirmed that they will issue the vouchers in the form of payment cards, which will be blocked or monitored to prevent the holder using them for alcohol, cigarettes or gambling...<br> &nbsp;<br> The shift to in-kind and voluntary assistance follows the decision last year to&nbsp;abolish the government-run social fund&nbsp;and to replace it with more than 150 welfare assistance schemes, operated by English local authorities and the Welsh and Scottish governments.<br> &nbsp;<br> The social fund - known as the "backstop" of the welfare system - typically offered small loans of about £50, repayable against future benefits, to help vulnerable individuals who faced short-term crises as a result of having cash stolen or benefits delayed.</p> <p>&nbsp;<br> Welfare rights advocates are opposed to the scheme, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps">The Guardian</a>'s report also notes:&nbsp;</p> <p class="rteindent1">Some fear the use of in-kind vouchers will repeat the&nbsp;shortcomings of cashless payment cards, issued to asylum seekers. Critics said these cards left users unable to buy essential non-food items, and made them more likely to turn to risky or criminal ways of obtaining cash.<br> &nbsp;<br> One welfare charity worker said: "There's a lot of naivety. The social fund is big, and meets a whole range of needs. There's going to be an awful lot of people that will need to tap into its successor.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br> While public benefit programs in Britain still provide a higher level of food security than in the US, food advocates are nevertheless concerned that the new system represents a step in the wrong direction.<br> <strong>&nbsp;<br> Japan</strong></p> <p>Japan's approach to welfare and food assistance is quite different than that of the US or Europe. In Japan, before an individual is considered eligible for public assistance, their family is expected to support them. However, the benefits available to those considered needy are larger than those offered in the United States. As in the Nordic states, food assistance is not divided into a separate program. "Seikatsu Hogo," or livelihood protection, is a unified monthly allowance intended to cover all living expenses, including food. In response to a letter to the editor from an English-speaker who was seeking assistance from Seikatsu Hogo, Angela Jeffs and Ken Joseph, Jr. of the English language Japanese Newspaper <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2010/08/31/how-tos/seikatsu-hogo-help-for-those-in-dire-straits/#.Ust4omRDvyc">Japan Times </a>described the system:<br> &nbsp;</p> <p class="rteindent1">Thankfully in Japan there are a number of programs that can help.&nbsp;First, get a friend who speaks fluent Japanese to take you to the Seikatsu Hogo (livelihood protection) Department at your local city hall.<br> &nbsp;<br> If you don't have a place to stay, the staff will help you get into an apartment, furnish it for you and loan you the funds to make any necessary down payments.<br> &nbsp;<br> If you are found to qualify, you can receive monthly&nbsp;seikatsu hogo support, which in the major cities is about ¥148,000 a month [approximately $1,400], including around ¥56,000 [approximately $535] in rent support. They can also supply you with a train or bus pass and papers entitling you to medical care.<br> &nbsp;<br> If you are elderly and unable to work, this can become permanent. If you are able to work, support will usually continue for about six months until you can find a job and get back on your feet.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br> In contrast to these other countries where food and other basic needs are considered a human right, in the United States, federal social benefits are scanty, and access to food for the hungry is often left to private charity. &nbsp;Activists around the country want to change that.&nbsp;<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For Discussion:</h4> <ol> <li>Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered?</li> <li>How do other countries such as Denmark, Japan, or Britain handle food support?</li> <li>Do you think people in these countries have a different attitude about food assistance than many people in the US? &nbsp;How?</li> <li>The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists food as a human right. Do you think the US system - limited government benefits supplemented by private charity - ensures this right?</li> <li>Do you think programs in place in other countries are a better way of addressing hunger? What are some pros and cons of their systems?&nbsp;</li> </ol> <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="2014-01-16T15:59:52-05:00" title="Thursday, January 16, 2014 - 15:59">January 16, 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' --> Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:59:52 +0000 fionta 554 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org 'Restoring the Rule of Law' https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/restoring-rule-law <!-- 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>&#039;Restoring the Rule of Law&#039;</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p class="byline"><b>To the Teacher:</b></p> <p>Has the Bush administration flouted "the rule of law"? If so, what will the new president and Congress do about it? The first student reading below includes excerpts from the State Department's document Principles of Democracy, which describes the rule of law as a fundamental quality of democracy. The reading also includes an excerpt from a statement by Senator Russ Feingold on "Restoring the Rule of Law." The second and third readings provide some of the evidence that the rule of law has been violated by such Bush administration practices as torturing prisoners, detaining them indefinitely at Guantanamo, and violating the Geneva Conventions. Discussion questions, a proposal for a class commission of inquiry and suggested citizenship activities follow.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3 style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 1:</h3> <h2>The rule of law</h2> <p>"For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous—law was simply the will of the ruler. A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means. Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.</p> <p>"Rule of law means that no individual, president or private citizen, stands above the law. Democratic governments exercise authority by way of law and are themselves subject to law's constraints.</p> <p>"Laws should express the will of the people, not the whims of kings, dictators, military officials, religious leaders, or self-appointed political parties."</p> <p style="font-style: italic">—U.S. State Department (<a href="http://www.usinfo.state.gov">www.usinfo.state.gov</a>), Introduction to the "Principles of Democracy"<br> &nbsp;</p> <p>"Tomorrow, September 17, is the 221st anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in Philadelphia. It is a sad fact as we approach that anniversary that for the past seven and a half years, and especially since 9/11, the Bush administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country .The catalogue is breathtaking, even when immensely complicated and far-reaching programs and events are reduced to simple catch phrases:</p> <p>"Torture, Guantanamo, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, warrantless wiretapping, data mining stonewalling of congressional oversight, abuse of the state secrets doctrine and executive privilege signing statements. This is a shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come ."</p> <p style="font-style: italic">—From "Restoring the Rule of Law," a statement by Senator Russ Feingold introducing Judiciary Subcommittee hearings on the Constitution (September 16, 2008)</p> <p>In response to the first of the items on Senator Feingold's list, President Bush has repeatedly said, "We don't torture." As for the others, Bush administration officials have insisted that each is necessary to fight "the war on terror."</p> <p>Senator Feingold does not accept these responses. "This President's transgressions are so deep and the damage to our system of government so extensive that a concerted effort from the executive and legislative branches will be needed. That's why I called this hearing—to hear from legal and historical experts to not only review what has gone wrong in the past seven or eight years, but to address very specifically what needs to be set right starting next year and how to go about doing it." (See the full transcript of his statement at&nbsp;<a href="https://fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/ruleoflaw.html">fas.org</a>)</p> <p>But Mark Danner argues that just exploring the items on Senator Feingold's list doesn't go far enough: "Revelation of wrongdoing leads not to definitive investigation, punishment and expiation but to more scandal. Permanent scandal. Frozen scandal." ( <em>New York Review</em> , 12/4/08. Danner is professor of journalism at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of <em>Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror</em> )</p> <p>Readings 2 and 3 summarize major aspects of three "frozen scandals": America's torture of prisoners, indefinite detainment of prisoners without charge or trial at Guantanamo, and violation of the Geneva Conventions.<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> Three steps: "rulers and law were synonymous"; "rule by law"; "rule of law." Explain each.</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why did Senator Feingold call for a hearing on "Restoring the Rule of Law"?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What do you know, if anything, about each of the items the senator cited to support his claim that "the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country"? If you need more information on any item, how would you go about obtaining it?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What do you understand Mark Danner to mean by "frozen scandal"?</p> <p><b>6.</b> What questions might Danner's view raise for the incoming Obama administration?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <p style="font-weight: bold">Student Reading 2:</p> <h3>Torture and ignoring the Geneva Conventions</h3> <p>Five days after 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney said during a Meet the Press interview: "We also have to work through the dark side it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."