Bowe Bergdahl Negotiation

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

The subsequent case study, prepared by James P. Pfiffner, Torture and Public Policy, (2010) analyzes the torture and abuse of war prisoners by United States military personnel in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, following photographs of the abuse spread around the world in the fall of 2003. Pfiffner points out that the United States Military, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfield, and President George W. Bush assumed a role in the events leading up to the exploitation, even though it has never been corroborated that President Bush or Secretary of State Rumsfield directly condoned the abuse.

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

The reauthorization of Defense Department funding was expected, in part because it has happened every year for the past 50 years (Fox-Rouch, 2012); however, the most recent version generated considerable controversy among civil and human rights advocates due to a provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens (Fox-Rouch, 2012; Kuipers, 2012).

While it was known that Bergdahl was kidnapped by Taliban, some of the things that he said about the United States are quite troubling. For example, the Taliban released a video of Bergdahl saying this, “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools.” This is not only showing disrespect to the United States, but by hearing Bowe Bergdahl make this very profound statement, this clearly shows why he deserves to be charged with Misbehaving before the enemy. Another way to show that Bergdahl deserves to charged with Misbehaving before the enemy, is by looking at the other comment that Bergdahl made. For example, in another video that was released, Bergdahl said this, “The horror that is America is disgusting.” By watching Bergdahl make this statement, this gives another reason on why he deserves to be charged with Misbehaving before the enemy.

Our nation’s actions toward seeking justice and preventing any attacks of this scale from happening again came with quick notion, “Less than a week later (following the 9/11 attacks), Congress authorized the President to use military force ‘against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” (Yin). In essence, Congress gave the president the ability to use the military to seek out and detain terrorists responsible for 9/11, showing our country’s dedication to ending these attacks and those who initiated them for good. Overall, this tragic event revealed the need for stricter defense regulations against non-state actors (terrorists). For this reason, 9/11 was the catalyst for the beginning of the War on Terror and, consequently, the opening of Guantanamo Bay.

In conclusion, since the US government argued stating that the Federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case since the prisoners were not American citizens and they were still being held in territory over which the United States did not have sovereignty. The lease gives the United States exclusive and indefinite control over the area, and the defendants are subject to indefinite detention without a trial or hearing by any tribunal. The US Government was at war with the Terrorists and necessary measures needed to be taken in order to protect other people from potential harm. Therefore, let the government deal with those captives without the involvement of the courts system.

Robert Bowdrie (Bowe) Bergdahl is a United States Army sergeant who left his post in Afghanistan 2009 purposefully and intentionally. The Bowe Bergdahl case is an odd case that sometimes does not make much sense. He will be facing court-martial sometime this year for is desertion and misbehavior. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very similar to regular law but has some adjustments that pertain to certain military rules and regulations. Bergdahl violated one of the most important rules and the first General Order, these orders are a soldier’s guideline on how to conduct

The second season of the podcast series, Serial, hosted by Sarah Koenig, an American Journalist, focuses on a soldier named Bowe Bergdahl, who, at the age of 19, enlisted into the Coast Guard. Bowe Bergdahl only lasted a couple weeks in training due to the fact that he was diagnosed with situational anxiety. Without proper guidance, the Army did not look into Bergdahl 's diagnosis. Therefore, Bowe Bergdahl was able to re-enlist into the army. Because the Army neglected to check Bowe’s medical history, Bowe caused a Dustwun in the middle of Afghanistan in 2009, and was later captured by the Taliban. As a result, the Taliban established a trade with the United States. In exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, the Taliban wanted five of their commanders who were held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay. However, the Army could have prevented Bowe from being held captive, if the military had checked Bowe’s records. Therefore, the army was at fault for allowing a mentally ill soldier to re-enlist in the army.

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.

On 26 September 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport while he was waiting for his flight . Mr. Arar was held in solitary confinement without any charges by United States authorities for two weeks without having access to a lawyer. The United States government suspected him of being a member of Al-Qaeda and deported him back directly not to Canada, but to his country of birth Syria, where he was tortured . Arar was held in Syria for nearly a year, during that time he was tortured, until he return to Canada. The Syrian government later admitted that Arar was not involved in anything and he was “completely innocent ”. There are too many questions that need to be answered,

Upon investigating the abundance of information provided upon Bowe Bergdahl’s return home from five years of captivity with the Taliban, a few details seem rather suspicious. For instance, Bowe’s plea to be released and go home sounds rehearsed and emotionless. If anyone else were in the situation Bowe was, there would most probably be more pleading in their voice than what Bowe carried in his. Along those lines, Bowe seems to be overly egocentric when he explains why he did what he did when leaving his post. Any man who puts himself and his unit in danger in order to “prove” themselves clearly has a twisted way of thinking. It appears as though Bowe views himself as invincible when he leaves his post as he only brings a knife with him for

By including this vision of closing Guantanamo as a part of his presidential campaign, Obama gained great support from the public. Once elected, Obama acted on his promise to close Guantanamo on his second day as President, shown by Scott Horton in his article on Guantanamo, “He (Obama) created an inter-agency task force to advise him on the specifics of this process and to create future guidelines for the detention of terrorism suspects captured abroad,” (1). The overall shift in opinion on Guantanamo in both citizens and high-up leaders of the country, however, was a result of many factors occurring around the time of Obama’s election. First, while Guantanamo processes and descriptions were long held from the public under war time confidentiality, more information leaked out as the war settled down, including a basic description of Camp X-ray, which was, “consisting of small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs, offering scant shelter from the elements, and with very basic sanitary facilities,” (Living Conditions). Methods of torture also became more nationally known, reinforcing the shifting opinion against Guantanamo. Finally, one of the largest reasons for Obama’s push to close Guantanamo was due to the lack of empirical evidence proving detainees guilty (Horton 12). Holding these

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states

In this article, Andrew Sullivan, is an advocate for the abolition of torture against terrorist in the United States. During the time that this article was written, the McCain Amendment (which banned torture) was on a political limbo. What this author talks mostly about is the choice that we have to make things right, therefore ban the use of torture against terrorist. This debate takes place after Bush administration defined "torture" and permitted coercive, physical abuse of enemy combatants if "military necessity" demands it. Also after several reports found severe abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has led to at least two dozen deaths during interrogation, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe and innocent detainees being murdered.