Category: Guantanamo Bay

The American Psychological Association was formed in 1892 and spread quickly after World War II. The APA is one of the largest scientific and professional organisation representing psychology in the United States. In 2017, the APA (American Psychology Association) settled a case against two psychologists who allegedly utilised the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques in the aftereffect of 9/11 and violating some of their professional ethics. This horrific event took place in Guantanamo bay, a secret prison outside of the United States where suspected terrorists were kidnapped and tortured. In 2002, the APA changed its ethics code to allow psychologists to abandon their ethical obligations under pressure from legal authority, which could include military orders to participate in torture. Article 4 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”. Similarly, Article 5 states “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel; inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The two psychologist who used the CIA’s interrogations techniques breached these human rights and did not uphold the APA’s ethics code. In this essay, I will critically analyse the different types of techniques used and they breached some rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the APA’s code of ethics. The legal obligations of psychologists, the criticism for the experiments and the response which the APA took to correct these issues.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the term ‘torture’ translates to “any act which severe pain and suffering, where physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the inspiration of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. The definition excludes “pain or suffering arising from only from, inherent in or incidental to unlawful sanctions”. Torture is not an effective means to use in interrogations and does not gather useful or truthful information. It can, however, be successful when controlling large numbers of population. Prisoners who were held captive at Guantanamo Bay had their own religious used against them as a physical means of torture. After the 9/11 attack the United States extended their military base in Cuba to incorporate a detention where they kept men linked to terrorism. Detainees were given permission to keep a copy of the holy book, but it was used to torture them. Guards saw this as an opportunity to agonise prisoners by tossing the Quran into the toilet or by breaking the binding under the guise of searching for weapons. Official reports confirm that 23 detainees participated in a mass-suicide attempt from August 18-26, 2003. President Barrack Obama tried multiple attempts of closing down Guantanamo Bay while serving his term, but in 2018 Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2018 to keep the detention centre opened indefinitely. 40 detainees remain at the off-shore island.

There were 13 ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, which the CIA used on detainees and they include: “abdominal slap, attention grasp, cramped confinement, dietary manipulation, the facial hold, the facial slap/ insult slap, nudity, stress positions, sleep deprivation, wall standing, walling, waterboarding and water dousing”. Detainees who were tortured by sleep deprivation were required to wear diapers and if they weren’t available, guards constructed substitutes with duct tape, or prisoners were chained naked in their cells. The cells were pitch black night and day, with no heating and loud music constantly being blasted. The interrogation techniques were written by Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, two contracted psychologists who created such approach to resist against Al-Qaida fighters. Jessen, one of the psychologists, was sent to spent 10 days in a secret prison near Kabul, and 5 days after he had left, one inmate, Rahman, was found dead in his cell due to hypothermia. Rahman was continuously interviewed for two weeks with minimal food and sleep and was always naked waist down or wearing socks and a diaper throughout his time there.

The right to freedom from torture is embedded in many human rights documents and protects all people from becoming subject to torture. Whether it be psychological, emotional or physical. The administering of torture is a serious violation of fundamental international law under the Geneva Conventions which were created to minimise the effects of armed conflicts. This resulted in, infliction of torture being constituted as a war crime. Under International Criminal Law, torture can initiate a ‘crime against humanity’ or ‘war crime’. As stated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Courts. The concept of non-refoulment prevents leaving a victim of persecution to their aggressor and applies to states in the conditions of their extradition and immigration policies. Persecution includes actions that do not fall within the overly restricted definition of torture. Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, proposes that “ [n]o Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

Psychologist James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen settled a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three former CIA prisoners. They were accused of creating, performing and supervising the CIA’s experimental torture and abuse program. There was staggering evidence against the psychologists including: a detailed Senate report, multiple depositions, newly declassified documents and even Mitchell’s memoir. Before deciding to settle, Mitchell and Jessen refused to acknowledge any involvement in the experiment and their legal preventatives pleaded their guiltiness by comparing them to the low-level technicians whose employers provided lethal gas for extermination camps during the Holocaust. The Psychologists involvement in the interrogation program was of high importance because it allowed the Justice Department to determine whether the program was legal and did not consist of torture, since the interrogations were conducted with health professionals present to make they were safe. The interrogation program has now been shut down, just last year the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a thorough report which outlined the program as ineffective and abusive. The APA used this critical moment to re-evaluate the psychologists actions and making beneficial changes to the interrogation program and ethics code of the APA.

The new policy imposed by the APA does not allow psychologists to get involved in any policy consultants involving human interrogations. The council of representatives almost came to a unanimous vote to inhibit psychology professionals from getting involved with national security interrogations. The new policy states that psychologists “shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation’. The new policy also aims to align with APA’s stance regarding cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment with that of the U.N Convention Against Torture . They are forbidden from participating in at least 19 different interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, hooding, forced nudity and stressful positions. Additionally, the APA reached out to the Department of Defence and Congress to continue looking into the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other sites to ensure all ethical standards are being followed. The APA also supports the Supreme Court decision upholding that Guantanamo prisoners have a fundamental right to have a legal review of their detentions.

Terrorism can be dated back to the 1605 attempted gunpowder plot by Guy Fawks and how he was burned on the stake as a consequence, which is still celebrated to this day. There are many wars which are started due to the consequences of terrorism. An example of this is the war on terrorism in the middle east which the United Kingdom contributed to, This was justified due to how the terrorist groups which had been wreaking havoc and the radicalisation of the innocent which has impacted the world for years and needed intervention. The acts of terrorism committed in 2001 known as 9/11 which led to the deaths of just under three thousand people then led to a major retaliation by the United States and its allies against Al-Qaeda in the Middle east.

Despite nations justifying their retaliation innocent people have been killed within the midst of this combat. I intend to evidence the unfortunate lives that have been lost to retaliation attacks and other consequences of retaliation.

Since 2001 it is estimated that at least half a million lives have been lost in the war against terror in the middle east, although it has been suggested the estimates could be a lot greater, In Iran alone, the allied airstrikes estimate of civilian casualties could be at least thirty one times greater than what is recorded. As the war in the middle east developed it saw the increase in suicide bombers. Suicide bombers generally choose areas where there are high numbers of civilians leading to significant losses of life. Also with an increased loss of life and life-changing injuries to military personnel helping in the fight in the middle east.

Another example of civilian lives being impacted is the innocent people’s detention at Guantanamo Bay. Since 9/11, seven hundred and eighty people were detained there. Seven hundred and thirty-one of these detainees without any charges but had been held against their will for a number of years. Only eight people of the original seven hundred and eighty held captive were convicted after a trial or plea bargains. Three of these convictions have since been overturned. During their time at Guantanamo Bay, it is well reported that people were held Inhumanely and tortured on a regular basis.

Over the years Great Britain has been affected by terrorism in different ways. Between the early 1970s and the late 1990s, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) carried out acts of terror in Northern Ireland and also in England where innocent victims were injured or killed in Manchester, London and Warrington. Since 2001 there have been approximately one hundred terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain. The majority of these attacks are linked to Islamic and religious extremists. Examples of Innocent lives lost are the 7/7 London bombings where fifty-two innocents were killed and many more injured during their normal daily commute to work. The Manchester Arena bombings during an Ariana Grande concert was another example of civilian lives being lost due to terrorism.