</p> <p>February 7, 2002: President Bush announced his decision to deny prisoners who were suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the protections of the Geneva Conventions. He said they were exempt from the rules because they were "unlawful combatants," a term the Geneva Conventions do not recognize.</p> <p>August 1, 2002: As requested by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, a memorandum from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, declared that "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Gonzalez then wrote to President Bush that 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" and that executive officials cannot be prosecuted for torture if "they were carrying out the President's Commander-in-Chief powers."</p> <p>2002-2003: Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice chaired repeated meetings in the White House Situation Room that included Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and George Tenet. The subject was "enhanced interrogation techniques." Sleep deprivation and waterboarding were among the tortures described in detail, demonstrated and then endorsed by the Justice Department. President Bush said of the meetings: "I'm aware our national security team met on this issue and I approved." (<a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com">www.abcnews.go.com</a>, 4/9 and 4/11/08)</p> <p>President Bush has also stated: "Torture is wrong no matter where it occurs." (6/24/04) "Torture is never acceptable." (1/27/05) "We don't believe in torture." (3/16/05) Reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the U.S. military (for example, a report by Major General Taguba), the FBI and a number of human rights groups, among them Amnesty International, provide overwhelming evidence of an official government policy "to work through the dark side" and to use "enhanced interrogation techniques," which many people regard as a euphemism for torture.</p> <p>The Geneva Conventions state: "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." &nbsp;(Third Geneva Convention). The UN Convention Against Torture also clearly outlaws the use of torture. In addition, in 1996, the U.S. Congress approved the War Crimes Act, which declares that "it is especially forbidden to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."</p> <p>More than 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody.</p> <p>Barack Obama: "I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture." (60 Minutes, CBS, 11/16/08) However, Obama has not said what, if anything, he will do about Americans who tortured prisoners and government officials who sanctioned that behavior.<br> &nbsp;</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> How do you interpret the meaning of Vice President Cheney's reference to "the dark side"?</p> <p><b>3.</b> What are the Geneva Conventions? What do they say about prisoners of war? Why?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What reason did President Bush give for denying suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters the prisoner protections of the Geneva Conventions? Why did he call those fighters "enemy combatants"?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What powers do the Bybee and Gonzalez memorandums give a president? On whose or what authority? Are these powers granted in the Constitution?</p> <p><b>6.</b> What do Bush administration officials mean by "enhanced interrogation techniques"? What difference, if any, is there between them and torture?<br> If you don't know, how might you find out?</p> <p><b>7.</b> What evidence is there to support the charge that the U.S. has tortured prisoners? The president maintains that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. What evidence, if any, do you know of that would support his position? If you don't know, how might you find out?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><b>Student Reading 3:</b></h3> <h2>Guantanamo</h2> <p>"The worst of the worst," declared Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the more than 750 terrorist suspects ultimately held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, beginning in January 2002. President Bush called them "enemy combatants" and denied them Geneva Convention rights. He said that the "war on terror" was not the usual kind of war and required this action.</p> <p>In nearly seven years there have been two military trials at Guantanamo. One man from Yemen, who refused to present any defense, was convicted of conspiracy, solicitation to commit murder, and providing support for terrorism. A second man, Osama bin Laden's driver, was given credit for the five years he was imprisoned, and sentenced to five additional months that will be up in January. The third, an Australian, pleaded guilty to providing support for terrorism in exchange for a nine-month sentence and is now free and back in Australia. Two-thirds of the prisoners have been released without being tried for any crime.</p> <p>After an eight-month investigation, the McClatchy news service published a five-part series of articles, a detainee profile database, and an archive of evidence on the Guantanamo prisoners. They found that "the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, [and] stripped them of their legal rights." (<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.cohttps://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/article24486265.htmlm/detainees/">www.mcclatchydc.com</a>)</p> <p>According to the Bush administration, 250 prisoners remain at Guantanamo. It is not clear what will happen to them. About 50 have been cleared for release—but it's not clear where. If returned to their native countries, they may be imprisoned or tortured or both. About 125 are regarded as too dangerous to release but not guilty enough to prosecute—though we don't know who made that judgment or on what basis. About 80 are regarded as eligible for trial. But we don't know when they might be tried or for what.</p> <p>In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress, for the first time in American history, declared that non-citizens have no right to habeas corpus. This would have allowed the government to imprison any non-citizen indefinitely without filing criminal charges. But in Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court overturned this denial of habeas corpus, declaring, "The political branches [do not] have the power to switch the Constitution on and off." As a result of this ruling, in October 2008 a federal judge ordered the release of 17 Guantanamo prisoners he said had neither fought the U.S. nor were a security threat to it. "I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention," declared Judge Ricardo Urbina.</p> <p>In November, federal judge Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, ordered another five men freed because the government's case rested on "a classified document from an unnamed source," giving him no way to consider that source's reliability. Among the five was Lakhdar Boumediene, for whom the Supreme Court's ruling on habeas corpus was named. Judge Leon also ruled that one man in the case was held lawfully because there was some evidence of his connection to Al Qaeda.</p> <p>"'We have lots of information that is reliable, that tells us someone is a threat and that cannot be proved in court,' said Andrew McCarthy, a former terrorism prosecutor. He added that putting prisoners on trial would present other problems: "... suspects captured in war do not receive protections, like warnings against self-incrimination, that are standard police practice. And much evidence against the detainees is classified; intelligence officials say it cannot be disclosed. Further, some interrogation practices, including the simulated-drowning technique of waterboarding, might leave crucial government evidence unacceptable to American judges." (William Glaberson, <em>New York Times</em> , 11/15/08)</p> <p>Should Guantanamo be closed?</p> <p>Barack Obama: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that." (60 Minutes, CBS, 11/16/08) As a candidate, Obama had said he would try the remaining Guantanamo prisoners in U.S. courts. He has not said what he would do about any who were acquitted or those who could not be tried.</p> <p>Much remains cloudy but three matters are clear:</p> <p>(1) The international reputation of the United States government as a faithful practitioner of the rule of law has been badly damaged by its treatment of prisoners and indefinite imprisonment of hundreds of people at Guantanamo and elsewhere without charge or trial.</p> <p>(2) President Bush's unending "war on terror" was declared not by Congress, as required under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, but by the president.</p> <p>(3) If it is determined that the evidence against detainees was obtained by torture, that evidence will be unusable in any legitimate court. A notable example is the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to being the mastermind of 9/11. Human Rights Watch has evidence that Mohammed was tortured while in custody.</p> <p>(4) If the administration has violated the rule of the law, then the United States Congress has been complicit. Two examples: Congress did not challenge the "enemy combatant" classification of prisoners that opened the door to their indefinite detention at Guantanamo. And Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (which the Supreme Court later ruled was unconstitutional) denying non-citizens the right to habeas corpus and access to all the evidence against them.</p> <p>A Human Rights Watch report called "Fighting Terrorism Fairly and Effectively" calls on President Obama to "work with Congress to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate, document, and publicly report on post-9/11 counterterrorism-related abuses. The commission should specifically address the question of who should be held accountable for these abuses and how such accountability can be achieved. It should also make recommendations regarding what steps should be taken to ensure that these abuses are never repeated." (<a href="http://www.hrw.org">www.hrw.org</a>, 11/16/08)<br> &nbsp;</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why haven't more Guantanamo prisoners been charged with a crime and brought to trial? What specific problems, according to the Bush administration, prevent their being treated like ordinary prisoners?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why did Congress and the Bush administration deny habeas corpus rights to prisoners? Why did the Supreme Court overrule that denial?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What have been major consequences of holding prisoners suspected of terrorist acts indefinitely at Guantanamo? Who or what is responsible?