TresSugar

New Name For the War on Terror - Can You Guess It?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:30:13 -0700

What to call a war on terror? Not that! Never mind its semantic impossibility (a war on a feeling?), the Bush administration retired it long ago for the far-reaching, but no less inaccurate, "global war on terror."

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dangled the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" out there, but GSAVE never caught on as he so hoped it would.

Toward the twilight of Bush's presidency, he tested the "long war," but that hasn't gone far either. So the always-eloquent Obama administration has tried its pen at renaming it. Is it any better?

Source

Take the quiz

Fightin' Words: What's the Polite Way to Say "War on Terror"?

CitizenSugar — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:30:06 -0800

"An enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." (Wordy!) "Go after." (Bush-esque.) "Ongoing struggle." (Lacks confidence.) "Win this fight." (Aggressive?) "Twilight struggle." (Sad, geriatric.)

President Obama's national-security team has been brainstorming a more precise (or nice?) phrase to describe the war on terror. What's the problem, besides the uncomfortable word "war?" Terrorism is a tactic, not an identifiable enemy, and it's considered inaccurate because it cannot be won by military means alone. In the parlance of Nancy Reagan's war on drugs, it's like saying the "war on syringes."

The White House says there's no official ban on the mutual use of those three words, but President Obama has only uttered them once (in a speech to the State Department) since inauguration. One administration official admitted they were looking for something a little more hopeful.

Considering the phrase "war on terror" is thought to have rallied terrorists, even President Bush shied away from it in the end. To find out what alternatives Bush used, read more.

Bush turned to the "war against violent extremists" in the final years of his presidency, which surely assuaged all the "violent extremists" out there. At least he never tried to call it "My Struggle."

But that wasn't the first attempt the Bush administration made on the war on terror's livelihood. The State and Defense Departments tried to rename it the "Struggle Against Violent Extremism," otherwise known as SAVE. And Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department officially adopted the acronym GWOT for the "Global War on Terror." Not surprisingly, the media never latched onto any of these, and until it does the "war on terror" it is.

What a struggle! (Which, BTW, I nominate.)

Source

Music Is the New Torture: 8 Songs to Break Detainees Down To

CitizenSugar — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:30:43 -0800

If simulated drowning isn't enough, you can add music to America's weapons of mass degradation. Amped-up tunes are used as "sonic bludgeons" at US military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.

Songs such as Britney Spears's "Baby One More Time" are turned up and set to repeat to create fear, disorientation, and a prolonged capture shock. It can cause long-term psychiatric problems if blasted for extended periods of time. And it is!

Prisoners, who grew up in Afghanistan under the music-banning Taliban, are hypersensitive. The blasted music leads some to scream and smash their heads against walls. "Plenty," one former prisoner said, "lost their mind."

A Guantanamo interrogator bragged in an FBI memo that he only needed "four days to 'break' someone by alternating 16 hours of loud music with just four hours of silence." So, mission accomplished?

What's Guantanamo breaking down to? To see the top eight songs, read more.

"Born in the USA," Bruce Springsteen
"Babylon," David Gray
"We Are the Champions," Queen
"American Pie," Don McLean
"Stayin' Alive," Bee Gees
"Dirrty," Christina Aguilera
Theme song from Sesame Street
"I Love You" from Barney and Friends

Source

Confidence in War on Terror at New High: Is the US Winning?

LibertySugar — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:01:32 -0800

Sixty percent of American voters believe the US is winning the war on terror, according to a new post-election survey. That rate of confidence breaks the previous record of 55 percent. Interestingly, men and women diverge in their levels of confidence - 68 percent of men think the US is winning, compared to 52 percent of women. Do you think the US is headed toward victory in the war on terror?

Source

Confidence in War on Terror at New High: Is the US Winning?
Yes. The US hasn't been attacked and progress is being made in Iraq.

No. The Middle East is a mess, and terrorists are never going to sign a peace treaty.

Other. I'll tell you in the comments.

Do You Think the Economy Is More Important Than Terrorism?

LibertySugar — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:00:15 -0700

More Americans care about a presidential candidate's ability to address the economy than the candidate's ability to confront terrorism. A new Gallup poll asked respondents whether they would be more likely to choose a candidate whose greatest strength is fixing the economy or a candidate whose greatest strength is protecting the country from terrorism.

Fifty-six percent chose the economically-strong candidate, compared to 39 percent who chose the candidate who is best at protecting America from terrorism. Despite these numbers, McCain's senior adviser Charlie Black thinks McCain's perceived strength on national security could help him win - he said a terrorist attack on US soil would be be a "big advantage" for his candidate. Perhaps Black thinks Americans would quickly move fighting terrorism to the top of their priority list, but it's still unclear how a nightmare like an attack would play out politically, something I don't want to hypothesize.

Right now, what do you want to be a candidate's top strength: improving the economy, or fighting terrorism?

Source

Do You Think the Economy Is More Important Than Terrorism?
Economy. A financial crisis is not just a threat, it's now a reality.

Terrorism. We can't afford to take our eye off the ball.

Other. I'll tell you in the comments.