There have also been concerns about Islamic extremists grooming young people online. Some young people have travelled to the middle east to fight the cause for ISIS. There is evidence that these young people were vulnerable and not totally aware of the cause they were being invited to join. There are many views about the revoke of Shamima Begum’s Citizenship and how responsible she was for her actions. It has been a controversial topic of should it be up to the countries and their government to remove the right of citizenship from people and should it be considered as going against their human rights.

An opposing argument to my view is that the latest statistic of world deaths from 2017 shows that the number of terrorist-related deaths had decreased significantly from 2014. Responses after a terrorist attack have led to better Intelligence and security meaning that planned attacks are being prevented for example the European Union have shared information on terrorism between each other to help reduce the impact of terrorism. Although the war on terrorism in the middle east led to the innocent loss of lives the response of the allied forces has led to the eradication of all ISIS-held strongholds.

The war against terror has had unfortunate consequences such as the loss of innocent lives however the United States and its allies responding to threats from multiple terrorist organisations has had long term consequences. These have been a reduction in the number of terrorist attacks and the reduced territorial gains of ISIS. Therefore it could be a good argument that in the long run that it is an effective way of reducing and dealing with terrorism. It is difficult to not think about the emotional effects and impacts of terrorism on people who have to go through these life-changing experiences.

The tremendous number of nearly 3,000 victims traumatized the worldwide society in the morning of 11 September 2001. This event led to the instantaneous reactions of significant figures: “Nothing that can be said can begin to take away the anguish and the pain of these moments. Grief is the price we pay for love”, wrote the Queen Elizabeth in her consoling message. Initiated by the multinational terrorist group named al-Qaeda, this attack caused the destruction of essential parts of the World Trade Center complex in New York. Since it resulted in the physical damage of $55 billion, increment of U.S. debt crisis, rising of 2001 recession and the suspension of international markets as a consequence of Wall Street’s closure for several days, 9/11 influenced negatively the global economy. With the excuse of “to defend freedom against terrorism”, George Walker Bush mismanaged the situation by undertaking radical decisions against the Islamic World. Therefore, the U.S. government declared ‘war on terror’, which led to violating Americans’ human rights, applying harsh treatment to Muslim immigrants and committing military operations in Iraq.

After the terrorist attack, respective American institutions undertook counterterrorism measures that violated human rights. One of the first indicators is the signing of the Patriot Act, which aimed to increase domestic security by detecting the suspected extremists. Although it was veiled with the ideal facade, the Patriot Act provoked questions and criticism as soon as its aftermath was noticed. This legislation infringed on basic American civil liberties, since it consisted on permitting authorities to access personal records without the citizen’s awareness and investigate the target without a court order. Intelligence agencies such as the FBI gained the surveillance power over cell phone data, internet search histories and medical archives. According to American Civil Liberties Union (2001), officials abused with their political power by falsely accusing and charging innocent people, in particular immigrants from the Middle East. Consequently, political terror cultivated among people in the forms of torture, political imprisonment, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killing, which represent the human rights’ violation. Moreover, in the article entitled ‘NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone data is illegal, appeals Court rules’ by Eyder Peralta, the New York Court states that “Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans”. Nowadays, there are speculations that U.S. governmental institutions have misused Patriot Act and the other undertaken measures to gain votes in elections by manipulating the public opinion based on the obtained information from the collected data. Thus, Americans’ human rights and privacy were violated for political reasons.

In order to prevent or at least minimize the negative impact of human rights’ violation in American society, a reasonable solution would be to develop a more constitutional policy of preventative terrorism. Every government is chosen by its own nation; hence it has the major responsibility to provide its citizens with freedom and civil liberties as well as create secure environments within its borders. Since these concepts are interrelated, the trade between liberty and security is non-democratic and ineffective as it has been observed after the George Bush’s antiterrorist measures in 2001. Therefore, they are principal for the common good of the society. This solution is related with ‘Practical Wisdom’, one of Aristotle’s works in which he distinguishes the importance of this concept due to its unique nature and complexity. This philosopher connects the achievement of a wise decision with what a good life involves. Through deliberating, an individual can reach “a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man”. According to Aristotle, practical wisdom is one of the most fundamental ethical attributes that a ruler must possess by stating that “The work of man is achieved only in accordance with practical wisdom as well as with moral virtue; for virtue makes us aim at the right mark, and practical wisdom makes us take the right means”. For this renowned ancient Greek figure, maintaining power rather than persuading the common good leads to non-virtuous results. The outcome of the Patriot Act is serves as an example that reflects Aristotle’s philosophy. Thus, if the American officials relinquish from their political purposes or personal profits and focus on their priority of ensuring its citizens’ liberties and security through democratic ways, the violation of human rights would not occur.

The suspicion about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq served as a strong argument for the U.S. government to invade this country. The President Bush attributed Iraq as a part of an ‘axis of evil’; hence a regime change was indispensable. Nevertheless, behind this decision hided a darker truth. Experts had warned that an imminent global energy crisis would involve America by destabilizing the prices in the energy sector. Since Iraq was the most potential source of oil distribution around the world, it caught the attention of the U.S. government. At that time, Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator named Saddam Hussein who was developing legislations to remove oil from the international markets; consequently, the President Bush considered this action as threating for the interests of its country. Therefore, the real purpose of the Iraq War was about possessing the oil conglomerates that would bring significant economic profits to America. In order to achieve this, in 2003 many military operations were undertaken in Iraq; thereby, the native population was affected negatively. Due to suicide attacks, aerial bombing and shelling, approximately 165,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. Thousands of others tried to pass the borders of their country by leaving behind their families, properties, occupation and education. Bob Herbert, an American journalist, in his article ‘Now and forever’ explains that the US invasion led to destruction of economy, nonfulfillment of people’s basic needs and ruination of the cultural heritage. Eventually, in Iraq were never found weapons of mass destruction or links with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, transforming the country into a total chaos, the U.S. government is still pursuing its necessity for oil through its powerful military.

A wise solution of this negative consequence would be to eliminate U.S. dependency on foreign oil from the Middle East. This can be accomplished through decreasing consumption of oil and creating a new energy policy focused on using alternative energy sources. Consequently, this would lead to an improved foreign policy and less environmental harm. Since it is based on the ‘balance theory of wisdom’, this solution is appropriate and favorable for both pairs. Robert Sternberg, one of the most well-known psychologist in the research area of wisdom, maintained that “Wisdom is the application of successful intelligence and creativity as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good. It is not just about maximizing one’s own or someone else’s self-interest, but also about balancing various self-interests with the interests of others and of other aspects of the context in which one lives, such as one’s city or country or environment or even God”. This doctrine implies that the U.S. government would avoid the massacre of thousands of Iraqi people, prevent the total destruction of the country, save the life of Americans’ soldiers and use the certain budget to improve its energy sector instead for committing military operations. Hence, by applying the mentioned solution, the situation would have been positively altered.

