Bruce D. Larkin University
of California at Santa Cruz
TA
Ben Lozano MWF
2.00-3.10
Winter
2006 [Provisional Syllabus] Thimann
1
Politics 72
Politics of the ÔWar on TerrorismÕ
This
course will introduce the ÔWar on TerrorismÕ following the 9.11 attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon, with a focus on the politics stemming from those events. We take the ÔWar on
TerrorismÕ to include both (a) measures taken by the White House (and Executive
Branch agencies) and Congress in the name of Ôcounter-terrorismÕ and (b) the
actual use of military force by the United States and other countries, for
example in Afghanistan and Iraq. The course will be taught through and around
the textsÑpresidential speeches, Acts of Congress, newspaper analyses, germane
Treaties, reports of actions by public officialsÑdisplaying political claims
and moves.
Description
From September 2001 the United
States committed to a ÔWar on TerrorismÕ. What are its political sources?
Objectives? Effects on internal politics, external alliances, and civil
liberties? Military implications? Costs? How is political discourse deployed?
How can it be assessed?
Schedule
The first class will meet on Friday, 6 January 2006, and the last
class on Wednesday, 15 March. There is no class on Monday, 16
January, or Monday, 20 February. The final exam will take place as shown in the
Schedule of Classes. It is necessary to take and pass the final exam in order
to pass the course. The final exam will be given only once; there will be no
exceptions.
Plan
This course was first offered,
and last offered, in Fall 2002. Three full years and more have passed. As it
happens, many of the key questions in late 2002 remain high on the political
agenda: how can open societies best protect against violent attacks? were White
House claims about Iraq reliable? was war against Iraq sound policy? do people
designated as Ôenemy combatantsÕ have rights in US courts? should the
Guantanamo detainees be held? can US citizens be held without charges and
trials? can we give a convincing account why the attack of 9.11 was not
detected and prevented? do the FBI and Federal prosecutors, and their
counterparts in other countries, require greater powers (ÔPatriot ActÕ, for
example) to prevent Ôterrorist attacksÕ? how can countries cooperate to better
prevent attacks? what is Al Qaeda, and have US actions weakened or strengthened
it? is the very idea of a ÔWar on TerrorismÕ meaningful, a guide to sound
policy? and what are the costsÑand opportunity costsÑof steps taken under the rubric of the ÔWar on
TerrorismÕ?
As taught in Fall 2002, this course emphasized the sources and initial responses to these questions. For example, we looked carefully at the White House language in declaring the category Ôenemy combatantÕ, and the legal framework it created as it envisaged trials andÑit appearsÑexecutions. Today we can read those texts and then examine what has become of the Ôenemy combatantÕ and anticipated trials. The theme throughout the course will follow this line: Ôwhat were the issues and arguments then?Õ and Ôwhere are we today, and whyÕ?
Required Reading
Four books are required. Three are marked ‰ ÑrequiredÑfor specific topics. For example, the 9.11
Report should be read before the class which meets 18 January:
‰ The
9/11 Commission Report
(New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).
‰ Bamford,
James. A Pretext for War
(New York: Doubleday, 2004).
‰ Hersh,
Seymour M. Chain of Command (New York:
HarperCollins, 2004).
The fourth is a collection of
articles, many of which are ‡ propos more than one of our topics. Please leaf
through the book and acquaint yourself with the articles, and design a plan for
reading the book during the quarter. It is required.
‰ Hoge,
James F., Jr. and Gideon Rose [eds], Understanding the War on Terror (New York: Foreign Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations, distributed by
W. W. Norton, 2005)
In addition, some of the texts read in Fall 2002 are required. They are marked ‰, and others are recommended, marked +
. Readings from Fall 2002 are in two
on-line Readers. Reader I is material which is in the public realm. Articles in
Reader II are for Ôclassroom useÕ only. None of the required texts is in Reader
II. If items are required, the whole text of the item is required, unless
otherwise indicated. For example, only specified sections of the USA PATRIOT
Act (2001) are required. You may choose to print out Reader I or some articles
in Reader I, or transfer Reader I to a laptop, so that you can follow the
discussion of them in class. Please compare the topic schedule for Winter 2006
with that for Fall 2002 so that you can identify the corresponding required
texts.