ID or Not to ID - Countries Don't Want to Give US the Finger

LibertySugar — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:00:52 -0700

Airlines and 34 countries vehemently oppose a plan to require fingerprints from foreigners leaving the US. Opponents, which include the European Union, worry about the privacy violation, as well as the fact that the plan pushes the burden of border security, usually a function of government, to private companies. The plan would require airlines and cruise liners to collect the fingerprints by August 2009.

The financially incapacitated airline industry claims that the plan will cost it $12.3 billion over 10 years, not the $3.5 billion estimated by the federal government. An alliance of domestic and international carriers claim that since September 11, they have spent $30 billion for often duplicative and bureaucratic security measures. The international opposition may spark a debate between Congress, and the Bush Administration who wants the program swiftly up and running.

Which do you find to be the most compelling argument - that collecting fingerprints poses a privacy risk, or that collecting fingerprints is an expensive bureaucratic burden that should be carried by the government not private companies? Would you travel to a country if you had to leave your fingerprints behind?

Source

US Allegedly Using Navy Ships As Secret Prisons

LibertySugar — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:15:56 -0700

The US allegedly has used 17 ships as floating prisons to detain suspects in the war on terror, according to US military statements, the Council of Europe, European Parliaments, and prisoners themselves.

Human Rights group Reprieve is set to publish its findings, which also include 200 cases of rendition, a polite term for kidnapping and secret detention, since 2006, the year President Bush maintained the practice had ended.

One prisoner, released from Guantanamo, told the group:

One of my fellow prisoners in Guantanamo was at sea on an American ship with about 50 others before coming to Guantanamo. . . . he was in the cage next to me. [. . . ] They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on TV. The people held on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantanamo.

Even if the words of prisoners cannot be trusted, the US admits that it detains enemy combatants without trial. Recently the US released an uncharged cameraman after holding him for six years.

Imagine you were picked up and brought to a secret prison - none of your friends or family knew where you were, and you were being held without a trial and with no way to defend yourself. I think I would feel like a victim of terrorism.

Source

Cameraman Held by US for Six Years Without Charge

LibertySugar — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:00:54 -0700

Sami al-Hajj worked as a cameraman for Al Jazeera when he was arrested on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001. He had a valid work visa and was covering the US war against the Taliban. After being arrested, his name and passport number came up on a Pakistani intelligence list, as he had reported his passport being lost in Sudan two years before.

What happened next to Sami is a complete nightmare. Al Jazeera recounted Sami's story - After being held in Afghanistan and Pakistan for five months, he was sent as an enemy combatant to Guantanamo Bay. He sat in prison for six years, as prisoner 345...without a single charge.

Sami's lawyers claim that he was brutally beaten and interrogated 130 times by the US officials. He conducted a hunger strike, lost 40 pounds, and acquired a kidney infection from lack of medical care.

International journalist and human rights organizations called for his immediate release. Finally, yesterday the US released Sami. He returned to Sudan and to his wife and seven year old son, a boy he hasn't seen since he was one year old.

Are you saddened or outraged by this story? Does this undermine America's goal of spreading democracy?

War of the Words - Don't Call It Jihad Anymore!

CitizenSugar — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:30:50 -0700

The war on terror just got a new front: the dictionary. This week, the language officials from the State Department and the Department of Homelands Security use to describe the war is set to get a makeover.

Out: Jihadists; Mujahdeen; Islamo-fascism. In: Violent extremist; Terrorist

Some crack linguists realized that some words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by admitting religious credibility or by offending moderates.

To see a sample from the memo, which is way more interesting than its title, Words That Work and Words That Don't: A Guide For Counterterrorism Communication, read more.

Regarding "jihad," even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the world.

A HSA version called, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims says that the US may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims."

Words are absolutely a potent tool - just consider the dubbing of "prochoice" and "prolife." Who's against either choice or life? But used in context they imbue the adherents of each with a certain credibility. Is it right to eliminate words like jihad because they could have positive connotations for some? Do we need to be careful not to give bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders legitimacy by characterizing them as religious figures? Should the war on terror become a war of words?

Source

Bush Dedicates the War on Terror to Jesus

CitizenSugar — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:00:36 -0700

Though President Bush makes no secret of the influence his faith has on his agenda, rarely has the president mixed the language of faith and God so closely with talk of war and terrorism as he did yesterday in an address to the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Tennessee. Bush defended his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan with a 42-minute address attributing his faith to his foreign policy.

Coming just one day after spritual leaders protested President Bush's veto of limits to US interrogation techniques, his speech tying the war to a spiritual quest could raise eyebrows. In his speech Bush said,

The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries. . . . It will show others what’s possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That’s why we’re doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

To see how tied "freedom" to God, read more. Bush went on to call freedom a “precious gift,” and said, “The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to all humanity.” From the audience came shouts of, “Amen!”

Do you find it difficult to reconcile the two missions? On the one hand Bush has set out to deliver the divine gift of freedom, while on the other refusing to outlaw inhumane treatment of those who might stand in his way. Is it a case of "do as I say, not as I do?" Or, "damned if you do, damned if you don't?"

Source