Additionally, the establishment of a special prison for Muslim immigrants in Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. government comprises another negative consequence. In 2002, George Bush ordered the construction of this detention camp for the suspected terrorist nonnatives, in particular those from the Middle East. Considered as the ‘Legal Black Hole’, it employs the use of force to pressure the prisoners to confess by applying atrocious methods of tortures, although its denial. Critics have highlighted the cruelty of force feeding which is a widely applicable type of torture among the detainees or hunger strikes. Since it is degrading and against the free will, it is considered a crime. Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel, a released victim of this unhuman torture at Guantanamo Bay, claimed during an interview “I will never forget the first time they passed the feeding tube up my nose. As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone”. Another Muslim immigrant that was allowed to go, maintained that there were several prisoners who had developed infections in the nose; thus this method affects negatively both the physical and mental state of an individual. Therefore, force feeding constitutes illegality owing to the fact that it violates human rights. Nevertheless, the prisoners’ treatment gets worse. ‘The Guantanamo suicides’ reports that there have been at least six reported suicides during May 2011, which indicates the damaged psychological condition of these prisoners. On the other hand, there exists suspicion that a considerable number of them has been killed during these years. Three accused Saudi Arabian detainees died in violent circumstances in 2006; however, the officials declared the deaths as ‘suicides’. Charged with no crime, they had been imprisoned for several years despite their insistence. The same situation is valid for the majority of the prisoners nowadays, even though their number has been decreasing.

In order to end the mistreatment of Muslim immigrants, there must be undertaken a decision based on wise democratic principles. Specifically, creating an independent commission from Guantanamo Bay’s prison to investigate the guiltiness of the accused immigrants would prohibit the continuance of torturing prisoners only because of their ethnicity. Thereby, this center of interrogation and detention would be abrogated from the function of questioning and torturing prisoners. In his study entitled ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’, Bertrand Russell examines the factors that contribute to wisdom as well as proves philosophically the connection between knowledge and wisdom. According to him, when someone has started the journey of searching for knowledge, it might become detrimental if not combined with knowledge. This is reflected in the decision of U.S. government to apply harsh treatment and cruel tortures in the Guantanamo Bay’s institution. The urge to find possible individuals related with terrorism, in particular with the attacks of 9/11 led the government to take unreasonable measures. However, comprehensiveness, intellect and feelings are crucial for reaching wise decisions. Forming a certain committee with the purpose of investigating the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay is definitely one of them, since it contains all the contributing factors of wisdom. It focuses on the main aim of protecting the nation by finding people related with terrorism through democratic methods and not prejudicing human rights. Therefore, this solution would have positive outcome by being wise and constitutional in all its aspects.

To conclude, the U.S. government undertook actions that led to several aftermaths. Violation of Americans’ rights, application of harsh treatment and tortures as well as commitment of military operations in Iraq has corroded the worldwide peace. Nevertheless, by keeping in mind the importance and usefulness of wisdom, there can be found a solution for every problem. Hence, respectively the development of a more constitutional policy of preventative terrorism, elimination of U.S. dependency on foreign oil and the creation of an independent commission from Guantanamo Bay in order to investigate the guiltiness of the accused Muslim prisoners are productive solutions. Since they are based on wisdom theories, undoubtedly the effects would be positive. The U.S. government blurred the line between what is acceptable and was in not; consequently, ‘set the world on fire’. If it would have based its previous measures on prudence, probably the world would be undigested now.

We should time ourselves for length of speech and send to each other to see if we need more/less. I think we will certainly have more than enough although that is good.

Introduction:

David Hicks is a former Australian criminal who was detained by the United States of America’s military forces after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Due to his high-profile case, its many discrepancies and his lengthy incarceration without trial, his case has risen to prominence in Australian and American legal history and he has become a controversial figure in Australian politics.

Life in Adelaide:

David Hicks is a 157 cm Australian man that was born in Adelaide on August the 7th, 1975. His parents divorced at the age of 9. At school, David was placed in a class that was for “boys at risk”. His principal described him as one of “the most troublesome kids” he had ever come past. It’s alleged that David consistently experimented with drugs and alcohol throughout his schooling life and that his addiction to illicit substances led to his expulsion from Smithfield Plains High School when he was just 14. His father permitted him to stop going to school after he had been expelled.

For the rest of Hicks’ early life, he spent his time moving from state to state desperately looking for jobs. Hicks had no criminal record during this time but his ex-partner has alleged that David Hicks took part in criminal activity to survive and feed his family. 4 years after marrying his wife at the age of 17 and having 2 children during their marriage, Hicks separated with his wife in 1996 and moved to Japan so he could be a racehorse trainer. He was “devastated” by his separation, not being able to see his 2 children and described his new life in Japan as a “breath of fresh air”.

Radicalisation:

David Hicks considered himself as “searching for a purpose” in the late 1990s Hicks travelled to Albania in 1999 to join the Kosovo Liberation Army to learn military tactics and support those most vulnerable from the war Converted to Islam back in Australia A visit to Albania broadened his political perspective Hicks moved to Pakistan in November of1999 after being denied apart of the Australian defence force.

Hicks considered Pakistan to be a place where he belonged and he continued to attend training camps and military pursuits, whilst immersing himself in the Pakistan culture.

Hicks fought with the Pakistan army over the Kashmiri border although never recalls firing a bullet and being more member personnel(the support crew) – performing tasks such as protecting tanks whilst being on the frontlines Hicks moved to Afghanistan in December of 2000 to attend the Al-Farouq para-military training camp run by Al-Qaeda.

The Al-Farouq training camp focused on military combat not terroristic acts such as creating bombs.

During 2000-2001, Hicks wrote letters home to his family that he had strong links to Osama Bin Laden. Hicks claimed he had met and personally spoken to Bin Laden at least 20 times and described him as a “kind man” and that the main reason he was the world’s most wanted terrorist was because he “had enough money to act against the west”

Has recently claimed that he had only heard Bin Laden making speeches at the Al-Farouq camp. Bin Laden did make multiple visits to the Al-Farouq base before September 2001 and was reported to rouse the trainees with speeches.

Hicks was at the Al-Farouq base for over a year. This is likely to debunk Hicks’ claim of being “a common soldier” and greatly suggests he was of much more value to the higher ranks of the Taliban as a foreign national.

By now Hicks had spent 2 years in the Middle East and had been immersed in a society that felt a sense of belonging to a society, although it had a largely limited perspective.

Life at Guantanamo Bay:

By September of 2001, David Hicks had completed 4 military courses in Afghan training camps where it’s alleged that he learnt guerrilla and urban warfare tactics. On September 11, 2001, the 9/11 attacks occurred and the United States of America began its hunt down for the terrorists who set the infamous terrorist attack into action. 2 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, David Hicks had travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It’s alleged that David Hicks took this journey to meet up with his friends however David Hicks claims he travelled to Pakistan to renew his visa so he could get back home. After spending a few days in Pakistan David Hicks returned to Afghanistan. Hicks claims he returned to collect his belongings so he could travel back to Adelaide however multiple sources claim that he returned to Afghanistan to fight with Al- Qaeda and Taliban forces again.