Topics
1 Preliminaries. [6 & 9
January: Classes 1-2] The 1993 World
Trade Center attack. Attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and
on the USS Cole. Clinton Administration measures. The election of 2000 and the
early anti-terrorism actions of the GW Bush Administration. Was the US
ÔunpreparedÕ?
2 Precursors. [11
& 13 January: Classes 3-4] The great Civil Wars and revolutions.
Nationalism. Anarchism. The anti-colonial movement. The Russian and Chinese
Revolutions. ÔNational liberation movements.Õ The Israeli-Palestinian issue.
The 1990s of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Was ÔIslamic extremismÕ inevitable? Were
the American Revolutionaries ÔterroristsÕ?
3 The
Attack of 9.11. [18, 20 & 23 January: Classes
5-7] The GW Bush Administration response. Launching of the Ôwar on
terrorismÕ. UN Security Council endorsement. Origins of a ÔcoalitionÕ
[distinguished from the Gulf War coalition]. Could the Administration have
responded differently?
4 Vulnerability
and Enemies. [25, 27 & 30 January: Classes 8-10] Are all polities inherently vulnerable? Are
democracies especially so? And what of societies reliant on complex
technological infrastructure? Can sources of attack can be foreseen? Why was
9.11 not foreseen? What are the chief vulnerabilities to which US society is
exposed? What constitute ÔadequateÕ measures to preclude attack? Is it always
true that a few can cause great harm, if they choose to do so?
Enemies.
If you were trying to identify and rout people with plans to commit terrorist
acts against the United States or US citizens abroad, how would you do it? Is
organizational membership a good criterion? Funding an organization? Speaking
well of an organization? Having friend and associates in an organization? And
what of whole countries: how should we understand the concept of Òa country
which harbors terroristsÕ? And do
Iran, Iraq and North Korea constitute an Ôaxis of evilÕ which threatens the
United States?
5 Iraq. [1, 3 &
6 February: Classes 11-13]. How did the governments of the United States and
Britain obtain Congressional and Parliamentary agreement to war? Did GW Bush
and ÔDickÕ Cheney, and Tony Blair, tell the truth to their publics? How did
Bush and Cheney build the fiction that Iraq was a participant in the 9.11
attacks? The White House claimed that Iraq had, and would have, Ôweapons of
mass destructionÕ, but none were found. What explanations of this discrepancy
have been offered? and how can they be evaluated?
6 The
Congress. [8, 10 and 13 February: Classes 14-16]
Undertaking ÔwarÕ silenced Democratic critics in Congress. In February 2002 the
Administration proposed a budget with massively enlarged spending for the
military. Does calling the response a Ôwar on terrorismÕ deny the elected
Congress an effective voice? How, and on what issues, are the Administration
and the Democrats bargaining with each other? Would it be different if Senator
Jeffords had not left the Republican Party? And now, with results of the
mid-term election in hand, how has the election changed this relationship?
7 Civil
Liberties I. The Prisoners and the Courts. [15 & 17
February: Classes 17-18] What is the Constitutional basis for military
tribunals? Are the AdministrationÕs actions consistent with US obligations
under the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III) of 1949?
Are captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters Ôprisoners of warÕ or Ôunlawful
combattantsÕ or ÔdetaineesÕ? Why were some of those captured moved to
Guantanamo Bay? What of the prosecution of John Walker Lindt?
8 Civil
Liberties II. Domestic
Surveillance and Control. [22, 24 & 27
February: Classes 19-21] The USA PATRIOT
Act. Definition of ÔterrorismÕ. Expanded authority for electronic wiretap.
Denial of confidentiality of lawyer-client conversations. Detention without
indictment or trial. Refusal to release names of those in detention. Focused
interrogations. Profiling. Focus on specific groups: Muslims, foreigners,
persons of Middle Easterrn descent, students. Visa controls. Controls on
airline passengers. Use of technology (computers, databases, networking) to
consolidate and use information about individuals. Proposed national identity
card.
9 Weapons
of Mass Destruction. [1 & 3 March: Classes 22-23]
The attack of 9.11 did not employ a Ôweapon of mass destructionÕ. Could
attackers have used chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons?
