Over the weekend, news broke that the United States government had made the decision to exchange five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl roughly five years after his capture by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. While many have applauded the effort to bring home a captured member of the American armed forces, not everybody has been so quick to label this course of action “correct.” Continue reading
For the past few weeks, anyone who has opened a newspaper, turned on a television, or logged on to a social media account has come across the recent “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign. Continue reading
Over a year after public health officials wrote to President Obama in anger that the United States had been using “sham vaccination campaign[s]” as a front for espionage, a White House official has pledged that the CIA will no longer use immunization programs as cover for spying operations. Continue reading
The House Armed Services Committee (“HASC”) released its spending bill, the National Defense Authorization Bill, this past week, reserving a total of $93 million for new construction at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, including $69 million for a new “high-value detainee complex.” Further, the bill would prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for further detention or trial. While the fate of the bill is still uncertain, as it ultimately needs to gain approval from Congress, its very existence indicates that, as many of us have speculated, Guantanamo will not be closing any time soon. Continue reading
Earlier today, the Iraqi government announced that it has shut down the Abu Ghraib prison. According to Iraqi officials, the closure is due to growing concerns that Sunni insurgents in the area may have the capabilities to launch an attack against the prison, possibly freeing some of the roughly 2,400 prisoners. Those prisoners have now been moved to more secure locations in central and northern Iraq. It is unclear at this point whether Abu Ghraib will reopen if the Iraqi government is able to secure the area. Continue reading
Earlier this week, my colleague and co-founder of this blog, Paul Taylor, published a post highlighting the role of the media in propagating misconceptions of veterans’ mental health. In yet another example of the media influencing the average citizens’ perceptions of current events and hot topics, a study was recently released identifying George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four as the only literary reference used to help explain NSA surveillance, a hot topic in the media over the course of the past year. Continue reading
News broke this past Wednesday afternoon of yet another tragic mass shooting at Fort Hood, the second in the base in just five years. While TransparentPolicy‘s primary focus is the United States’ response to foreign terrorist threats, this is an issue that warrants our attention, largely in part to the widespread implications the news coverage of these events will have on the general public’s perception of service members and military veterans, which will ultimately affect the long-term well being of those who have served our country in the post-9/11 military. Continue reading
The Obama administration may be facing another setback in the quest to close Guantanamo Bay. On Tuesday, several news outlets reported that Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee, has again been placed in custody for terrorism-related offenses linked to the crisis in Syria. Begg, a citizen of the UK, was initially arrested in Islamabad in 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo Bay before being released in 2005. He has maintained that he was involved in charity work and was not a member of any terrorist organization. Continue reading
In a recent post on the blog TomDispatch.com, Peter Van Buren published a piece condemning the United States’ drone policy, particularly in regards to the recent news that the U.S. is considering the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen abroad. In the piece, “Drone Killing the Fifth Amendment: How to Build a Post-Constitutional America One Death at a Time,” Van Buren explores the constitutionality of the U.S.’s drone policy, and argues that “They’ve thought about it [targeted killing]. They’ve set up the legal manipulations necessary to justify it.”
It is no great secret that both the legality and the morality of targeted killing has been a hot topic in recent months, Van Buren argues that the practice is at odds with the values our country is based on, as the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen denies him the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Essentially, Van Buren’s point is that we are in a post-Constitutional America, and have strayed dramatically from the values of our Founding Fathers.
As someone who tends to agree with the loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, I side with Van Buren on this. Broadly, I believe that a document written over 200 years ago was never intended to be followed to the letter. Try as they might, our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting what our country would look like and the problems we would face in 2014. What Van Buren is saying, however, is that we have strayed too far from the values our country was built upon. While one would be hard-pressed to find the phrase “targeted killing” or “drone strikes” anywhere within the four corners of the Constitution, we still need to abide by the guiding principles outlined in the document. We are allegedly a country that values freedom, liberty, and due process. If we kill our own citizens in drone strikes, is that truly constitutional?
Kelly Ann Taddonio
Senior Research Fellow
February 18, 2014