It is alleged that David Hicks returned to Afghanistan, he contacted a high-ranking Al-Qaeda member called Saif al Adel who armed David Hicks “with an AK-47 automatic rifle, ammunition, and grenades to fight” against the U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan coalition forces. It is also alleged that Saif al Adel assigned David Hicks a position in the Taliban that included guarding Taliban tanks and military vehicles outside an Afghan airport.

On December 9, 2001, David Hicks was captured along with Taliban force by the Northern Alliance, which was the military force in Afghanistan at the time. The Northern Alliance sold David Hicks to the U.S. Army for 5000 American dollars. The United States government then announced it would be sending terrorists it had captured, such as David Hicks to Guantanamo Bay. On January 11, 2002, David Hick was transferred to Guantanamo Bay prison along with other alleged terrorist criminals. He was part of a group of prisoners which became the first of many alleged terrorists to be sent to Guantanamo Bay. On January 14, 2002, Attorney-general, Daryl Williams claimed that David Hicks was one of the world’s most dangerous people.

Guantanamo Bay Prison is a naval base occupied by US forces in Cuba. It has been open since 1903 and is still open and holding inmates today. It began holding alleged terrorist prisoners after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has held 700 inmates so far. Many of its inmates have and are being held having not been found guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. In June of 2003, it held 684 inmates and in May of last year, it held 40 inmates. 9 inmates have died while being in custody of Guantanamo Bay and the U.S. government spends nearly 500 million American dollars each year to keep it running.

David Hicks spent 5 and a half years in Guantanamo Bay. After being in Guantanamo Bay for a couple of months, he sent an affidavit, which is a statement sworn by an oath or testimony, on August 5th of 2004 to the International Red Cross Committee. He claimed that during interviews and interrogations by the U.S. military, Australian Federal Police and ASIO, “he was beaten while blindfolded and handcuffed, forced to take unidentified medication, sedated by injection without consent, struck while under sedation, regularly forced to run in leg shackles causing ankle injury, deprived of sleep ‘as a matter of policy, sexually assaulted, witness to use of attack dogs to brutalise and injure detainees”, “tortured via anal examination”, beaten for as long as eight hours repeatedly and, prohibited from leaving his cell or exercising, just to name a few. David Hicks claims the torture he received has had life-changing effects and believes that it is impossible to ever fully recover from torture of such a malicious kind.

Trial:

The trial of David Hicks was before a US military commission, on the 30th of March 2007 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Before the trial, it had been acknowledged that Hicks had not broken any Australian, American, Afghan or international laws for which he could be tried in a court Military commissions were initiated by the US on the 13th of November 2001, following the 9/11 attacks to target foreign nationals, such as Hicks, who were suspected of crimes relating to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.

Mid 2006 the US supreme court ruled military commissions unconstitutional, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 came into effect on the 17th of October 2006 and allowed military trials to proceed.

Hicks pleaded guilty to “providing material support for terrorism” and was later sentenced to 60 more days in Guantanamo Bay prison and a shortened sentence of 9 months in Australia due to his guilty plea.

The crimes Hicks had been convicted of were legislated two months before the trial meaning that none of the actions Hicks undertook from 1999-2001 were illegal.

The US military commission recognised that Hicks did not commit any form of terrorism but had been “ associated and had trained with Al-Qaeda before 9/11 and was involved in conflict against the United States.

In total, David Hicks had been incarcerated in prisons in Guantanamo and Australia for just over 6 years.

The whole Hicks process and trial was very controversial, as many people considered it unjust to try someone for a crime which did not exist when it was undertaken.

Life at Yatala Prison:

On May 20, 2007, David Hicks was transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Yatala Labour Prison in Adelaide via a plane flight that is estimated to have cost the Australian government at least $500,000. In Yatala prison, he was placed in solitary confinement in G Division, the highest-security ward in all of South Australia. Prison wards are sections of prisons that are separated from the rest of the prison population and are used to detain prisoners with special circumstances.

After 9 months, David Hicks was released from Yatala prison on the 27th of December, 2007. It has been alleged that the Howard government purposely delayed the release of Hicks until after the 2007 election to prevent him from speaking up against his treatment he received whilst not being supported by the Howard government. When Hicks was released from custody, his freedom was limited as he was given a control order by the Australian Federal Police, meaning many of his liberties would be restricted. For example, while being on the control order, David Hicks could not leave the country or use a sim card that had not first been examined and approved by the Federal police and he had to report back to a police station at least 3 times a week. When December arrived in 2008, the control order expired and was not renewed by Australian Federal Police, from then on David Hicks is regarded as a free man.

Life as a free man:

In 2009, Hicks married a human rights activist from the University of Sydney who ironically accused Hicks of assaulting her in 2017. She later dropped this case. On October 16 of 2010, David Hicks released his autobiography, detailing key events in his life and his time at Guantanamo Bay. Exactly 2 years later, on October 16th of 2012, the U.S. overturned the conviction of Salim Hamdam, who was the driver of Osama Bin Laden. This was the 1st step in getting Hicks’ conviction thrown out. In November of 2013, David Hicks’ lawyers appealed his conviction of terrorism and later on February 19 of 2015, his conviction was overturned by the US military court at Guantanamo Bay.

David Hicks has spoken out multiple against the Australian and American Governments.

To this day, it’s still unclear whether David Hicks was actually a threat to Australian society. Australian and American politicians truly hated him, seeing him as a definite threat to society while many Australians saw him as just a man that had committed no actual crimes and was an underdog fighting up against a military superpower. However, there isn’t enough evidence to prove that David Hicks committed any terrorist acts. The long and tedious case of David Hicks exposed the public to the issue of how criminals could be held for years without being convicted of any charges and how countries could create new laws just to keep people who they want to be locked up, locked up. David Hicks continues to claim that he did not commit any terrorist actions and that if he did, he did them unknowingly.

This essay will argue that the global war on terror was unsuccessful, although many commentators would disagree, it is clear that the failures of the war on terror outweigh the successes…

The war on terror failed mostly due to the controversial human rights abuses that took place in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. However, some may argue that the war on terror was justified, as it has led to many developments in preventing terrorist attacks. Since the events of 9/11, more security measures have been taken, therefore leading to more arrests, specifically over 660 suspects. The increase in arrests shows that due to this, more large-scale attacks may have been prevented. As shown, there have been multiple events in which suspects have tried to commit large-scale terror attacks or aid terror groups in planning their terrorist attacks. For example, Lyman Farris was arrested for giving away sensitive information away to Al-Qaeda, on areas in the United States (U.S.) which are easy targets to attack. Of course, due to the increased security precautions, Farris was caught and arrested, and one of the many people sent to prison, therefore preventing another large-scale attack.