Could they have launched missiles, armed with such weapons, against the United
States? Does 9.11 confirm the need for National Missile Defense, as the Bush
Administration insists, or does it show that realistic threats actually lie
elsewhere? And what is the significance of the anthrax attacks?
+ Military
and the Policy of Preventive Intervention. [6 March: Class 24] The new model of warfare: technology, special
ops, reliance on local forces. Bases. Paul Wolfowitz on preventive
intervention. Policy of self-reliance. US nuclear policy: forces not to be
constrained by treaties.
10 The
Israel-Palestine Imbroglio. [8 March: Class 25] Can the
United States win coalition assistance from states with largely Muslim
populations if it does not commit meaningfully to a Palestinian state? A Palestinian state [a] in
the next few months, and [b]
unqualifiedly coextensive with the West Bank and Gaza? Can one draw a meaningful distinction between
Òresistance to occupationÓ and ÒterrorismÓ? Is Israeli approval a necessary
precondition to any outcome? Is the
status of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict significant for recruitment to the
most violent of the Islamist organizations, such as Al Qaeda? or would they
find recruits regardless how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved? Is
there a relationship between US policies concerning Israel and US domestic electoral
calculations?
11 Foreign
Relations. [10 & 13 March: Classes 26-27] Allies:
Britain, Canada, Australia. Bases. Pakistan. Politics of deference to
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, Russia, Israel. Hubert Vedrine criticism of the
US as ÔunilateralistÕ. Effects on the United Nations. Foreign views of the GW
Bush Administration policies resisting and rejecting muiltilateral constraints:
Kyoto Protocol, ABM Treaty, CTBT, START process, &c. Will the US response
to 9.11 lead to a loose global coalition against US unilateralism?
12 The Key Political Questions in 2006. [15
March: Class 28] The GW Bush Presidency. Electoral future? ÔApproval
ratingÕ? What does the indictment of I. Lewis Libby mean? ÔHomeland securityÕ:
does creation of the Department of Homeland Security have real consequences?
The Ôintelligence communityÕ: has there been a ÔrealÕ intelligence
reorganization? And the Iraq War: what was its purpose? why was the United
States unprepared for resistance? is there a path out? Is the United States more
secure, or less secure, than it was on the eve of 9.11?
Reading List
Required are an extensive Reader,
contents of which will be posted at the beginning of the class, and two books.
The [preliminary] Reader index is attached at the end of this Syllabus.
Required Books
Halliday, Fred, Two Hours That
Shook the World : September 11, 2001: Causes and Consequences (Saqi Books).
Heymann, Philip B., Terrorism
and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998).
Optional Recommended Books
Hoge, James F., Jr. and Gideon
Rose [eds], How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War (New York: Public Affairs, 2001).
Rashid, Ahmed, Jihad: The Rise
of Militant Islam in Central Asia (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).
Papers Final Examination
Each student will write four
five-page papers during the term. There will be a two-hour final examination on
Monday, 2 December, 1-3 pm.
Politics 72
Politics of the ÔWar on TerrorismÕ
Topics [By Week]
1 Preliminaries. [6
& 9 January: Classes 1-2] The 1993 World Trade Center attack.
Attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and on the USS Cole.
Clinton Administration measures. The election of 2000 and the early
anti-terrorism actions of the GW Bush Administration. Was the US ÔunpreparedÕ?
¥ Barton
Gellman, ÒA StrategyÕs Cautious Evolution: Before Sept. 11, the Bush
Anti-Terror Effort Was Mostly Ambition,Ó Washington Post, 20 January 2002.
URL
changes. Document is ©.
W Interpol
account of the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Publications/ICPR/ICPR469_3.asp
F Summary
article on Ramzi Yusef: http://www.mahk.com/sc750.htm
The
New York Times, 9 June 2002, reviewing key issues before Congressional
inquiry [also listed later in the course]: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/national/09MISS.html?pagewanted=all&position=bottom
2 Precursors. [11
& 13 January: Classes 3-4] The great Civil Wars and revolutions.