</p> <p><b>5.</b> Do you support the Human Rights Watch call for a commission of inquiry on "counterterrorism-related abuses"? Do you support the idea of determining "who should be held accountable for these abuses and how such accountability can be achieved?"</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>For Inquiry</h4> <p>Help the class organize itself as a commission of inquiry into possible "post 9/11 counterterrorism-related abuses" that violate the rule of law. Subjects for inquiry might include each of the items on Senator Feingold's list as well as actions of the Bush administration that led to and included the invasion of Iraq.</p> <p>Before beginning detailed inquiries, ask individual students or small groups to make an introductory investigation of a particular issue or subject and then frame one or more questions for teacher approval to guide further work. For example, students inquiring into "executive privilege" should first gain an understanding of the term, its use historically and why President Bush has been accused of misusing executive privilege. Or, if the subject is Bush administration secrecy, what specific charges have been made? Does this secrecy have to do with national security? Does it violate the public's right and need to know? See "<a href="https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/thinking-questioning">Thinking Is Questioning</a>" for detailed suggestions about helping students learn how to ask and to analyze questions.</p> <p>Each group within the commission of inquiry should report in writing and/or orally on its findings and lead a class discussion of them.</p> <p>The materials listed below are available in the high school section of <a href="http://www.teachablemoment.org">www.teachablemoment.org</a>. Teachers might find them useful with students for particular inquiries.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Torture and the Geneva Conventions:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/sourcebook-study-guide-high-school-college-classrooms-torture-and-war">"A Sourcebook &amp; Study Guide for High School &amp; College Classrooms: Torture &amp; War Crimes: The U.S. Record in Documents"</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/torture-issue-dbq">"The Torture Issue (with a DBQ)"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Guantanamo:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-guantanamos-enemy-combatants">"Presidential Power: Guantanamo's 'Enemy Combatants"</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/constitution-war-crimes-guantanamo-justice">"The Constitution, War Crimes &amp; Guantanamo Justice"</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/supreme-court-habeas-corpus-guantanamo">"Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus &amp; Guantanamo Justice"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Warrantless Wiretapping and Data Mining:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-eavesdropping-terrorism-american-freedoms">"Presidential Power: Eavesdropping, Terrorism &amp; American Freedoms"</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/new-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-threat-american-freedom">"The New Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Threat to American Freedoms?"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Executive Privilege:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-executive-privilege">"Presidential Power: Executive Privilege"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Signing Statements:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-signing-statement">"Presidential Power: The Signing Statement"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Secrecy:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/bush-secrecy-press">"Bush, Secrecy &amp; the Press"</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-weight: bold">Iraq:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/was-us-misled-war-iraq-resource-study-guide-hs-college">"Was the U.S. Misled into the War on Iraq?"</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/truth-iraq-war-documents">"Truth and the Iraq War in Documents"</a> <p>&nbsp;</p> </li> </ul> <hr> <h4>For Citizenship</h4> <p>See "<a href="http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/teaching-social-responsibility">Teaching for Social Responsibility</a>" for groupwork suggestions as well as class projects in school and out. Whatever course the class takes, one way to conclude its work is for students to prepare e-mails and letters on their findings and thinking about the rule of law to send to their legislators and the president.<br> &nbsp;</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> <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="2008-11-25T13:00:00-05:00" title="Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 13:00">November 25, 2008</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, 25 Nov 2008 18:00:00 +0000 fionta 920 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Cuba & the U.S. https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/cuba-us <!-- 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>Cuba &amp; the U.S.</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"><span style="font-weight: bold; ">To the Teacher</span></p> <p>Fidel Castro's resignation as president of Cuba in February 2008 has provoked some new consideration of the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. The first student reading below offers an overview of U.S. relations with Cuba, from 1898 and the outbreak of the Spanish-American War to 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The second reading explores the Cuban-American population of South Florida and its political clout, the embargo, the 2008 presidential candidates' stands on U.S. policy toward Cuba, and human rights in Cuba. Discussion questions and other activities follow.<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 1:</span><br> The U.S.-Cuba relationship—from domination to antagonism</h4> <p>The relationship between the U.S. and Cuba, a populous 766-mile-long Caribbean Island 90 miles from the Florida coast, has been a tangled one.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold"><br> 1. The U.S. replaces Spain as the dominant force in Cuba</p> <p>In 1898 on the eve of a war with Spain, the U.S. Congress resolved "to leave the government [of Cuba] and control of the island to its people." However, after the U.S.'s victory over Spain, American troops occupied the island of Cuba. In a treaty the U.S. required the new Cuban government to allow the U.S. the right 1) to intervene to preserve Cuban independence and maintain law and order and 2) to lease land (ultimately Guantanamo), for a U.S. naval station. American companies moved quickly to dominate Cuban business and agriculture.</p> <p>"From start to finish the Cubans resented the paternal attitude of the United States and the absence of any promise that guardianship would ever end."</p> <p>—Henry Wriston, in <em>Cuba and the United States</em></p> <p><b>2. Life under Batista</b></p> <p>In 1934, the U.S. gave up its stated right to intervene, but retained Guantanamo. Fulgencio Batista became the Cuban leader, then dictator in a militaristic regime. Under Batista, the Cuban military—with U.S. support—prevented strikes by government employees and sugar plantation workers. Writes Wriston: "Over the years there was marked deterioration in the character of the Batista regime. Graft and corruption, inhuman cruelties, gross misuse of government, and many other manifestations of tyranny became conspicuous."</p> <p>American companies invested heavily in Cuba, controlling 90 percent of telephone and electric services, 50 percent of railways, 25 percent of bank deposits, about 40 percent of sugar production and much of mining, oil production and cattle ranching. (J. Wilner Sundelson, <em>Cuba and the United States</em> )</p> <p>For Cuba's middle class, writes Clifford L. Staten in <em>The History of Cuba</em> , "Underemployment was the rule, as university graduates worked as clerks in the local Woolworth's Department Stores." Cubans working for American companies "received firsthand the brunt of American discrimination and racism toward Cubans. Cubans were never in the top-level management, no matter how well they were educated. Cubans who did the same job as Americans received lower salaries."<br> Havana was a playground for the wealthy few and American tourists. American gangsters ran many of its gambling casinos and were able to keep operating only by paying off government officials. Meanwhile, according to Staten, "Twenty percent of all Cubans were illiterate and this figure was much higher in the rural areas. &nbsp;Only 40 percent of school-age children attended school."</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">3. The Castro revolution &amp; the American reaction</p> <p>In 1953 Fidel Castro, a young law school graduate, led a small group of followers in a failed attack on a military barracks. Castro was captured, imprisoned, but soon released, and three years later began a guerrilla war that drove Batista from power and into exile.</p> <p>Cheering crowds greeted Fidel Castro when he led his revolutionary band into Havana on January 8, 1959.</p> <p>Forty-nine years later, on February 19, 2008, Fidel Castro resigned as Cuba's president and commander in chief. He had survived repeated U. S. plots to overthrow or assassinate him. But at 81 he was too ill to continue. His brother Raul, 76, replaced him.</p> <p>The Castro government revolutionized Cuba. It seized and redistributed land to peasants. New labor contracts raised workers' wages. Rents were cut. Castro swept aside any opposition by Cubans or American owners of properties. He nationalized the properties of American corporations—International Telephone and Telegraph, sugar plantations and mills owned by United Fruit (now called United Brands and Chiquita) and oil refineries held by Texaco, Esso and Shell after these companies refused to refine oil supplied by the Soviet Union. Corporate leaders argued that they did not receive adequate compensation for their properties. Castro disagreed.</p> <p>The U.S. government became increasingly hostile to the Cuban government. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration began plotting to kill Castro and to invade the island with U.S.-trained Cuban exiles. President Kennedy, entering office in 1961, inherited this plan. The April 17, 1961, invasion at the Bay of Pigs was a total failure. Cuban forces killed or captured the invaders. CIA predictions that Cubans would rise in revolt against Castro were wrong. Instead, an easy victory over the U.S.