However, these increase in arrests does not show the unjust arrests that have been made, human rights abuses, and the true convictions from the arrests. As a result of the war on terror, suspects were sent to Guantanamo Bay, resulting in the violation of basic human rights. Of course, this was one of the many results of the war on terror which was a failure, especially for the many innocents who were sent to the inhumane prison without an explanation or a trial at the least. From data collected, 7 men out of the 779 men who were taken to the prison were actually convicted. 5 of these 7 men only pleaded guilty due to being manipulated, getting told that they may get early release if they confess. Of course, it may be the case that they were tricked into a false confession. As a result, citizens’ rights have been violated, with no regard to the American law and constitution being applied, as it is clear that Guantanamo Bay was opened outside of the U.S. so that torture could take place with no interference from the international community, such as the United Nations, (UN). This is indicated when the U.S. government referred to the Guantanamo Bay detainees as “unlawful combatants.” therefore implying that the geneva conventions and human rights laws do not apply to these detainees.

Many terrorists may also use this fact as ‘propaganda’ and a rationale to target America, and indoctrinate others into joining this ideological cause. Therefore, in a sense, it is clear that the use of Guantanamo Bay had indirectly made terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda more powerful, with ideology and propaganda. Therefore, despite the claims that the increase of arrests had hit Al-Qaeda negatively, it remained to indirectly contribute to the ideological cause of terrorism, enabling them, and other terrorist groups to grow in power. **Of course, due to the constant targets and arrests as well as the foreign wars, there was a sudden increase in Anti-Americanism. In the context of foreign wars, particularly in Iraq, it is considered a failure in many aspects. Firstly, the belief that America respects other countries’ sovereignty had rapidly disintegrated when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, introducing the law to legalize torture against Iraqi citizens. As well as affecting Iraq, it had also affected the US in the manner that they had gained a poor reputation, not only in the middle east but internationally, having broken the Geneva conventions of 1907 and 1949 which was to follow the laws of another country. This was very clearly not justified, especially as there was no real acceptable reason for which US could invade Iraq while also bringing in legalized methods of torture, against Iraqi citizens. It was brought to the attention of many people in power, particularly to Bush, that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the increase of terrorist attacks internationally, they should not have been held accountable and punished for a crime that they did not commit, especially since Al-Qaeda had already been named as responsible for the terrorist attacks. Yet evidence shows that the U.S. itself could not include a reason. In the United Nations security council (UNSC) letter, that the U.S. produced containing why they chose to invade Iraq, the word ‘terrorism’ was not mentioned. Instead, it was stated that Iraq breached a disarmament deal, under the security council resolutions. Therefore meaning that they had believed that Saddam Hussein, the past Iraqi president, was hiding weapons of mass destruction, which the US military did not find. This letter dated back to 20th March 2003, from the permanent representative member of the US, John Negroponte to the president of the UNSC. Having established that, outside of the middle east, in front of the west, the US painted themselves as incorruptible, particularly the Neo-Conservatives, who not only agreed with the invasion of Iraq but found it commendable and ‘an act of liberation. But indeed this was not true, as cited by Mcwilliams and Piotrowski, the only element of freedom that the US truly brought to the Iraqi citizens was “freedom of rape, freedom of nudity and the freedom of humiliation.”

Furthermore, the war in Iraq could be considered as an act of ‘recolonization’, particularly because of what the U.S.did to establish control in Iraq, such as setting a permanent military base, this emphasizes that although the slow process of decolonization happened, there are some elements left throughout the world, and clearly in Iraq.

However, despite the failure in the Iraq war, it could be argued that the Afghanistan war

Furthermore, it is clear that using a military to defeat the opponent does not always lead to success. Although these instances are not in the context of 9/11, it puts into perspective how military interventions against the enemy may worsen the situation, rather than achieving a triumphant result. For example, the Israeli military intervention in Lebanon in 1982 was predicted to be a success, for the “Operation of peace of Galilee.” However, it quickly resulted to become a failure. Another example is the event of World War One (WW1) in which 40 million people died. Thus it is very clear that military interventions will inevitably lead to adversity. This should have been considered when foreign wars was proposed, particularly in Iraq, to avoid a further disaster.

Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men follows naval lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee as he defends Lance Corporal Dawson and PFC Downey as they are accused of murdering fellow marine Private Santiago. Kaffee is working with Lt. Commander Jo Galloway and Lt. Sam Weinberg while working against Captain Ross, Lt. Kendrick, and Colonel Jessup. Though he has the odds against him, Danny is able to save Dawson and Downey, at the cost of them being dishonorably discharged but he also uncovers the conspiracy and helps put Jessup away.

Throughout A Few Good Men, sound is used in very interesting ways. Through the dialogue, sound effects, and score. Many scenes have direct references to previous scenes that you can only connect through its sound. Dialogue is often repeated for the sake of emphasis. Some scenes have no sound other than dialogue while other scenes are just scored. Sometimes the score is even changed up to show emphasis.

The mentality of the marines is shown with the way they speak and act. When Danny, Sam, and Jo visit Guantanamo Bay, we constantly hear them marching and chanting, even when we can’t see them. Then we have Dawson and Downey themselves, repeatedly told by Danny to stop saying “sir” but they never do, and also calling Galloway “ma’am”. There is only one time they don’t say it and it’s when Dawson has no other way to show disrespect for Danny.

In the opening shots, the music is dark and grim as Dawson and Downey loom over Santiago and assault him. When we go to the next scene, however, we see and hear a marching band followed by gun exercises; this juxtaposition shows us the difference for the life of a marine in Guantanamo Bay against the life of those in America. This comes up later in dialogue when Danny explains to Sam the differences in orders, saying they have softball games and marching bands while those in Guantanamo Bay need to follow every order they are given.

This isn’t the only time we get a callback to another scene using sound. While a score is often repeated throughout a movie, during A Few Good Men, the same notes are repeated under certain actions to show emphasis. For example, when Danny is looking through Santiago’s closet, we hear music as he brushes past the shirts, showing that he notices something. Each key is emphasized as he passes through each shirt. This score is mirrored over an hour later, in Kaffe’s own closet, with the same music, but different emphasis. The notes come more quickly as if to show everything is coming together. Another example is when Danny talks to Markinson, the first time they speak in private it’s loud while the second time it’s quieter, lower, and more eerie. The movie ends with a happy score of non-diegetic music building upwards mirroring the opening dark and downward score. The ending shows hope that Kaffee has learned how to be a lawyer from now on and will no longer be the fast-paced lawyer he’s been using no effort.

One way dialogue is used interestingly is with Danny’s questions. Danny is often asking Sam what certain words mean. This is for the benefit of the audience, so viewers get the answer and can further understand the movie. An example of this is when he jokingly asks “Was that 0600, in the morning?” This tactic is also used to introduce us to Jessup when Danny pretends to know who he is but Sam tells him right away, and this also introduces the audience to the character. This turns into a running joke as people say things they assume he doesn’t understand so they explain it anyway and his response is “I know what it means”.