Nationalism. Anarchism. The anti-colonial movement. The Russian and Chinese
Revolutions. ÔNational liberation movements.Õ The Israeli-Palestinian issue.
The 1990s of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Was ÔIslamic extremismÕ inevitable? Were
the American Revolutionaries ÔterroristsÕ?
¥ Alien
and Sedition Acts [1798] and related state resolutions:[1]
Alien
Act: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/alien.htm
Sedition
Act: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/sedact.htm
Virginia
Resolution: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm
Kentucky
Resolution [Draft, October]: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffken.htm
Kentucky
Resolutin [3 December 1798]: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm
M American
Revolution
Suppressing
Rebellion: http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=97&parent=17
Declaration of Independence: http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html
W Sacco
& Vanzetti. Two brief summaries:
Google
Web Directory: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Crime/Trials/Sacco_and_Vanzetti/
dÕAttilio: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html
Richard
Newby: http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/newby-sacvan.html
F McCarthyism
This
is ©, no cacheing: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
Chris
Lewis, Univ of Colorado: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/mccarthy.htm
3 The
Attack of 9.11. [18, 20 & 23 January: Classes
5-7] The GW Bush Administration response. Launching of the Ôwar on
terrorismÕ. UN Security Council endorsement. Origins of a ÔcoalitionÕ
[distinguished from the Gulf War coalition]. Could the Administration have
responded differently?
¥ ‰ The 9/11 Commission Report (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).
¥ ‰ Bruce Larkin:
ÒWhy This is Not a War, And Why It Is Important to Understand that This
is Not a WarÓ. 17 October 2001.
http://www.learnworld.com/DRAFTS/DRAFT.2001.10.17.NotAWar.html
http://www.learnworld.com/DRAFTS/DRAFT.2001.10.17.NotAWar.pdf
¥ A
timeline, with British emphasis, of events for several months after 9.11.
Follow the links from this page into 2002.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,555865,00.html
M ‰ White House FAQ re 9.11. Identifies attack as an Òact
of warÓ on 9.11.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/faq-what.html
W GW
Bush:
11
September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html
‰ 15
September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915.html
17
September 2001. Islam is peace: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
‰ 20
September 2001 [Joint Session of Congress]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
29
September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010929.html
F Foreign
responses [also see timeline, above]:
UNSC
Res 1368 [2001.09.12]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1368e.pdf
UNSC
Res 1373 [2001.09.28]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1373e.pdf
UNSC
Res 1377 [2001.11.12]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1377e.pdf
Tony
Blair [2001.10.04] in House of Commons, and Tory response [Column 671]: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=qaeda+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011004/debtext/11004-01.htm#11004-01_spmin0
4 Vulnerability. [25,
27 & 30 January: Classes 8-10]
Are all polities inherently vulnerable? Are democracies especially so?
And what of societies reliant on complex technological infrastructure? Can
sources of attack can be foreseen? Why was 9.11 not foreseen? What are the
chief vulnerabilities to which US society is exposed? What constitute
ÔadequateÕ measures to preclude attack? Is it always true that a few can cause
great harm, if they choose to do so?
+ Enemies. If you were trying to identify and rout people with
plans to commit terrorist acts against the United States or US citizens abroad,
how would you do it? Is organizational membership a good criterion? Funding an
organization? Speaking well of an organization? Having friend and associates in
an organization? And what of whole countries: how should we understand the concept of Òa country which harbors
terroristsÕ? And do Iran, Iraq and
North Korea constitute an Ôaxis of evilÕ which threatens the United States?
¥ A
US Department of State report: Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001. [May 2002]. This is a slick, long report, an
illustrated push for the AdministrationÕs position on terrorism.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10319.pdf
M Could
the attacks have been foreseen? Intercepted? This is an NPR timeline [May 2002]
of intelligence information which might have been interpreted to suggest an
attack:
+ http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/timeline/index.html
‰ Condaleeza Rice says
it could not have been foreseen:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
W Federal
indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui::
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm
F Focus
on young men from Muslim countries:
AP 21 November 2001 on Portland, Oregon
refusal:
[original removed from
CNN site]
OPB
21 November 2001: http://www2.opb.org/nwnews/trans01/ppbinterviews.asp
OPB 30 November 2001: http://www2.opb.org/nwnews/trans01/refash.asp
5 Iraq. [1, 3 &
6 February: Classes 11-13]. How did the governments of the United States and
Britain obtain Congressional and Parliamentary agreement to war? Did GW Bush
and ÔDickÕ Cheney, and Tony Blair, tell the truth to their publics? How did
Bush and Cheney build the fiction that Al Qaeda was a participant in the 9.11
attacks? The White House claimed that Iraq had, and would have, Ôweapons of
mass destructionÕ, but none were found. What explanations of this discrepancy
have been offered? and how can they be evaluated?
