If the U.S. has pledged itself, or at least quite a few of our presidents have sworn, to fight terrorism wherever it is then shouldn't we also focus on our home? There are few reports of home terrorism but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Not only that but to fight terrorism elsewhere the U.S. has used very brutal methods in return. Can't that be considered terrorism as well?
Using probable cause as justification for incarcerating many people and some suspected terrorists the american government put them in Guantanamo Bay Prison. There they suffered various acts of torture by U.S. soldiers and guards. In a segment of a book I read by Noam Chomsky called Hopes and Prospects said that (I'm paraphrasing here) the torturers where supposed to find a connection between the suspected terrorists and a terrorist organization, and the less they came up with the more they needed to find that non-existent connection.
In fact the government has tried to justify their use of torture with the Torture Memos which provide arguments for the use of torture. America has, even if not openly, committed war crimes and suppressed its own citizens with laws that restrict civil liberties such as the Patriot Act of 2006. If the United States commits itself to a war on terror ti should use different methods than those of the terrorists themselves because then what is America? Does the end justify the means?
Olivia, An interesting topic here (and I am a huge Chomsky fan, having heard him speak on a few occasions). It'd be nice, though, to focus your readers' attention on specific example -- a textual citation rather than a paraphrase, a quote from torture memos, etc. Perhaps the recent Obama administration decision NOT to close Gitmo would help anchor your points in a contemporary context.
ReplyDelete