Throughout one set of scenes, we hear rain the entire time, from Jo preparing Downey to Markinsons death to the courtroom with Ross’ cross-examination of Downey up until they decide to put Jessup on the stand. There is rain throughout and you can hear it throughout as pathetic fallacy to show everything going wrong but rain also brings about rebirth which is why I think that toward the end we get this hopeful score on top of dialogue leading to the decision to continue anyway with the rain finally stopping and we go into a new day and hear birds chirping and Danny playing basketball to show his confidence is regained.

In one of these scenes, Lt. Colonel Markinson is narrating over a suicide note/letter to the parents of Private Santiago, we hear somber music, the clicking of his buttons and belt, the tying of his shoes, the sharpness of his sword and the readiness of his gun. Along with all that we also hear the rain and faint thunder. Then, as he puts the gun in his mouth and fires, the film uses a flash and we transition into the courtroom where it’s raining outside and the sound of the gunshot could’ve just been the thunder. This alone isn’t much, until the next time we hear thunder when Danny is explaining Markinson’s death, and we don’t hear thunder until he says, “He took a silver-plated pistol and fired a bullet into his mouth.” It’s faint but one can hear a crack of thunder. This scene is also interesting as it’s where everything truly falls apart for our protagonists. As Ross questions Downey, we hear nothing but the dialogue and the rain, but when Ross picks up on a discrepancy, a score comes on starting quietly but high giving us an uneasy feeling and everything begins to spiral out of control. We hear rain and screaming before we hear a piano and everything is a mess.

One way the movie uses dialogue is by always using something you’d imagine to be the tiniest thing but has major effects on the story. Sam mentions wearing the whites in Cuba, which leads to Jessups outburst. This is how Danny is able to figure out what sets off Jessup which causes Danny’s triumph in the end. Another way the dialogue is used outstandingly and yet still subtly is with dismissals. Kaffee at the beginning starts to leave before Jo says “You’re dismissed.” He states “I always forget that part.” He then uses this when Jessup attempts to leave during direct examination when Kaffee states “I haven’t dismissed you yet.” It’s subtle but works as a callback to the previous scene showing Kaffee’s growth in maturity. One way it’s used less subtly is when we realize Kaffee is going to actually take on the case. At the beginning, to successfully plea bargain for the benefit of his client, he goes over all these filings he’ll do so opposing counsel will spend the next three months going “blind on paperwork.” He sees this as a win until Jo says that he’s “a used car salesman/ambulance chaser” trying to convince him to take Dawson and Downey’s case. He then goes to a bar and he hears a different lawyer saying that he did the same trick, “blind on paperwork” and all, to win his own case. The score is also used here to show his sudden realization. This is followed up in the next scene when Kaffee says he’ll defend them and the score is high and hopeful.

One of the best uses of dialogue however, is the iconic “You can’t handle the truth!” scene. This scene features no sound other than the dialogue between Kaffee and Jessup. Leading up to the outburst there is a bunch of chaos as many people are shouting over each other, this is similar to the chaos that Kaffees entire examination has been so far. We then get the simple back and forth between Kaffee and Jessup:

• Jessup: You want answers?
• Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
• Jessup: You want answers?
• Kaffe: I want the truth!
• Jessup: You can’t handle the truth!

In many movies, a scene like this would have music going over it or some sort of sound effect to make it more memorable. This is the scene that people think of when they think of A Few Good Men, and there’s no music, no sound effects. The scene works perfectly with just the dialogue alone. The scene concludes with a monologue from Jessup and we do finally get a sound effect, a low creaking sound, hinting that he too is about to crack under pressure. We then hear the footsteps to Kaffees victory as he takes a couple of steps forward and asks “Did you order the code red?” and Jessup responds, “You’re goddamn right I did!” before a brief silence allowing everyone including the audience to allow this information to sink in.

Despite that, it makes it a lot more difficult to successfully pass necessary bills due to the checks and balances in United States and the weak presidency. Neustadt’s theory implies that the president’s success relies on not only persuading and bargaining with other branches, especially congress but to influence the executive branch itself. it prevents the president from abusing power or acting like a king.

The government of the united states is composed of legislative, executive, and judicial branch. All three branches check on each other to ensure that constitution is being followed and no individual is above the law. The founding fathers were afraid that the presidency would behave like a monarch. Therefore, the delegates imposed significant limits on the presidential office that are written in article II which resulted in weakening the president. Article II of the constitution creates the presidency and describes its duties in one thousand words long. The main powers that are given to the president is to veto a bill or sign it. however, the veto can be overturned by congress with a 2/3 majority. Only Congress could propose a bill, article II declares that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the law and the judicial branch ensures that the process is constitutional. Whereas, the sitting president has to enforce the laws signed by earlier presidents even if he or she doesn’t agree with the policy. Anything the president does can be overturned or blocked by the congress. Therefore, the president cannot make any progress without the cooperation of the congress. The public complains pace of the process in the government, but that’s how the founding fathers wanted it to ensure the system is working for the people, not people for the system.

Richard Neustadt discusses the presidential powers and skills that would result in legislative success. Richard Neustadt worked in executive branch under Franklin Roosevelt’s term as a president, then proceeded to serve under president Truman and briefly worked for John F Kennedy. He observed the importance of presidential power while working in the executive branch. Richard Neustadt implies that just having a position or power in the government is no guarantee of success or leadership.

Neustadt implies that the restrictions on the presidency suggest how the government should be working. The constitutional convention of 1787 did not create a government of separated powers but rather created a government of sharing powers. The separateness of institutions and sharing of the power is what makes the presidents persuading very critical. When the authority is shared and the outcome of one individual’s work does not affect others, that’s what makes the president’s persuasive role more important to convince such individuals that what the oval office wants from them is important for their sake and their authority. Persuasive power is not just only a reasoned and charming argument, but also to influence individuals to cooperate with his vision or to fear the consequences by going against him. Neustadt states that the presidential powers would be ineffective when the president commands but rather remains applicable when he persuades. The president’s authority is an advantage for him in persuading other people, for the reason that when other individuals are in a need to use his authority. From the veto to appointments, from publicity to budgeting, or anything that the white house controls over the unites state’s political system. The people in power understand that at some point of time, they will need to depend on the president in order to do their job. Therefore, the president can use that authority as an advantage in negotiations with other branches. in other means we can view it like a business trade that if the other branch helps the white house in succession of their vision then the white house would help them in return by using the presidential authority that they need to use. That’s what makes the bargaining skill of the president very critical.

Not only the president depends on the cooperation of other branches in the government in order to be successful, he also depends on the knowledge of his own staff and individuals in the executive branch to guide him through the process and his judgment on that knowledge. the president will fail certainly if he chooses to turn to one individual for advice, not to read or hear the details on the individual’s point of view or consents to secrecy from everyone whose task is to protect him from making mistakes. Neustadt believes that a Skeptical president would be a better leader than a trustful president, curious president is better than a committed commander in chief.

Also, Neustadt points out the importance of the president’s public prestige in his success. He states that. Public prestige deals with the president’s popular support outside Washington and Most politicians and bureaucrats do not watch poll numbers directly; they watch Congress. reputation conveys leeway because low prestige encourages resistance.