¥ ‰ Bamford, James. A Pretext for War (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
6 The
Congress. [8, 10 and 13 February: Classes 14-16]
Undertaking ÔwarÕ silenced Democratic critics in Congress. In February 2002 the
Administration proposed a budget with massively enlarged spending for the
military. Does calling the response a Ôwar on terrorismÕ deny the elected
Congress an effective voice? How, and on what issues, are the Administration
and the Democrats bargaining with each other? Would it be different if Senator
Jeffords had not left the Republican Party? And now, with results of the
mid-term election in hand, how has the election changed this relationship?
¥ The
New York Times, 9 June 2002,
reviewing key issues before Congressional inquiry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/national/09MISS.html?pagewanted=all&position=bottom
M Helen Dewar, Washington
Post, 5 May 2002. ÒFor Daschle, a
Grueling First Year: GOP Attacks, Dissent in Democratic Caucus Test Senate
LeaderÓ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32149-2002May4
W Arms
Control Today, October 2001. Wade
Boese, ÒDemocrats Withdraw Missile Defense RestrictionsÓ, Carl Levin on defense
priorities, and a critique of Levin:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/misdefoct01.asp
‰ Carl Levin: http://levin.senate.gov/releases/200201col2.htm
‰ Center for Security Policy. ÒThe ÔNext WarÕ: Will Carl
Levin be Allowed to Leave America Vulnerable to Missile Attack?Ó: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?topic=defbudget§ion=papers&code=02-D_24
F Bipartisanship:
Thomas
E. Mann, Brookings, Christian Science Monitor, 29 November 2001, ÒFor a Bipartisan War PresidentÓ:
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/mann/20011129.htm
Fred
Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 4
March 2002. ÒGeorge W. BushÕs Partisan Strategy of Non-PartisanshipÓ: http://www.dscc.org/2002/New_Folder/DSCC%2003-04-02.htm
Martin
Frost [Chairman, House Democratic Caucus], critique of alleged Republican use
of the ÔwarÕ as a campaign theme: http://dcaucusweb.house.gov/home/documentViewer.asp?ID=185
7 Civil
Liberties I. The Prisoners and the Courts. . [15 & 17
February: Classes 17-18] What is the Constitutional basis for military
tribunals? Are the AdministrationÕs actions consistent with US obligations
under the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III) of 1949?
Are captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters Ôprisoners of warÕ or Ôunlawful
combattantsÕ or ÔdetaineesÕ? Why were some of those captured moved to
Guantanamo Bay? What of the prosecution of John Walker Lindt?
¥ ‰ Hersh, Seymour M. Chain of Command
(New York: HarperCollins, 2004).
+ Human Rights Watch, ÒBackground Paper on Geneva Convention and Persons
Held by US Forces, 29 January 2002: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm
‰ Geneva Convention (III) 1949. Convention (III)
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument
M Links from the
University of Chicago Law School site:[2]
The
site: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/index.html
‰ GW Bush 13 November 2001 order on military tribunals: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/exec_order.html
Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearings on the proposed tribunals, 6 December 2001: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/doj_hearinghtml.htm
A
1996 symposium on military tribunals:
(I)
Crona and Richardson: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/crona_rich.html
(II)
Filler: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/filler.html
(III)
Everett: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/everett.html
W The
21 March 2002 revised rules for military tribunals:
‰ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf
F Other
comments:
Cato
Institute on 21 March 2002 rules: http://www.cato.org/new/03-02/03-21-02r.html
BBC
on 21 March 2002 rules: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1886000/1886446.stm
Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, briefing on the 21 March 2002 rules:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/t03212002_t0321sd.html
8 Civil
Liberties II. Domestic
Surveillance and Control. [22, 24 & 27
February: Classes 19-21] The USA PATRIOT
Act. Definition of ÔterrorismÕ. Expanded authority for electronic wiretap.
