American University will cause any logical person with the slightest concept of political ideas to become steaming mad at one idea or another. The outlets for such emotion generally consist of uselessly irrational political banter. Having felt such pressures before, I want to thank Will Haun for writing an article so asinine that I actually chuckled and became happy rather than angry. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for being ridiculous enough in your analysis of national security that I can actually create a logical piece dedicated to dismantling your opinion. You rock, Will.
Haun's opening statements fall in to a stock argument: We must sacrifice certain freedoms for the protection of our country. We are at a disadvantage in our battle with terrorists and we must strike a balance between liberty and security to neutralize our flaws. He mentions NSA wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay and the PATRIOT Act as specific examples of such a balancing act, but only supports Guantanamo Bay with actual evidence. In light of that fact, I'll just accept his concession on the other two arguments.
Haun tries to disprove the claim of the UN by indicting the source, citing that the human rights commission of the UN has "Sudan, China and Cuba" as members. What he does not address is that opinions are not inextricably tied to the craziest people that support them. Adolf Hitler's support of "clean streets" is in no way tied to some indictment of the idea of keeping trash off of the ground.
Let us assume the UN does not exist. In that vacuum, Guantanamo Bay is STILL wrong. The reason that it should be shut down is because of a culture of problematic abuse. I don't have to conjure images of Nazism to prove that idea; there are pictures of men forced into sexual positions and strapped by the nipple and testicle to electrodes that will do the job better than rhetoric. No one will argue that we should not capture war criminals or terrorists and place them in detention for interrogation, investigation and punishment. However, as President Bush lies, "We do- not- torture."
Haun points to the 25 released Guantanamo detainees who have returned to the battlefield. Firstly, this number means nothing to anyone who read the article because it fails to mention a grand total of detainees. Second, it disproves his later argument of the effectiveness of military tribunals in properly weeding out terrorists from other members. Third, it reinforces a delusion that we can stop everything. The only way to prevent a single one of the people we detain from taking arms against us is to end the freedom of each one of them through death or life imprisonment. I don't know if Haun would argue that that is constitutional; we'll have to wait for a response.
Haun states that if anything should be regulated, it's the speech of a United States Senator that compares the treatment to Nazi concentration camps.Excuse me? The one thing you would regulate in relation to Guantanamo Bay is "speech"? Is "speech" one of those freedoms that must be sacrificed in your delicate balance of freedom and security? Last I checked, the Constitution thought speech was pretty important.
Why would such speech be dangerous? Says Haun, "This kind of talk hurts our ability to effectively wage the War on Terror."
The same old party line. Listen, and listen good Will: Terror is a concept. It will never become a human being or a political entity. There is absolutely nothing tangible about it. It's definition is problematic. There is no way to absolutely stop terrorism, therefore there is no way to win a war against it. By allowing people to declare war on intangible ideas and pushing these wars despite the fact that they are logically proven never to end, you offer a blank check of power to the executive and a magic wand of rhetoric.
Haun says that Guantanamo is not in violation of the law and therefore should not be shut down. This argument throws poop at policy debate. Of course it's legal Will. Slavery was legal once. US sweatshops were legal once. Preventing races from mixing sexually or civilly was legal once. State control of sexual positions was legal up until just a few years ago. The argument is over what the law should be, not what it is now.
The only line in this article that made any sense was "In knowing the facts, we can cut the rhetoric." Yes, let's cut the rhetoric, shall we? Instead of using references to Sean Hannity and the War on Terror and slamming "the left's favorite president", the UN, a Democratic Senator and "those who are quick to criticize (insert George Bush policies here", how about you actually construct an argument independent of the right-left, dualist, factionalist garbage that is promoted by your both your greatest heroes and your large scale opponents? I know that thinking for one's self is a novel idea in the brainwashed political environment of what some like to call American democracy, but that doesn't mean you have to engage in the idiocy. It's called free will. Use it.
P.S. I will publicly defend these ideas if asked.
Daniel Cohen is a senior in the School of Public Affairs.