-sponsored invasion made Castro more popular.</p> <p>After the Bay of Pigs, Castro became a closer ally of the Soviet Union, which was then in the midst of the Cold War with the United States. In December 1961, Castro declared that Cuba was adopting communism. A few months later the U.S. imposed an embargo against Cuba.</p> <p>The Soviet Union became the buyer of most of Cuba's sugar. It provided Cuba with financial credits to buy wheat, fertilizer, and machinery from the Soviet Union. The revolution's proudest accomplishments—free education through the university level, free health care and social security—occurred swiftly with the help of Soviet money.</p> <p>Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided that U.S.'s humiliation in the Bay of Pigs gave him an opening to increase military aid to Cuba. The Soviets installed in Cuba medium-range nuclear missiles easily capable of striking the U.S. In November 1962, the missiles were spotted by American U-2 spy planes. The Kennedy administration began considering an all-out attack on Cuba. The U.S. and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons and were prepared to use them; the threat of a nuclear holocaust was very real. The "Cuban Missile Crisis" ended when, at the last moment, Khrushchev agreed to remove the nuclear-tipped missiles and Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove U.S. missiles in Turkey that threatened the Soviet Union.</p> <p>In 1961 the U.S. cut all diplomatic relations with the Castro government, and in following years toughened its embargo. Nine successive U.S. presidents, beginning with John F. Kennedy, have enforced the embargo, making American business with Cuba illegal. It also became illegal for American citizens to spend dollars there or visit an island 90 miles from Florida.</p> <p>The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 ended the Cold War. But the absence of Soviet subsidies hit Cubans hard. "Food shipments dropped by more than 50 percent in 1991, and the Cuban economy contracted by as much as 50 percent between 1989 and 1992," writes Clifford Staten in <em>The History of Cuba</em> . "Wages became stagnant and purchasing power plummeted. Fuel shortages electrical blackouts, factory shutdowns and transportation problems were common. Food shortages were becoming a problem and rationing reappeared" for the first time since the 1960s.</p> <p>"Dissident groups increased," writes Staten. "The government responded with both repression and reform. Noncommunist candidates were allowed to run for office and some have been elected....[but] in early 1996 more than 200 human rights leaders were harassed, arrested and interrogated."</p> <p>Amnesty International's 2002 Human Rights Report indicated a significant decrease in the number of political prisoners being held by Castro. But state officials maintain control of the media and today "Cubans continue to run the risk of imprisonment if they speak out against the government." Staten says that civic groups "must be officially sanctioned by the state or the members can be jailed."<br> With the Soviet Union gone, the U.S. shifted its harsh criticism of the Castro regime from anti-communism to Castro's human rights record.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why do you suppose that Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries were greeted in Havana by cheering crowds?</p> <p><b>3.</b> What actions did Castro take to change the Cuban economy? What was he trying to accomplish? What success did he have? What failures?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Early U.S. opposition to Castro focused on his nationalization of land and properties belonging to Americans, who argued that they had not received adequate compensation. What do you think would be a fair way of determining compensation in such a situation?</p> <p><b>5.</b> How do you explain the U.S. embargo?</p> <p><b>6.</b> How and why did U.S. relations with Cuba deteriorate further?</p> <p><b>7.</b> What was the impact on Cuba of the collapse of the Soviet Union?</p> <p><b>8.</b> Why do you suppose that the Cuban government does not permit a free press, freedom of speech and freedom to organize groups without government approval?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4 style="font-weight: bold;">Student Reading 2:<br> Cuban-Americans, presidential candidates on Cuba policy, human rights</h4> <p><b>The Cuban migration to the U.S.</b></p> <p>Hundreds of thousands of Cubans left Cuba in the years after Fidel Castro took over. They often came in overcrowded, unsafe boats. Many drowned. Anyone reaching the United States was granted asylum. Today there are 1.5 million Cubans in the U.S., one-third of whom were born here. Close to one million live in Florida, two-thirds of them in Miami-Dade County in South Florida, and most are now American citizens. (<a href="http://www.salon.com">www.salon.com</a>, 1/29/08)</p> <p>Many Cuban-Americans have become prosperous business owners as well as teachers, lawyers, and doctors. They have also become successful politicians in fundraising, getting out the vote and gaining U.S. government support for Cuban-American interests.</p> <p>The majority of Cuban Americans have supported maintaining the U.S. trade blockade and the anti-Castro Spanish language broadcasts of Radio Marti, which the U.S. beams to Cuba. Most Cuban-Americans have supported Republicans, who typically take a stronger anti-Castro stance than the Democrats. Eighty percent voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Their 500,000 votes are sought eagerly by both parties.</p> <p>A new generation of Cuban-Americans tends to be more flexible in their views, favoring U.S.-Cuba relations that would improve the lives of their relatives on the island. For 16 successive years the United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. U.S. free traders and corporate agribusinesses have made some dents in it, but Democratic and Republican leaders have been unwilling to propose dramatic changes. The U.S. embargo has not prevented more than 50 other countries from trading with and investing in Cuba. China is its the biggest investor.</p> <p>Minor changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba and its 11.3 million people include: permission for the sale of food and medicine in Cuba; allowing Cubans living in the U.S. to travel to Cuba once every three years to visit relatives; and allowing Cuban-Americans to send $300 remittances to Cuban relatives every three months. Other U.S. restrictions on normal trade and travel to Cuba remain.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">The candidates on Cuban policy</p> <p>Senator John McCain supports keeping the embargo and travel ban. He would increase spending on Radio Marti. Senator Clinton would make no changes in Cuban policy and would not talk with new Cuban leaders until they adopt more democratic practices.</p> <p>Senator Obama said, "Cuban-American connections to family are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grassroots democracy in the island." As a result, he said, "I will authorize unlimited family travel and family cash remittances." ( <em>Miami Herald</em> , August 2007). Obama has also said he would talk with Cuba's leaders without preconditions, but has not supported any embargo change.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Cuba and human rights</p> <p>The Castro government stifled "grassroots democracy" in Cuba from the outset. Human rights organizations have regularly condemned its behavior: "Cuba remains the only country in the Western hemisphere to effectively outlaw peaceful advocacy for human rights and democratic reforms," according to Human Rights First. "Independent civil society in Cuba—including human rights defenders, democratic activists and independent journalists and scholars—are the targets of constant persecution." Under Fidel Castro, Cuba restricted travel and permitted only the Communist Party. Human Rights First says that the transfer of power to Raul Castro has "not produced a significant change in the human rights situation on the island." (<a href="http://www.humanrightsfirst.org">www.humanrightsfirst.org</a>)</p> <p>However, days after Raul Castro became president, Cuba signed two international human rights treaties. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees "civil and political freedom," including peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, privacy, and freedom to leave a country. Amnesty USA welcomed the signing but said Cuba "must honor their human rights commitments by introducing measures to guarantee freedom of expression and independence of the judiciary, starting with the unconditional release of the current 58 prisoners of conscience." (<a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org">www.amnestyusa.org</a>, 2/29/08)</p> <p>The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires countries to guarantee fair wages and freedom to organize and join trade unions. Fidel Castro opposed this treaty because it could provide an opportunity "for imperialism to try to divide and fracture the workers, create artificial unions, and decrease their political and social power and influence." ( <em>New York Times</em> , 3/1/08)</p> <p>U.S. policy change seems unlikely during the remainder of the Bush administration. After Castro's resignation, President Bush said, "Cuba's government must begin a process of peaceful democratic change. They must release all political prisoners. They must have respect for human rights in word and deed and pave the way for free and fair elections." (3/7/08) But this point of view has critics even among human rights advocates.</p> <p>"For more than four decades, the U.S. government has used Cuba's dismal human rights record to justify a sweeping economic embargo aimed at toppling the Castro regime," says Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director of Human Rights Watch. "Yet the policy did nothing to bring change to Cuba. On the contrary, it helped consolidate Castro's hold on power by providing his government with an excuse for its problems and a justification for its abuses. Moreover, because the policy was imposed in such a heavy-handed fashion, it enabled Castro to garner sympathy abroad." (<a href="http://www.hrw.org">www.hrw.org</a>, 2/19/08)</p> <p>For many years, often acting covertly, the U.S. itself has repeatedly violated the human rights of citizens of other countries in the Western Hemisphere. Today it also stands guilty in the eyes of many people worldwide of violating the human rights of prisoners-and flouting other rights included in international treaties which the U.S., and now Cuba, have ratified.