Denial of confidentiality of lawyer-client conversations. Detention without
indictment or trial. Refusal to release names of those in detention. Focused
interrogations. Profiling. Focus on specific groups: Muslims, foreigners,
persons of Middle Easterrn descent, students. Visa controls. Controls on
airline passengers. Use of technology (computers, databases, networking) to
consolidate and use information about individuals. Proposed national identity
card.
¥ ‰ The
USA PATRIOT Act. HR3162. [From the Electronic Frontier Foundation web site]. As
passed by the House, 25 October 2001. Only the following section are required: ‰ Title
II: ¤¤ 201-225. ‰ Title IV: ¤¤ 503-507. ‰ Title VIII: ¤¤ 801-817. ‰ Title IX: ¤¤ 901-903.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html
M Critiques
and analyses:
Association of
Research Libraries. Resources on the USA PATRIOT Act: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/ATL.html
ACLU statement submitted
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. ÒDepartment of Justice Oversight: Preserving
Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism.Ó 28 November 2001:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l112801a.html
Draft analysis of
HR3162. Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/matrix.pdf
Analysis
of USA PATRIOT ACT. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP: http://www.sidley.com/cyberlaw/features/patriot.asp
W Detentions:
Amnesty
International. Report on US detainees [14 March 2002]: http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510442002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA
CNN 3 April 2002. US DoJ IG
to study detentions: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/03/inv.detainees.treatment/?related
F Listening
to lawyer-client conversations [see ACLU statement, above]. Surveillance of
religious and political groups. Visitor surveillance.
6
June 2002. Ashcroft announces ÒNational Security Entry-Exit Registration
SystemÓ:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2002/060502agpreparedremarks.htm
30
May 2002. Ashcroft announces ÒGuidelinesÓ for FBI anticipatory investigations.:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2002/53002agpreparedremarks.htm
30
May 2002: Guidelines [texts]:
[a]
ÒThe Attorney GeneralÕs Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise
and Terrorism Enterprise InvestigationsÓ. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/generalcrimes2.pdf
[b]
ÒThe Attorney GeneralÕs Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation
Undercover OperationsÓ. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/fbiundercover.pdf
[c]
ÒThe Attorney GeneralÕs Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential
InformantsÓ. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/dojguidelines.pdf
[d]
ÒProcedures for Lawful, Warrantless Monitoring of Verbal Communications.Ó 30
May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/lawful.pdf
9 Weapons
of Mass Destruction. [1 & 3 March: Classes 22-23]
The attack of 9.11 did not employ a Ôweapon of mass destructionÕ. Could
attackers have used chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons?
Could they have launched missiles, armed with such weapons, against the United
States? Does 9.11 confirm the need for National Missile Defense, as the Bush
Administration insists, or does it show that realistic threats actually lie
elsewhere? And what is the significance of the anthrax attacks?
+ Military
and the Policy of Preventive Intervention. The new model of warfare: technology, special ops, reliance on local
forces. Bases. Paul Wolfowitz on preventive intervention. Policy of
self-reliance. US nuclear policy: forces not to be constrained by treaties.
¥ Bill
Keller, ÒNuclear Nightmares,Ó The New York Times Magazine, 26 May 2002, pp. 22-29, 51ff.
[©
material. Probably not on line.]
M ÔHawkÕ
position on 9.11 and NMD:
Frank
Gaffney, Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/gaffney.htm
W Rumsfeld
statements that terrorists obtaining WMD is ÔinevitableÕ, and equivalents:
F Should
the United States [invade] [have invaded] Iraq to oust Sadaam Hussein? [See GW
BushÕs 29 January 2002 State of the Union Message.]