Neustadt talks about the importance of professional reputation for the success of presidency. The president’s professional reputation involves how others expect him to react. If the president fails rapidly, it will weaken him over period of time. Neustadt implies that Tenacity is important. If a president cannot convince others that he will inevitably win, at least he needs to convince them that there will be consequences to cross him. You can’t punish everyone, but you need to selectively punish your enemies and reward your allies.

Let’s look at Obama’s administration for example. Barack Obama took the office in 2008 and became the first African American president that won the united states presidency. When he took over the office the democrats had the majority of the congress. Therefore, it was much easier for the Obama administration to successfully pass legislations. One of the Obama’s 2008 campaign promises was to reform the united state’s healthcare. In 2010, he was able to successfully pass the health care reform bill also known as Obamacare. although it was heavily opposed by the republicans in the congress. Obama’s best years were in 2009 and 2010 where he was able to pass series of legislations such as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which was the new set of rules for wall street to prevent another recess, hate crime prevention act of 2009, the Obamacare and many more. During the 111th congress and Obama, there were 383 bills that were signed into a law.

Obama’s best years lasted until November 2nd, 2010 where the republicans won the majority of house of representatives and ended the unified Democratic control of Congress and the presidency. Many of the Republican nominations were candidates that were supporters of the tea party movement. The tea party movement is a republican political movement that have called for lower taxes, and for a reduction of the national debt of the United States and federal budget deficit through decreased government spending. They were heavily against Obama administration’s policies and vowed to do stop Obama’s legislations. The legislative activities after the 2010 election decreased dramatically because of the tension between the congress and the executive branch. John Boehner, the speaker of the house at the time stated that “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can”. Also mitch McConnell, senate minority leader at the time confirmed republicans plan by saying that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Obama’s inability to work with the congress environmental, energy, fiscal and other matters forced him to change his style of governing to heavy executive orders.

One of the Obama’s campaign promises was to shut down Guantanamo bay. With executive order 13492 president Obama ordered to shut down Guantanamo bay. But in 2011 Congress began placing restrictions on Guantanamo transfers in its yearly defense authorization bill, effectively stopping the president from transferring the detainees to a U.S. facility. which left the president with no choice but to keep the detainees in Guantanamo bay. President Obama failed to close the facility because of the congress. Also, President Obama took a major blow on September of 2016 when the congress overrode his veto on the bill that let the family victims of 9/11 sue Saudi Arabia.

according to the Washington Times Legislative Index, President Obama oversaw the deepest legislative malaise in modern political history. Over his two terms of eight years, he managed to sign just 1,227 bills into law. That’s less than one terms of George of H.W Bush and president carter.

In conclusion, the first two years of the Obama administration was successful because of the cooperation between the congress and the white house. However, after the democrats lost the house of representatives, Obama’s inability to get congress on the same page, his public prestige between the Republicans made it impossible for him to push his agenda or pass legislations. Anything the president does can be approved or stopped by the congress and that’s how the founding fathers wanted it. for this reason, it proves why Neustadt’s theory is correct on the importance of how the president’s ability to persuade and bargain with the congress makes a successful presidency. The main reason why President Obama was unsuccessful with passing his legislation was his inability to work with congress and he chose to force his way to push his policies.

References

1. Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power. New American Library, 1960.
2. “Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html.
3. “Tea Party Movement.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Dec. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement.

In Claire Theobald’s article, “Omar Khadr walks out of Edmonton court a free man”, she explains the life of Canadian-born Omar Khadr, and how he finally achieved legal freedom after being infringed of his rights for 13 years. At 15 years old, Omar’s father sent him to translate in Afghanistan for a group of Islamic militants (Theobald, 2019). Shortly after his arrival, a fight broke out between the militants and the U.S. forces. The firefight resulted in three deaths: two Afghani translators, and an American soldier (Theobald, 2019). Khadr was seriously injured during the fight, and, “was accused of throwing a grenade that killed American Soldier Christopher Speer.” (Theobald, 2019). After the fight, American troops took him to the base in Bagram to be interrogated for three months, where he was put through various events of physical and sexual abuse by guards, and interrogators (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Khadr was then sent to Guantanamo Bay. Upon arrival, Omar’s hands were double shackled, a shackle around the waist, long leg shackles, then cargo strapped to the floor, and handcuffed behind his back (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). The guards went to extreme measures to prove their power and authority over the inmate, even though Omar was only 15 years old. In 2003 and 2004, the Canadian Intelligence visited Khadr to interrogate him for four days (Perkel, 2015). During the interrogation, Khadr was seen crying, and pleading for medical attention for his wounds that were not properly healing.

At one point during the interrogation, Khadr urinated on the floor after being refused permission to use the washroom, and then he was forced by an interrogator to clean the mess by rolling in it (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Omar was subject to a lot of abuse and was ignored every time he would beg for help. After being locked in Guantanamo for 8 years, Omar Khadr accepted a plea deal. Even though Omar was unsure if his grenade killed Sgt. Speer, he pleaded guilty because that was the only guaranteed way for him to get out of Guantanamo Bay, and back to Canada (Perkel, 2015). Khadr pleaded guilty to, “murder and attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying.” (Theobald, 2019). The deal he accepted assured that he would serve eight years in total, one at Guantanamo Bay, and the remainder of the sentence to be in Canada (Theobald, 2019). In Theobald’s article, she speaks about Omar’s return to Canada, saying, “Khadr was transferred to Canada in 2012, where he spent two years and nine months between maximum- and medium-security prisons… Khadr was released on bail in 2015 pending an appeal of his convictions.” (Theobald, 2019). The reactions toward Khadr’s arrival in Canada greatly varied among the population, “some believe pleading guilty was the Canadian’s only way out of the detention facility where he came of age. Others argue the sentence was too lenient and urged Ottawa to refuse his transfer request.” (Shephard & MacCharles, 2012). In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada actively recognized the infringement of Omar Khadr’s rights by acknowledging that, “the interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” (Theobald, 2019).

Omar Khadr later sued the Canadian government for violating his human rights, resulting in a $10.5 million settlement, and an official apology (Theobald, 2019). As of Monday, March 25, 2019, Omar Khadr is now a free man, after being subjected to extremely inhumane treatment from the justice system for nearly 13 years (Theobald, 2019). Chief Justice Mary Moreau believed Khadr, “between the years spent in custody and under strict court supervision while on bail, had more than served his original sentence… she lifted all of Khadr’s remaining conditions, meaning he will be a free man for the first time in his adult life.” (Theobald, 2019). The emotions towards Khadr’s freedom are wide-ranging, but he deserves to be given a chance to create a new life for himself in Canada, and have the support he needs in order to strive. Theobald’s article outlines the story of Omar Khadr, and how he was finally able to reach freedom from the justice system (Theobald, 2019). Omar Khadr was a victim of inhumane treatment by penal guards during his time captive and was denied acknowledgement as a child in the justice system (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Khadr’s case reveals the corruption of the justice system, and how a young offender was treated like a piece of trash. Omar’s time in Pakistan and Afghanistan exposed him to damaging experiences that led to his act of crime. Omar Khadr’s actions were influenced by social learning, social control, and the consequences of socialization.