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Examples of U.S. behavior</p> <p>1954: The Eisenhower administration planned and supported with weapons, American pilots and planes the covert overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala. A military dictatorship succeeded it and eliminated free elections.</p> <p>1973: The Nixon administration ordered a covert CIA operation to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Chile. It may not to have been directly responsible for the military dictator who seized control. But it granted him diplomatic recognition and did not condemn him for suppressing human rights and murdering opponents.</p> <p>1980s: The Reagan administration ordered a covert CIA operation to mine the harbors of Nicaragua, an action condemned by the International Court of Justice, which President Reagan ignored. In violation of U.S. law, the Reagan administration supplied money and arms to opponents of a government that had overthrown a military dictator.<br> 2008: President Bush vetoed a bill prohibiting CIA interrogators from prisoner torture by such techniques as waterboarding. The president said, "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror. So today I vetoed it." President Bush has often said, "We do not torture." But the Bush administration also approved torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere in violation of the Geneva Conventions and American law, such as the War Crimes Act of 1996.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why are Cuban-Americans a political force in South Florida? What has been their role in Cuba policy?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why has the U.S. enforced an embargo on trade with Cuba for almost 50 years?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What do you think are the pros and cons of such an embargo?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What has been the human rights situation in Cuba? Why do you think its record has been so "dismal"?</p> <p><b>6.</b> The U.S. has had diplomatic and trade relations with China for more than 30 years. Yet China's human rights record is worse than Cuba's. How would you explain this situation? If you can't, how might you find out?</p> <p><b>7.</b> How would you explain repeated U.S. violations of human rights in the Western Hemisphere? President Bush's violations of international treaties and domestic law on torture?<br> &nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>For small group discussion</h4> <p>Divide the class into groups of four to six students. Ask each group to: 1) assess each presidential candidate's position on policy toward Cuba and 2) discuss alternative approaches to U.S.-Cuba relations.<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For inquiry</h4> <p style="font-weight: bold">You Are An Historian</p> <p>Involve students in a project on writing history, using the following as a take-off point:</p> <p>"History is not 'what happened in the past;' rather, it is the act of selecting, analyzing, and writing about the past. It is something that is done, that is constructed, rather than an inert body of data that lies scattered through the archives."<br> —James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle, <em>After the Face: The Art of Historical Detection</em> , p. xvii</p> <p>This view of historical writing is important for students to remember as they read accounts of the past, certainly about controversial events like those having to do with Cuban-U.S. relations for the past 50 years.</p> <p>The project begins with a decision to investigate further one of the subjects discussed in the two readings. For example: the nature of the Batista regime; American domination of Cuban business and agriculture; the U.S. embargo; the nature of the Castro regime; the human rights issue. Given the necessary brevity of these readings, discussions of such matters necessarily omit a great deal.</p> <p>The assignment for an inquiry: Select one of the subjects discussed in the readings. Investigate it further by reading other sources and taking notes, especially where you think the initial readings above have omitted something important, analyzed a situation incorrectly, perhaps treated it unfairly or inaccurately. Before beginning this work, students might find useful "<a href="https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/thinking-critically-about-internet-sources">Thinking Critically About Internet Sources</a>"&nbsp;on this website.</p> <p>When you have completed your inquiry, construct your own historical account in no more than 150 words. Indicate your sources.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">&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="2008-04-09T14:00:00-04:00" title="Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - 14:00">April 9, 2008</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' --> Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:00:00 +0000 fionta 950 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Presidential Power: Guantanamo's 'Enemy Combatants' https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-guantanamos-enemy-combatants <!-- 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>Presidential Power: Guantanamo&#039;s &#039;Enemy Combatants&#039;</span> <!-- END OUTPUT from 'core/modules/node/templates/field--node--title.html.twig' --> <!-- THEME DEBUG --> <!-- THEME HOOK: 'field' --> <!-- FILE NAME SUGGESTIONS: * field--node--body--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--node--body.html.twig * field--node--teachable-moment-lesson.html.twig * field--body.html.twig * field--text-with-summary.html.twig x field.html.twig --> <!-- BEGIN OUTPUT from 'themes/contrib/bootstrap/templates/field/field.html.twig' --> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p class="byline"><b>To the Teacher:</b></p> <p>The establishment of a detention center at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay in 2002 was immediately controversial and remains so today. The student readings below include background on Guantanamo, the use of presidential power, the legal and physical treatment of detainees, and the future of the facility as a detention center.</p> <p>Discussion questions and other suggested student activities follow. In connection with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, teachers may find useful "<a href="https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/controversial-new-law-terror-suspects">A Controversial New Law for Terror Suspects</a>," also on this website.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3 style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 1:</h3> <h2>Some background</h2> <p>"The worst of the worst" Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them. President Bush called them "enemy combatants." They were men captured in Afghanistan after 9/11 and, beginning in January 2002, imprisoned in a detention center at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba.</p> <p>In time, the center held more than 750 terrorist suspects from 45 nations. Pakistani and Afghan Northern Alliance troops captured most of them, sometimes under unclear circumstances. Afghan troops sometimes received thousands of dollars in rewards from the U.S. for their prisoners. Today, more than five years later, about 375 men remain imprisoned at Guantanamo.</p> <p>President Bush denied these men "prisoner of war" status and in February 2002 declared that "none of the provisions of Geneva [international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war] apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world." Instead, according to the Pentagon, anyone "who was part of or supporting the Taliban or Al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" would be considered "enemy combatants."</p> <p>The Geneva Conventions, international agreements that have been ratified by most nations, including the United States, detail only how "prisoners of war" are to be treated. They do not recognize the designation "enemy combatant."</p> <p>After years of imprisonment, about half of the Guantanamo detainees were released without being charged with terrorist or criminal acts—nor were they tried by military tribunals, as had been expected. In fact, no Guantanamo detainee has ever been convicted of anything. A military commission dismissed cases against two of the detainees. One man pleaded guilty to a minor charge and was repatriated to Australia. All of the detainees have been denied habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in an American court. (<a href="http://www.amnesty.org">www.amnesty.org</a>)</p> <p>But on June 29, 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear, perhaps by December, the detainees' claim that they have the right to habeas corpus. It will then determine whether or not the U.S. Constitution protects the Guantanamo detainees.</p> <p>In a 2006 ruling, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court declared that military tribunals violate international law. But later that year, with active support from the president, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, authorizing military tribunals to try detainees. It also excluded detainees from Geneva Conventions protections.</p> <p>Guantanamo Bay, 45 square miles of land and water in the southeast corner of Cuba, is 400 air miles from Miami. It became a U.S. Naval Base after Cuba was freed from the control of Spain following the Spanish-American War. Leased to the U.S. permanently in 1903, it is not legally part of the United States. One hundred years later Guantanamo became a detention center and, very quickly, the focus of controversy.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Why do you suppose that the U.S. government used Guantanamo, rather than some mainland U.S. facility, to imprison detainees?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why might President Bush have denied the detainees prisoner of war status under provisions of the Geneva Conventions? What provisions? If you don't know, how might you find out? Is the president in violation of the Geneva Conventions? Why or why not?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What protections does the Constitution give to suspects? Why?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 2:</span></h3> <h2>Who are the Guantanamo detainees and how have they been treated?</h2> <p><strong>Are they terrorists?