10 The
Israel-Palestine Imbroglio. [18-22 November] Can the
United States win coalition assistance from states with largely Muslim
populations if it does not commit meaningfully to a Palestinian state? A Palestinian state [a] in
the next few months, and [b] unqualifiedly coextensive with the West Bank and
Gaza? Can one draw a meaningful distinction between Òresistance to occupationÓ
and ÒterrorismÓ? Is Israeli approval a necessary precondition to any outcome? Is the status of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict significant for recruitment to the most violent of
the Islamist organizations, such as Al Qaeda? or would they find recruits
regardless how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved? Is there a
relationship between US policies concerning Israel and US domestic electoral
calculations?
¥ Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
‰ 17
October 2000. . ÒReport on IsraelÕs Violations of Human Rights in the
Palestinian Territories Occujpied Since 1967, Submitted by Mr. Giorgio
Giacomelli, Special Rapporteur.Ó
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/8cabd6168b1be4a1c1256981004820e2/$FILE/G0015546.pdf
‰ 6
March 2002. ÒÒQuestion of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab
Territories, Including PalestineÓ, report of the Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights, Mr. John Dugard.
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/7dfb0ec25fb51b6ac1256b90003eacef?Opendocument
M Fragments:
7
February 2002 Bush-Sharon press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-15.html
8
June 2002 Bush-Mubarak press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020608-4.html
13
May 2002. The New York Times. Likud policy: [© material. No URL.]
W The
New York Review of Books, interviews
and replies:
‰ 13
June 2002. Benny Morris, ÒCamp David and After: An Exchange. (1) An Interview
with Ehud BrakÓ: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501
‰ 13 June 2002.Robert Malley, Hussein Agha, Ò É (2) A Reply to Ehud BarakÓ: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502
‰ 27 June 2002. Benny Morris, Ehud Barak. ÒCamp David and After: ÉÓ
Continued: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15540
11 Foreign
Relations. [25-27 November] Allies: Britain, Canada,
Australia. Bases. Pakistan. Politics of deference to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
China, Russia, Israel. Hubert Vedrine criticism of the US as ÔunilateralistÕ.
Effects on the United Nations. Foreign views of the GW Bush Administration policies
resisting and rejecting muiltilateral constraints: Kyoto Protocol, ABM Treaty,
CTBT, START process, &c. Will the US response to 9.11 lead to a loose
global coalition against US unilateralism?
¥ A
Reuters review of steps in the first week after 9.11 to build a global
coalition against terrorism:
The
Hindustan Times, 18 September 2001: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/180901/detAME71.asp
M European
criticism of GW BushÕs policies:
Arms
Control Today, March 2002. Alex
Wagner, ÒBush Labels North Korea, Iran, Iraq an ÔAxis of EvilÕÓ: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_03/axismarch02.asp
CNN,
7 February 2002, reporting French Foreign Minister Hubert VedrineÕs remarks: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/07/france.bush/
W ‰ G.W.
Bush, speech to the UN General Assembly, 10 November 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html
F Implications:
Kathleen
Collins, ÔThe End Game in Central AsiaÓ, from The Wall Street Journal, 18 October 2001. She is assistant professor of government and
Central Asian studies at the University of Notre Dame: http://www.nd.edu/~prinfo/news/2001/10-18z.html
Charles
L. Glaser, ÒTerrorism Weakens the
Case for Missile Defense.Ó Harris
School Research Report, Winter 2002. Charles L.
Glaser is a Professor and Deputy Dean at the Irving B. Harris Graduate School
of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago. He is the author, with
Steve Fetter, of "National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Policy," International Security (Summer 2001): http://www.harrisschool.uchicago.edu/publications/qrr/02wint_editorials.html
12 The Key Political Questions in 2006. [15
March: Class 28] The GW Bush Presidency. Electoral future? ÔApproval
ratingÕ? What does the indictment of I. Lewis Libby mean? ÔHomeland securityÕ:
does creation of the Department of Homeland Security have real consequences?
The Ôintelligence communityÕ: has there been a ÔrealÕ intelligence
reorganization? And the Iraq War: what was its purpose? why was the United
States unprepared for resistance? is there a path out? Is the United States
more secure, or less secure, than it was on the eve of 9.11?
Addditional Suggested Books
Halliday, Fred, Two Hours That
Shook the World : September 11, 2001: Causes and Consequences (London: Saqi Books, 2002).
