The Decisions Made by the Bush Administration in the War With Terror - Coursework Example

The decisions made by the Bush administration Terrorism can be defined as a coercive and violent type of human behavior that is undertaken for achieving or promoting any particular political or religious objective. Terrorism aims at overthrowing the present established order. The act of terrorism involves inducing fear in the minds of people through unprecedented acts of violence. Terrorism can be regional as well as global. Nowadays terrorism has achieved an international dimension, particularly after the September 11 attacks on America. A 1988 study by the US army found more than 100 definitions related to terrorism exists and has been used. A UN panel formed on November 2004, defined terrorism as any act aimed to cause bodily harm to civilians for compelling the government to do any act (Allen). Even though America declared war against terror after the September 11 attacks, it conducted anti terrorist operations since the early 1990’s. From this period the US Government was operating anti terror programmes. One such programme was forcible capturing or seizing suspected terrorists from foreign countries and transferring them to a 3rd country. This programme came to be known as Extraordinary rendition. It was expanded by the Bush administration after the 2001 attacks. Latest records reveal that up to 1245 flights have been operated for transporting terror suspects from undisclosed locations to detention centers operated by CIA also called as Black sites. This action by the US government has created tensions between its European allies, namely the Council of Europe, Congressional committees and Human rights organizations. They have questioned the legality of the programme even though forgetting the ill effects of terror attacks suffered by US and many other foreign countries. This programme of Extraordinary rendition was formed after the 1993 attacks on US. It was a way for the CIA for keeping the terror suspects out from the American court system because they feared that the intelligence system could be jeopardized. This programme got approval from the Presidential Decision Directive 39 issued by President Bill Clinton. This directive gave suggestions regarding procedures to be used for forcible abduction of terrorists without the permission of the host governments. Actually this act was a blatant encroachment against the sovereignty of other nations on the grounds of fight against terror. This programme was extensively used after the September 11 attacks by the US government. The programme of Extraordinary rendition was promoted first by Richard Clarke the former chief of counter terrorism in 1993. It was he who urged the Clinton administration to conduct the programme. The programme was initially opposed by the then Vice president Al Gore due to many legal issues associated with it. For some time the American government was successful in operating the programme under the cover of secrecy, but after 2004, reports began to surface about the programme in the European media. President Bush confirmed the programme officially on September 6, 2006. He admitted that some terrorists were confined in undisclosed locations outside America but did not disclose locations or details of prisoners. An investigation undertaken by the European Union confirmed that Black sites were been operated in some parts of Poland and Romania during 2003 and 2005. Some detainees were handed over to other countries identified by the state department for torturing them for extracting information. All these inhuman and illegal activities were carried out by the Bush administration as a justification against terror attacks on its soil forgetting the fact that once the US was a major party in promoting insurgency in many parts of the world. There were many legal tangles in the US regarding the programme, Extraordinary rendition. The 1992 Supreme Court decision related to US v/s Alvarez-Machain case states that trials are to be conducted in the US even if the abductees are captured from another foreign country. However the effect of this decision on Extraordinary rendition is uncertain. The programme itself was framed for avoiding US domestic laws. On this ground some human rights activists have criticized the programme on the reason that it overlooks the right of Habeas corpus. Therefore the programme is unconstitutional. Some others criticize this as a violation of United Nations convention against torture. These criticisms were made by human rights activists forgetting the fact that terror activities itself is a strong case of human rights violation. Another significant opinion related to this issue is that many human rights activists are really concerned on Anti terror activities rather than terror activities. They criticize Anti terror operations severely and ignores sufferers of terror activities. A series of legal tests followed after the wide use of the Extraordinary rendition programme. One among them was the case titled Rasul v/s Bush. In this case the Supreme Court held that even though the prisoners are caught outside US, they are to be brought under trial in US courts. However, this directive was made scrap by the Bush administration by Passing the Military commissions act in the congress. The constitutionality of this act is still being debated in US Supreme court. Even though there were many legal tests against the Extraordinary rendition programme, it is quite uncertain that they have any real impact on it. Moreover the US government is very keen to make it applicable publicly to some sites like the Guantanamo Bay which is under its control while other sites remain invisible. The government is also taking ‘active’ and ‘sincere’ steps to make others believe that there are no United Nations convention violations against torture. They also obtain false assurances from ally countries not to torture detainees before they are handed over to them. The programme of Extraordinary rendition has created tensions for US with other nations. There were issues with Canada, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. But many of the issues were not proceeded too far because of the undue influence US have on those countries. Many of the