</strong></p> <p>The release of several hundred men from Guantanamo indicated that the U.S. government did not regard at least those detainees as terrorists. Those still in custody, Pentagon and administration officials said, include three groups:</p> <p>1) The administration says that up to 50 of the detainees should be imprisoned "indefinitely in military brigs on American soil" without trial. A trial, they argue, "would risk exposing intelligence operations." (However, holding the prisoners without trial in this way would require congressional legislation.)</p> <p>2) Another group of detainees, the administration says, should be tried in military courts.</p> <p>3) The "largest group" of detainees could be released to their home countries. ( <em>New York Times,</em> 7/3/07)</p> <p>Competing studies based on information about detainees held at Guantanamo in 2004 and 2005 reported very different results. A study by the Seton Hall University School of Law and two lawyers who represent detainees determined that 55% of the detainees committed no hostile acts against the U.S. and its coalition allies. Only 8% were classified as Al Qaeda fighters.</p> <p>But a report prepared at the request of the Pentagon by a terrorism center at the West Point U.S. Military Academy said that 73% of the detainees were "a demonstrated threat" to American or coalition forces and that 95% were a "potential threat." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 7/26/07)</p> <p>Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran in U.S. military intelligence, spent six months during 2004-2005 as a panelist on the Combat Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo determining whether individual detainees were "enemy combatants." He said, "What were purported to be specific statements of fact [about charges against detainees] lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of credible evidence." (<a href="http://www.hrw.org">www.hrw.org</a>, 7/1/07) But Abraham's former commander in charge of the hearings, Rear Admiral James McGarrah, defended them before a Congressional committee a few weeks later as fair and a "very robust process."</p> <p>The review tribunals conduct closed hearings in which detainees are denied both lawyers and access to much of the evidence against them.</p> <p>According to Bob Woodward's account in <em>Bush at War,</em> administration officials discussed of how to treat terrorist suspects on September 12, 2001, at a National Security Council meeting. FBI Director Robert Mueller cautioned that the government must try to avoid tainting evidence so that any accomplices of the 9/11 terrorists could be tried in court. Attorney General John Ashcroft interrupted and said, "Let's stop the discussion right here....The chief mission of U.S. law enforcement...is to stop another attack and apprehend any accomplices to terrorists before they hit us again. If we can't bring them to trial, so be it."</p> <p>David Cole, a lawyer and Georgetown professor, emphasizes the significance of "the overwhelming political pressure to prevent another terrorist attack that an event like September 11 places on government officials...." ( <em>New York Review of Books,</em> 7/19/07)</p> <p>Documents released last year by the Defense Department in response to a lawsuit brought under the Freedom of Information Act by the Associated Press quote statements by detainees. They range from pride in being classified as "enemy combatant" to bewilderment and even sarcastic humor.</p> <p>Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi al-Shirbi, said, "It is my honor to have this classification in this world until the end, until eternity, God be my witness." He accepted accusations that he trained with Al Qaeda, was a "right-hand man" to Abu Zubaydah, a top Qaeda operative, and laughed "like pals with Osama bin Laden."</p> <p>Another said, "I am only a chicken farmer in Pakistan. My name is Abdur Sayed Rahman. Abdur Zahid Rahman was the deputy foreign minister of the Taliban."</p> <p>A Saudi, Mazin Salih Musaid al-Awfi was one of at least a dozen men who, at the time of his capture, possessed a Casio model F-91W watch. This, according to the military's Administrative Review Board, constitutes "relevant data" because such watches have been used in bombings by Al Qaeda. "I am a bit surprised at this piece of evidence," Awfi said. "If that is a crime, why doesn't the United States arrest and sentence all the shops and people who own them?" Another detainee, an electrical engineer from Kuwait whose evidence sheet also included the Casio watch, Abdullah Kamal said, "We have four chaplains [at Guantanamo]. All of them wear this watch." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 3/6/06)</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Have Guantanamo detainees been abused and tortured?</p> <p>-President Bush has said repeatedly that the U.S. does not torture prisoners: "Torture is wrong no matter where it occurs, and the United States will lead the fight to eliminate it everywhere." (6/24/04) "We don't believe in torture." (3/16/05)</p> <p>-The Military Commissions Act of 2006 permits "coerced evidence," that is, evidence produced from "high value" terrorist suspects by what the president calls "alternative" or "enhanced" interrogation procedures. The law prohibits torture, but the interrogator is not liable unless he or she "specifically" intended "to cause pain that amounts to torture." The law also permits the president to allow an interrogation procedure if he declares that it is not "cruel and inhumane." He may authorize methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.</p> <p>-"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 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, which the report called 'a flagrant violation of medical ethics.'" ( <em>New York Times,</em> 5/17/04)</p> <p>-A later Red Cross visit to Guantanamo (6/04) found "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." Its report concluded, "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>-According to the military, Mohamed al Kahtani confessed that he was supposed to be the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was segregated from other prisoners for nearly six months, interrogated for up to 20 hours a day, made to stand naked in front of female soldiers, forced to wear lingerie, led around on a leash and forced to perform a series of dog tricks and had his copy of the Koran squatted on by an interrogator. This report comes from an investigation by Air Force Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt, who concluded that such treatment "was sometimes degrading but did not qualify as inhumane or as torture." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 7/14/05)</p> <p>-"The hopelessness you feel in Guantanamo can hardly be described. There is no trial, no fair legal process. I was alleged to have participated in terrorist training in Bosnia and Afghanistan. I've never been to Bosnia and the only time I visited Afghanistan was thanks to the hospitality of the CIA in an underground prison—the Dark Prison—outside Kabul," said Bisher al-Rawi, a British citizen who was arrested at the airport in the West African country of Gambia in 2002 and turned over to U.S. custody. He was released without charge or trial in April 2007. (Amnesty International, <a href="http://www.amnesty.org">www.amnesty.org</a>)<br> -"Our principal health problem down there [Guantanamo] is gain of weight, we feed them so well," said Karl Rove, the president's top political advisor. (<a href="http://www.denverpost.com">www.denverpost.com</a>, 7/09/07)<br> &nbsp;</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">For discussion</p> <p><b>1.</b> What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?</p> <p><b>2.</b> Are all, most, or some of the remaining Guantanamo detainees terrorists? Based on the reading, what conclusion do you reach and why? How do you explain the different results of competing studies of the Guantanamo population in 2004-2005 and the contradictory comments of two officers involved in the Combat Status Review Tribunals?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why would congressional legislation be necessary to imprison any terrorist suspects indefinitely without trials on American soil? (See the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11)</p> <p><b>4.</b> Consider the following points of view. Which point of view do you support and why?</p> <blockquote> <p>Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "The biggest challenge is finding a statutory basis for holding prisoners who should never be released and who may or may not be able to be put on trial."</p> <p><em>New York Times</em> editorial (7/15/07): "Challenge? The very idea is anathema to American democracy....Give the president a dictator's power to select people for detention without charges on American soil would be an utter betrayal of their oath to support and defend the Constitution...."</p> </blockquote> <p><b>5.</b> What problems do the terrorist suspects pose for the administration, according to the Woodward book? What weight do you think should be given to the "overwhelming political pressure" that Cole cites?</p> <p><b>6.</b> Most of the Guantanamo detainees do not appear to have been terrorists. Why, then, are several hundred still imprisoned?</p> <p><b>7.</b> Why would the participation of doctors in planning for interrogations be "a flagrant violation of medical ethics"?</p> <p><b>8.</b> Write a definition of "torture." Under your definition, have Guantanamo detainees been tortured? If you think they have not been, why not? If you think they have been, why do you suppose that President Bush has repeatedly declared that the U.S. does not torture prisoners?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3 style="font-weight: bold; ">Student Reading 3:</h3> <h2>What rights for detainees? What future for Guantanamo?</h2> <p style="font-weight: bold">Should detainees at Guantanamo be protected under the U.S. constitution and the Geneva Conventions?</p> <p>President Bush's position: U.S. constitutional rights protect only American citizens who are terrorist suspects and individuals captured on U.S. territory - and no one else. Guantanamo is not U.S. territory. The Geneva Conventions are designed for soldiers who become prisoners of war in conflicts between countries. Geneva does not provide any other type of designation. Terrorists do not wear uniforms, do not claim allegiance to any nation, do not follow the laws of war and represent an unprecedented and very dangerous threat. The commander in chief has the legal power to make these decisions about the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.