Heymann, Philip B., Terrorism
and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998).
Hoge, James F., Jr. and Gideon
Rose [eds], How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War (New York: Public Affairs, 2001).
Rashid, Ahmed, Jihad: The Rise
of Militant Islam in Central Asia (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).
Papers Final Examination
Each student will write four
five-page papers during the term. There will be a two-hour final examination at
the day and time specified in the Schedule of Classes. You must take and pass
the final exam to pass the course; it will be offered only once; no exceptions
will be made.
Contact
I meet office hours Fridays
11-12 noon in the Cowell Coffee Shop, and by arrangement. The easiest way to
reach me is by email to politics72@learnworld.com
Addendum: Additional Readings
1 Preliminaries. [6 & 9
January: Classes 1-2]
2 Precursors. [11
& 13 January: Classes 3-4]
3 The
Attack of 9.11. [18, 20 & 23 January: Classes
5-7]
¥ ‰ The 9/11 Commission Report (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).
4 Vulnerability
and Enemies. [25, 27 & 30 January: Classes 8-10]
5 Iraq. [1, 3 &
6 February: Classes 11-13].
¥ GC.DD
Document and Study Guide. ÒBritain and the Iraq War 2003.Ó
http://www.gcdd.net/COURSES/DD.Doc&Study.01.UK-IraqWar.pdf
¥ GC.DD
Document and Study Guide. ÒThe United States and the Iraq War 2003.Ó
http://www.gcdd.net/COURSES/DD.Doc&Study.02.US-IraqWar.pdf
6 The
Congress. [8, 10 and 13 February: Classes 14-16]
7 Civil
Liberties I. The Prisoners and the Courts. [15 & 17
February: Classes 17-18]
¥ Jackie
Northam, ÒPentagon, U.N. Disagree Over Guantanamo Acccess,Ó NPR Morning
Edition, 2 November 2005.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4985909
8 Civil
Liberties II. Domestic Surveillance
and Control. [22, 24 & 27
February: Classes 19-21] The
9 Weapons
of Mass Destruction. [1 & 3 March: Classes 22-23]
¥ Cirincione, Joseph,
Jessica T. Mathews, and George Perkovich.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, January 2004). http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf
¥ Duelfer, Charles.
ÒThe Inevitable Failure of Inspections in Iraq,Ó Arms Control Today, September 2002. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_09/duelfer_sept02.asp
¥ UNSC Resolution
1441. Locate at http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
‰ ¥ Blix, Hans: Report to the UN Security Council 27
January 2003. http://www.learnworld.com/org/TX=2003/TX.025=2003.01.27.UNSC.Blix.html
‰ ¥ ElBaradei, Mohamed: Report to the UN Security
Council 27 January 2003. http://www.learnworld.com/org/TX=2003/TX.026=2003.01.27.UNSC.ElBaradei.html
¥ 2 October 2003.
Report of the Iraq Survey Group.
Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities
of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
¥. 30 September 2004.
Charles Duelfer. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on
IraqÕs WMD. US Central Intelligence
Agency. [A summary of Òkey findingsÓ and the Report in three volumes. In March
2005 addenda were released.
‰ Key findings of the Duelfer report:
http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/cia_wmd/key_findings.pdf
or
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Volume 1: http://www.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol1.pdf
Volume 2: http://www.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf
Volume 3: http://www.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf
Note for the
Comprehensive Report with Addenda:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/Iraqs_WMD_2004/note.html
Addenda to the
Comprehensive Report:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
10 The
Israel-Palestine Imbroglio. [8 March: Class 25]
¥ Linda
Gradstein, ÒJewish Settlements Expand in West Bank,Ó NPR Morning Edition, 2
November 2005.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4985906
11 Foreign
Relations. [10 & 13 March: Classes 26-27]
12 The Key Political Questions in 2006. [15
March: Class 28]
¥ + 9/11 Public Discourse Project, Report
on the Status of 9/11 Commission Recommendations. Part II. Reforming the
Institutions of Government. 20
October 2005.
http://www.9-11pdp.org/ [The Public
Discourse Project is the instrument of the ten 9.11 Commission members which
they created after the 9.11 CommissionÕs work ended.]