Social learning provides a perspective that can be used when analyzing Omar Khadr’s case because throughout his early years he was exposed to many different experiences and people, that ultimately caused him to be where he is today. During Khadr’s childhood, his parents exposed him to unsafe conditions by moving to Pakistan and sending him to work with Islamic militants (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Khadr’s parents failed to attain very important aspects of parenting that are essential in ensuring a safe environment and favourable future for a child. According to Diana Baumrind, two important qualities of parenting are parental responsiveness, and parental demandingness (Bell, 2016, p. 211). Parental responsiveness is the emotional characteristic of parenting and supporting the needs of the child, and parental demandingness is the extent to which parents enforce discipline and expect proper behaviour from their child (Bibi, et al., 2013, p. 91). Omar’s parents rejected the concept of parental responsiveness and accepted parental demandingness. It is evident that Omar’s parents ignored the importance of parental responsiveness by sending him to translate for Islamic militants, placing him in a dangerous environment that could be fatal. The Khadr parents followed the elements of parental demandingness because the children were raised to follow the instruction of their parents, and would have been faced with consequences if disobeyed (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Interactional theory can be credited when analyzing the Khadr case because the theory argues that an individual’s, ‘social class, race, and community and neighbourhood characteristics affect the social bond and social learning variables.’ (Bell, 2016, p. 185). Omar’s father worked for Muslim charities in Pakistan and Afghanistan and became involved with al-Qaeda.

The characteristics of the community that Omar was living in, exposed him to many influences that instigated an act of violence delinquency (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Omar Khadr was also exposed to the differential association because he was introduced to people with radical beliefs that accept the use of terrorist acts throughout his time in Afghanistan with Islamic fighters. Differential association is the idea that behaviour is learned through the interactions with the people who have delinquent tendencies (Bell, 2016, p. 173). The society that Omar was living in could have had an influence on his actions because he was associating with people who were accustomed to using violence as a form of defence. So, when Omar was put into a fearful situation during a firefight, he presumably used violence because of the normality of it within the Afghanistan society. Social control is very apparent when examining the Khadr case because Omar’s delinquent behaviour could have been the consequence of the limited opportunities he had growing up. After moving out of Canada, Omar would have experienced strain because of the different opportunities that are offered in Canada, in comparison to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hirschi and Kornhauser’s classic strain theory, “focuses on one type of strain: the inability to achieve conventional success goals-like educational and occupational success – through legitimate means.” (Agnew, 2001, p. 336). Agnew expressed the importance of social bonds when attempting to reject strain and achieve conventional success (Agnew, 2001, p. 336). The social bond consists of attachment (to parents, school and friends), commitment (success, and achievements), involvement (engaging in productive activities), and beliefs (committed to conventional value system) (Bell, 2016, p. 175). During Omar Khadr’s childhood, the attachment he had with his family was not healthy because of the radical ideas and experiences that they exposed to him. Omar’s commitment to success and productive involvement was limited because of the position he was put into by his parents. Shaw and Mckay believe that ‘social disorganization describes a condition in which: controls that would prevent delinquency are absent; parent and neighbours may actually approve of certain delinquent behaviours; opportunities for delinquency are numerous, and there is little opportunity for or encouragement towards employment.’ (Bell, 2016, p. 169).

Khadr was faced with social disorganization because throughout his time in Pakistan and Afghanistan he was exposed to numerous opportunities for delinquency, due to the lack of delinquency control. When analysing the Omar Khadr case, it is important to question extralegal factors, especially race. Racialization can be seen as the main reason for his denial of rights during Khadr’s time spent in the justice system (Capurri, 2016, p. 147). Backhouse defines racialization as, ‘the process by which attributes such as skin colour, language, birthplace and cultural practices are given social significance as markers of distinction.’ (Capurri, 2016, p. 148). Khadr can be seen as a victim of racialization because of the differential treatment he received, because of being labelled as an Islamic terrorist. Since Omar is Muslim he was immediately stereotyped as an Islamic terrorist based off his appearance. Although his actions could be seen as a terrorist act, the main issue was that Khadr was automatically assumed to be a terrorist just because of being Muslim. Coll. Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor of the Omar Khadr case, and cause serious moral panic throughout the media because of the statements he made, referring to Omar as a Muslim terrorist, who was undeserving of returning to Canada (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). Labelling someone as deviant is to, ‘assign one to a kind of master status seen as the essence of the person’s personality. To call a person mad or criminal is to imply that he is different in kind from ordinary people and that all areas of his personality are affected by his problem.’ (Gay, 2000, p.3). Upon achieving legal freedom, Omar purchased an Edmonton strip mall but has been faced with stigmatization because of his purchase (Yousif, 2019). Khadr’s home address was released online, and he began receiving threats of violence, and arson (Theobald, 2019). Omar was labelled as a terrorist, and although his charges are officially dropped, he will forever be faced with stigmatization in society because of the label he was once given. The US and Canadian government and justice system inflicted mental, physical and sexual abuse during his time in prison (Reed & Sheppard, 2017). During Omar’s time in Pakistan and Afghanistan, he was exposed to potentially harmful experiences that could have led him to his act of deathly violence during a firefight between U.S. troops and Afghani militants. Omar Khadr’s criminal event was influenced by elements from social learning, social control, and racialization. ‘

References

1. Agnew, R. (2001).
2. Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38(4), 319-361. doi:10.1177/0022427801038004001 Bell, S. J. (2016).
3. Young Offenders and Youth Justice: A Century After the Fact (5th ed.). Brantford, Ont.: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library. Bibi, F. B., Chaudhry, A. G., Awan, E. A., & Tariq, B. (2013).
4. Contribution of Parenting Style in life domain of Children. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science,12(2), 91-95. doi:10.9790/0837-1229195 Capurri, V. (2016).
5. Omar Khadr, Hannah Arendt, and the Racialization of Rights’ Discourse. Studies in Social Justice,10(1), 146-166. doi:10.26522/ssj.v10i1.1127 Gay, D. (2000).
6. Labeling Theory: The New Perspective. The Corinthian,2(1), 1-18. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://kb.gcsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=thecorinthian. Perkel, C. (2015).
7. Omar Khadr Case. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/omar-khadr-case Reed, P., & Shephard, M. (Directors). (2017).
8. Omar Khadr: Outside of the Shadow [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/episodes/omar-khadr-out-of-the-shadows Shephard, M., & MacCharles, T. (2012).
9. Omar Khadr back in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/omarkhadr/2012/09/29/omar_khadr_back_in_canada.html Theobald, C. (2019).
10. Omar Khadr walks out of Edmonton court a free man. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/03/25/edmonton-judge-to-rule-on-whether-omar-khadrs-sentence-has-expired.html Yousif, N. (2019).
11. Businesses harassed after Omar Khadr revealed as new owner of Edmonton strip mall. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/03/13/businesses-harassed-after-omar-khadr-revealed-as-new-owner-of-edmonton-strip-mall.html