</p> <p>The critics' position: A Guantanamo detainee is helpless without any rights. He has no way to require that the government explain before a judge why he is being held. Habeas corpus is fundamental to a civilized society and should cover everyone, whether an American citizen or not. Without this right, an individual is subject to abuse and torture. If evidence against a detainee is obtained by torture, it will not be admissible. This is a major reason why in more than five years not a single Guantanamo detainee has gone on trial for terrorism or war crimes. It is also why the government ends up holding anyone it wants indefinitely and without explanation. The results are devastating for detainees and the reputation of the United States.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Why doesn't the United States put all the remaining detainees on trial?</p> <p>A major reason, says the Bush administration, is that a trial for detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who is being held at Guantanamo) would endanger intelligence operations. For example, his lawyers could legally force the government to reveal its secret sources of information and all of its evidence against him. Another reason is that "many detainees were captured in combat situations across the Middle East that did not allow the sort of formal collection of evidence required by trials in the United States." ( <em>New York Times,</em> 7/3/07)</p> <p>Critics view U.S. behavior as hypocritical. President Bush claims to be promoting democracy in the Middle East while denying detainees such fundamental democratic legal rights as due process. Most are doubtless innocent of any terrorist act. Few, if any at this point, have any useful intelligence to offer.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold">Should Guantanamo be closed?</p> <p>"I would close Guantanamo, not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I'd get rid of the military commissions system and use established procedures in federal law or the manual for courts-martial."<br> <em>—Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, 6/26/07, "Meet the Press"</em></p> <p>"Although our critics abound and at home have called for Guantanamo to be shut immediately, they have not offered any credible alternatives for dealing with the dangerous individuals that are detained there."<br> <em>—John Bellinger III, legal advisor to the State Department</em> (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com">www.washingtonpost.com</a>, 6/22/07)</p> <p>According to reports in the <em>New York Times</em> and the <em>Washington Post,</em> President Bush's advisers are looking for a legal way to permit the long-term detention of foreign terrorists in the United States. In the face of persistent criticism from human rights and other groups around the world, the president has publicly declared his desire to close Guantanamo. But he says he is seeking a legal and safe way to secure dangerous terrorists.</p> <p>A United Nations Committee Against Torture declared that detaining people indefinitely "without charge" and without other "legal safeguards" at the Guantanamo detention center is "a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture." The detention center, it said, should be closed. (5/18/06)</p> <p>Guantanamo detainees have staged many hunger strikes, which have been broken only by force-feeding men who are strapped in "restraint chairs" for hours at a time. Four detainees have committed suicide, and at least 40 others have tried unsuccessfully, according to the international human rights group Amnesty International.</p> <p>Camp commander Rear Admiral Harry Harris Jr. said he believed that a June 2006 suicide attempt "was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us." The inmates, he said, "have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own."</p> <p>The <em>New York Times</em> editorialized: "These comments reveal profound disassociation from humanity. They say more about why Guantanamo Bay should be closed than any United Nations report ever could." (6/12/06)</p> <p>"The central question," lawyer David Cole writes, "is how to respond to the pressure for security without assuming excessive power and condoning abuses." Cole points out that assuming such power is not new in American History. A congressional committee investigating the use of executive power in 1975-1976 revealed "extensive abuses of executive power during the cold war, including widespread illegal spying on Americans." ( <em>New York Review of Books,</em> 7/19/07)</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> Imagine yourself a Guantanamo detainee who knows he is not a terrorist and has not committed any crime. What difficulties would you face in proving your innocence?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Why haven't the detainees been charged and tried?</p> <p><b>4.</b> What problems are there for the Bush administration in closing Guantanamo?</p> <p><b>5.</b> What evidence do you find in the readings and your knowledge of the post-9/11 situation in the U.S. to indicate that the president must consider "how to respond to the pressure for security"? Has President Bush assumed "excessive executive power"? Has he been "condoning abuses"? If he has, what should be done about it? If he has not, why not?</p> <hr> <h4>For writing</h4> <p>Write a well-developed essay in which you either:</p> <ul> <li>Support the opinion of either Colin Powell or John Bellinger III</li> <li>Support or oppose President Bush's decision to declare the Guantanamo detainees "enemy combatants" and to deny them the protections of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.</li> </ul> <h4>For inquiry</h4> <ul> <li> <p>President Abraham Lincoln's decision to deny habeas corpus during the Civil War</p> </li> <li> <p>Origins of the U.S. lease of Guantanamo</p> </li> <li> <p>Geneva Convention protections of prisoners of war</p> </li> <li> <p>The Bill of Rights and its protections for those accused of crimes</p> </li> <li> <p>The congressional Church Committee's 1975-1976 investigation of the use of presidential power during the cold war</p> </li> </ul> <h4>For citizenship</h4> <p>Write a letter or an e-mail to the president, your senators and/or your congressperson on what you think should be done about Guantanamo and its detainees.</p> <p>See "<a href="https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/teaching-social-responsibility">Teaching Social Responsibility</a>" for other suggestions to involve students in educational efforts on Guantanamo issues.</p> <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> <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="2007-09-04T14:39:05-04:00" title="Tuesday, September 4, 2007 - 14:39">September 4, 2007</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, 04 Sep 2007 18:39:05 +0000 fionta 985 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org Presidential Power: The Signing Statement https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/presidential-power-signing-statement <!-- 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>Presidential Power: The Signing Statement</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>The "signing statement" has been an obscure aspect of presidential behavior since early in the 19th century. But only President Bush's signing statements have generated a controversy over presidential power.</p> <p>You might begin by asking students, "What is a presidential signing statement?" — a question that will probably produce no response.</p> <p>The first student reading below details the background of the signing statement Bush attached to the Detainee Treatment Act. The second reading provides a brief history of signing statements, some background on Supreme Court rulings on presidential powers and a discussion of the pros and cons of President Bush's signing statements. Discussion questions and suggested student activities follow.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><b>Student Reading 1:</b></h3> <h2>Action to ban abuse and torture of American prisoners</h2> <p>A group of high school students handed President Bush an unexpected letter during their meeting with him at the White House on June 25. &nbsp;We asked him to remove the signing statement attached to the anti-torture bill, which would have allowed presidential power to make exemptions to the ban on torture,said student Mari Oye from Wellesley, MA. &nbsp;I really feel strongly about this issue and also about the treatment of some Arab- and Muslim-Americans after September 11th.</p> <p>The "signing statement" Oye referred to has a history stretching back to the late fall and early winter of 2005. President Bush expected Congress to pass a Defense Appropriations Bill that provided billions of dollars for the Iraq war. He opposed an effort by Senator John McCain, a fellow Republican, to attach to that bill an amendment, the Detainee Treatment Act, banning "all cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees."</p> <p>Photographs and other revelations about American treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, during the spring of 2004 had outraged many Americans and damaged the country's reputation around the world. Even worse news came in the following months as congressional investigators, the International Red Cross, human rights groups, and even the FBI reported that prisoner abuse and torture were not confined to Abu Ghraib or to a handful of U.S. Army guards. In fact, we learned, abuse and torture of prisoners were epidemic at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; at Bagram and other detention centers in Afghanistan; and at Camp Cropper and more than a dozen other detention centers in Iraq.</p> <p>Senator McCain moved to ban this torture and abuse. President Bush countered by arguing that "America stands against and will not tolerate torture." He also declared (on June 26, 2004) that "The United States also remains steadfastly committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions." These conventions ban all forms of prisoner mistreatment. So does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the U.S. War Crimes Act — all of which Congress approved over the past 60 years.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the president disapproved of the McCain amendment. The two met. Senator McCain agreed to modify the measure to allow an interrogator who is accused of prisoner mistreatment to claim that he "did not know that the practices were unlawful." He also agreed to Senator Lindsay Graham's amendment specifying that Guantanamo prisoners cannot invoke the constitutional right to habeas corpus since they are not legally on American soil and are not American citizens. (Habeas corpus allows detainees to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment through legal action.)