above countries have either surrendered their sovereignty or their credibility to the US government on the justification on siding along the war on terror. These European countries have not taken any action against human rights violation cases fearing that they will harm their relations with the US (Corbett). It is now clear that many Human rights violations that were done on the behest of the US government after 2001 were carried out in collaboration with other friendly countries. Prisoners was constantly abused, tortured and made to disappear. When the Barack Obama term started, there was a change in US policy towards terror suspects as expected earlier. However it should be seen that America can survive its fight and build its credibility among other nations form this policy change. The US government was successful in persuading other countries to participate in the post 9/11 operations. It is believed that many countries were threatened and many were seduced by offering funds. Many countries used practices that were abusive for making the US government happy. The US government encouraged countries to pass draconian anti terrorism laws as well as to widen the definition of terror activities. Even though the programmes instituted by the US after post 9/11 were against human rights and created tensions, it also had positive sides. Many allied countries made their counter terrorists operations effective on the justification that defeating terrorism is more than any other human rights violations. It justifies the anti terror abuses on the ground that right to self defense is greater that human rights abuses. Such arguments put forward by the US were taken up and supported by other governments also. During the post 9/11 periods, such views had tremendous global significance. The position of US as a global power and its historical role as a defender of human rights as well as the intensity through which it expressed and justified the need for war on terror has augmented the negative global impact of these views (Marinner). The phrase , War agaisnst terror that is constantly used by president Bush was made a subject of fun by many especially by UK newspapers. The term very soon disappeared from official coverage. Some remarked that the words war on terror is not about stopping people from being afraid but it is about making people afraid. A United Nations study on Arab human development found out that the war on terrorism has actually pushed radical political groups to ask for change through the use of violence.the war against terror is creating terrorists rather than reducing them. Many believe that after the fallof the Berlin wall, the US has lost its ground against communism and it was eager to open new war fronts so as to come back into reconing.This resulted in the declaration of the war on terror by the US government.Former Australian foreign minister, Mr Gareth Evans has remarked that the War on terror by the US and its allies have resulted in more war and more terror. Many countries including those traditionalally countries of the US believes that the war on terror is solely an act udertaken to protect and achieve US based objectives. Many observations were made on this behalf. One among them was the case of Irish terrorists who were killing British troops regularly.Inspite of the killings, Great Britain never declared a worldwide war on terrorism. The same was in the case of the French Government which never declared a world wide agitation on the aftermath of terrorists bombings on its soil (War on terrorism). America’s war on terror has also been criticized by the United Nations. Former secretary general, Kofi Annan in his farewell speech in 2006 has expressed his dismay on the policies followed by Bush administration against terror. He observed that the role of US as a guardian of human rights has been dramatically changed after the declaration of war against terror. The US has sacrificed its principles and ideals of democracy during the war. The image of the US as a beacon of freedom has been tarnished (Foot). During the days that immediately followed the September 11 attacks, the most powerful people of US were terribly shocked and frightened. Critical decisions related to stop and fight terror attacks were made in a state of chaos as well as despair. In spite of this turbulence, some key players to the government including the Vice president Dick Cheney, and secretive adviser David Addington, used this crisis to enhance presidential powers up to an unprecedented level. Such instances were totally new to US. Many decisions made were totally against the US constitution. As a result innocent human beings who were branded as terrorists were sent to detention centers around the world and many real terrorists like Bin Laden were left behind from capturing (Mayer. P2-40). The global legacy of the Bush administration on fight against terror is difficult to disappear quickly. Even though corrective measures are now taken up by the new administration like closing up of Guantanamo Bay and many CIA prisons, they may fail to remove the stains on US quickly. The policies followed by the bush administration for eight years have created a negative impact on the image of US worldwide. Many prisoners that were handed over by US to their parent countries are still held there without any charge. The repressive laws passed by these countries are still not withdrawn. Moreover examples of US abuses of prisoners will also not be easily forgotten. In this scenario, the US should not only reform its own practices but also take remedial measures to reduce its impact on the world (Marinner). Works cited: Allen, Terry. terrorism - Definition, Pejorative use, Democracy, Perpetrators, Tactics, Responses to terrorism, History, Examples of major incidents, Further reading. 2009. 30, November 2009. Corbett, James. Extraordinary rendition. 2008. 30, November 2009. Foot, Rosemary. Exceptionalism Again: The Bush Administration, the "Global War on Terror" and Human Rights. 2008. 30, November 2009. Marinner, Joanne. The Global Impact of U.S. "War on Terror" Abuses. 2009. 30, November 2009. Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. 2008. Paris: Scribe publications. P2-40 War on terrorism. 2008. 30, November 2009. Read More