Archive for April, 2004

Yesterday I studied for my last exam for my International Relations class. I was kind of surprised with just how much I have learned from this class. I liked how my professor encouraged discussion and very rarely shared her opinion about the subject up for debate. After we had our debates, she would then share her insight on the subject, and I think that was a very good way in handling a class like this. Basically, for this exam we focused on the war in Iraq and a bunch of decisions GW has made during his presidency. I am aware that GW does not write his own speeches and that he’s just a mere puppet for his party, but I still think he is really hypocritical and stupid. I know in the past American presidents have been hypocritical in decisions, but I guess it’s just the fact that I have studied a lot of the policies and laws that GW has passed and rejected during his term. This is why I feel so much anger directed towards him.

So where should I start? I guess I will discuss the biggest issue in hand: the whole war with Iraq. Bush was so convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, that he ignored the UN and decided to take things in his own hands. He felt that the UN was being too easy with Iraq. For over a decade, the UN has been passing resolutions demanding Saddam Hussein to give in. Each time Saddam has never completely followed their demands. The US felt that rather than use the UN, which was originally established to avoid what caused WWII to ever happen again, it would attack Iraq by itself. The world was too afraid to take any action against Hitler and thought appeasement would be the best policy. Bush was worried that the UN would not be able to get the job done, and therefore decided to take pre-emptive actions towards Iraq. This means he wanted to attack them first. He was determined to attack Iraq alone, which was definitely a sign of unilateralism. By acting alone, Bush has made the US look like a bully (again), and that we can do whatever we please. At the same time, if one country decided to take pre-emptive actions against the US because they felt like it, I’m sure the US would have problems with that. By ignoring well-established international organizations like the UN, Bush is ignoring a system of checks and balances, which contradicts what the US is all about.

Speaking of checks and balances, Bush unsigned the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty that Clinton originally signed. Why? He and his core constituencies believe that no US citizen should be tried in an UN established court. The ICC will be a court where countries can try criminals for human rights violations such as genocide, rape, war crimes. The main goal of the ICC is to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. It helps end conflicts, end impunity, and deter future crimes. Bush and his people did not want a “loss of sovereignty”. He also did not believe there was a system of checks and balances in this court (when in reality there is a very stringent system in place). The truth is that American soldiers have done a lot of illegal things against UN protocol, and Bush is afraid they will get tried in a world court for these actions. The US and a bunch of rogue states were the only countries who did not sign this treaty. Once again, this makes America look like a stuck up snob.

The last point I’ll make is the Patriot Act. Basically, this act was ratified after 9/11, and Bush believes this act will help fight his “War on Terrorism”. I feel that the name of this act is a misnomer because it clearly violates the Fifth amendment–due process clause. This act allows for the government to take people who they suspect to be involved with terrorism into questioning. Most of these people are aliens, and it has been said over and over by the Supreme Court that aliens have the same rights as citizens in the US. These aliens can also be tried in military tribunals, which are highly secretive and it has different rules. The ordinary rules of evidence no longer work in a military tribunal. The tribunal might declare a defendant guilty even though it has not satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Its verdict, including the death penalty, only needs two-thirds of the vote. Other than that, the decision is only reviewed by the president or the secretary of defense. The entire idea of ?innocent until proven guilty? does not apply to military tribunals. If this process was being used in foreign countries, what would Americans think of them? Besides this, the US government now has the right to tap conversations of suspects without giving them any knowledge, which is a clear invasion of privacy.
More >