</p> <p>Just before Christmas, 2005, President Bush and Senator McCain appeared together in the Oval Office to announce joint support of the amended bill. The president said that the Detainee Treatment Act makes it "clear to the world that this government does not torture."</p> <p>The Senate approved the bill 90-9.</p> <p>However, when he signed the act into law, President Bush added the following "signing statement: "The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limits on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."</p> <p>In short, the president declared he has the power to "construe," or to determine, how to understand, the Detainee Treatment Act as he thinks appropriate. He has said, for example, that the CIA needs to be able to use "alternative interrogation techniques." The president has not defined what those alternative techniques are.</p> <p>In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, reported that it had studied 19 of Bush's 160 signing statements. The GAO investigators found that in 6 of the 19 cases they studied, the Bush administration did not follow the law as approved by Congress. For example, they found, Bush had not carried out a law requiring the Pentagon to include justifications for Iraq war spending in its budget request.</p> <p>"Federal law is not some buffet line where the president can pick parts of some laws to follow and others to reject," said Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of Virginia. But White House spokesman Tony Fratto maintained that "The executive branch has an obligation to remain without constitutional limits. The point of the signing statement is to advise where the executive sees those limits."<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> Given the various international and congressional bans on abuse and torture, why do you think Senator McCain thought another was necessary?</p> <p><b>3.</b> How do you evaluate the two modifications of the McCain torture ban that McCain approved?</p> <p><b>4.</b> Does the Detainee Treatment Act now make it clear that the U.S. does not torture? Why or why not?</p> <p><b>5.</b> All U.S. interrogators are instructed about what is permissible in an interrogation. Apparently, CIA interrogators may follow different regulations. How would you interpret "alternative interrogation techniques"?</p> <p><b>6.</b> Why do you suppose that President Bush added a signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act?</p> <p><b>7.</b> Why do you suppose that President Bush added a signing statement to a law requiring the Pentagon to explain Iraq war spending?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h3><b>Student Reading 2:</b></h3> <h2>Signing Statements</h2> <p>In statements about a president's powers, the Constitution says nothing about "signing statements." Nor has the Supreme Court ever made a clear-cut ruling on them.</p> <p>Beginning with President James Monroe (1817-1825), and for the next 175 years, presidents issued several hundred such statements. Presidents have included them when they signed congressional bills into laws, usually to clarify or to express their satisfaction.</p> <p>No president in those years maintained in a signing statement that he had the power to overrule a law approved by Congress. Only the Supreme Court has the power to do that, wrote Chief Justice John Marshall, ruling in 1803 on Marbury v. Madison: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." He cited Article III of the Constitution to support his argument. Though that article does not state explicitly that the Supreme Court can void congressional legislation, Justice Marshall's claim of that authority has been generally accepted ever since.</p> <p>For example, during an undeclared war with France, Congress authorized the president to order the seizure of ships heading for French ports. In 1799, President Adams ordered the U.S. Navy to seize the "Flying Fish," a Danish vessel sailing from a French port. The Danish owner sued, and in 1804 Justice Marshall declared the president's behavior "unlawful."</p> <p>In 1952 during the Korean War, steel workers threatened a strike. President Harry Truman attempted to seize the steel mills to prevent a strike on the grounds that steel was essential for the war. But the Supreme Court ruled that he could not because Congress had decided upon another method of handling the situation.</p> <p>But The Boston Globe reported that President Bush "has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." ( <em>Boston Globe,</em> 4/30/06, <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com">www.bostonglobe.com</a>)</p> <p>Bush supporters cite the Constitution's statements about presidential power: "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." (Article II, Sec.1) " he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Sec.3) To be "vested" is to be "clothed," so to speak, with all the authority or rights of the executive branch. To "take care" is to fulfill his duties properly in carrying out all laws. Bush's defenders argue that the "vesting" and "take care" clauses of the Constitution are the basis for a "unitary executive theory," which, they maintain, gives a president the power to restrict congressional interference in what he judges to be his responsibilities.</p> <p>Opponents of Bush's signing statements also cite the Constitution. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. &nbsp;" (Article I, Sec. 1) "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections. " (Article I, Sec.7) The House of Representatives and the Senate make all laws. The only way provided in the Constitution for the president to express his objections to a law is to veto it. After a veto and congressional reconsideration, if "two-thirds" of each house approve anyway, "it shall become law." (Article I, Sec. 7)</p> <p>There has been bipartisan objection to President Bush's signing statements. Arlen Specter, then Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last year, "There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statement far beyond the customary purviews." His successor, Senator Patrick Leahy, said, "I've never seen anything like it, [It is] a grave threat to the system of checks and balances." (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com">www.washingtonpost.com</a>, 6/27/06</p> <p>House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan has begun an investigation into whether President Bush has violated any of the laws his signing statements indicate he might overrule. In addition to the Detainee Treatment Act, they include:</p> <ul> <li>Congressional reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Congress included a provision that requires the Justice Department to report to Congress by certain dates how the FBI is using this law to search homes and seize papers. The president's signing statement declares he can order the Justice Department to withhold information he decides would harm national security and executive branch operations.</li> <li>A Congressional request that uncensored science information prepared by government researchers and scientists be sent to legislators without delay. The president's signing statement declares he can withhold information he decides would harm national security and executive branch operations.<br> &nbsp;</li> </ul> <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> What do the following say to you about the powers of a president: The Marshall decision in Marbury v. Madison? The "Flying Fish" case? President Truman's effort to seize U.S. steel mills?</p> <p><b>3.</b> Explain the case for President Bush's signing statements. What is the case against them?</p> <p>4. Why might President Bush object to Justice Department reports to Congress on searching homes and the like? Why might he object to a congressional request for uncensored science information prepared by government officials? How do you evaluate his objection in each case?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <h4>For inquiry</h4> <p><b>1.</b> Investigate the signing statements of other presidents and compare them with President Bush's.</p> <p><b>2.</b> Investigate the results from the Conyers' committee investigation into signing statements.<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For an informal poll</h4> <p>It appears that very few Americans are aware of President Bush's signing statements. Have students prepare a short questionnaire about the signing statement issue for family members and friends. (If other students are included in the poll, a method needs to be devised to prevent soliciting a student more than once.) In class, tally and discuss the results.<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For citizenship</h4> <p>Following completion of the poll, discuss with students ways in which they might inform other students about presidential signing statements. See "Teaching Social Responsibility," which is available on this website for suggestions.<br> &nbsp;</p> <h4>For writing</h4> <p>Write a well-developed essay in which you discuss your understanding of the separation of powers and checks and balances in the U.S. government, why they were established in the Constitution, and their relationship to President Bush's signing statements.</p> <p>Write a well-developed essay in which you support or oppose one of the following quotations:</p> <ul> <li>"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (James Madison, The Federalist, #47)<br> &nbsp;</li> <li>"Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Elwood rejected the notion that Bush's signing statements represent a 'power grab.' Whatever power the Constitution gives the president, he said, exists regardless of the president's decision to note it in a signing statement. 'Congress has no power to enact unconstitutional laws . . . whether the president issues a signing statement or not,' Elwood said." ( <em>Boston Globe</em> , 2/1/07) <p>&nbsp;</p> </li> </ul> <p style="text-align: left"><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> <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="2007-06-27T14:39:09-04:00" title="Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 14:39">June 27, 2007</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' --> Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:39:09 +0000 fionta 992 at https://www.morningsidecenter.org