In the 704 documents, the military intelligence officials recorded many details about the prisoners, including their confessions, personal belongings, actions under detention, threats made to the officials, and other miscellaneous information. The intelligence officials also wrote what they thought of the stories presented by the prisoners and the potential threat level posed by prisoners if they were to be released. The documents show that intelligence officials of many countries, such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Algeria, came to question the detainees, and that one of the people held at Guantanamo Bay was a cameraman for Al Jazeera. For all the personal details, the stories, and the information that the documents provide about many of the detainees, there is also a great deal of uncertainty that comes through the pages, with the word “possibly” being used 387 times.
This rare glimpse into what the prisoners said and what the American officials thought provides some basis for understanding the mysterious black box that is the Guantanamo Bay. The officials faced a difficult task of determining the risk presented by each suspect and deciding whether the suspect was telling the truth. It cannot be an easy task to determine the accuracy of a confession
Courtesy of the Guardian
and to figure out how useful and actionable a piece of intelligence provided by a suspect is. The officials certainly made some mistakes, detaining some innocent people as suspects due to confusion in identity or due to circumstances, while one of the first 158 to be released went back to Pakistan and became a suicide bomber. So for all that can be said about the uncertainties and doubts expressed on the documents, one thing is for certain: these officials had to make the difficult calls between imprisoning someone who may be an innocent shepherd from Afghanistan or who may be a terrorist waiting to strike America or its troops and allies upon return home.
All of this means that Guantanamo Bay remains an exceedingly difficult subject for America and its national security. Because it is about a relatively new threat, no one knows the best solution, and everyone gets excited voicing what he/she believes is the right thing to do. The Left assails it as the inerasable black mark on America’s leadership on human rights without presenting a real clear alternative for dealing with the prisoners. Some on the Right, on the other hand, would just rather leave it alone and not think about it, letting the men of Guantanamo, some of whom are innocent but cannot return home due to instability in those countries, rot there. Our country needs to settle on a long-term solution for holding terrorists, interrogating them, and bringing them to justice. As the documents, which classified most of the 172 currently remaining prisoners as “high risks” to the United States, show, this is not an easy task.
We must acknowledge that Guantanamo Bay is not a permanent solution to the enemy combatant problem. The prison has served its purpose, providing our intelligence officials with important information that has allowed the United States and its allies to continue fighting the War on Terror. However, the ad-hoc arrangement cannot last forever, and a more permanent solution for holding terrorist suspects and bringing them to justice must be found. We cannot rehabilitate all of the suspects, and terror suspects will continue to be a problem for America. As of October 2010, the Department of Defense has confirmed that 81 of the 598 already transferred out of Guantanamo have re-engaged in terrorist activity, while another sixty-nine are suspected of doing so. This recidivism of some of the detainees, as well as the continued existence of terrorist networks plotting attacks against the United States and its allies, means that we will have to continue dealing with terror suspects for a long time. The Bush administration eventually came to this realization, with both President Bush and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both expressing a desire to eventually replace Guantanamo with a permanent solution. No new prisoner has arrived at Guantanamo since 2007.
When the Obama administration announced early in 2009 that it was going to close down Guantanamo within a year, I was incredulous, but also intrigued. I hoped that during the year, the administration would be able to find a long-term solution to the problem of how to deal with terror suspects. Unfortunately, the administration decided to treat them as regular prisoners and seek convictions in civilian courts. The experiment failed due to both political and legal pressures, and the administration was forced to settle for the status quo.
I disagreed with the Obama administration’s initial attempts to deal with this issue. Terror suspects are neither regular criminal suspects nor traditional prisoners of war; they lie somewhere in between due to the asymmetric nature of terrorism. They, therefore, should neither be tried in civilian courts nor be held in regular prisons. I agree with the administration with regards to the Obama administration’s second attempt: trying the suspects before military tribunals as the Bush administration had done. The Obama administration, however, seems to have run out of ideas on what to do with the issue of Guantanamo Bay prison itself.
In the end, the documents released by WikiLeaks show another view of just how complicated the issue of terror suspects’ detention may be. Terrorism, as something that the United States has to fight against, is something relatively new, and the United States has not yet found a permanent solution to the problem of what to do with terror suspects. However, it is imperative to find that permanent solution. It is an issue that America will continue to face as we fight the War on Terror, and the sooner that we move away from a temporary arrangement like Guantanamo, the better it is for our national security. In the meantime, we also have to deal with the fact that there are 172 men, many of them deemed dangerous, imprisoned in legal and political limbo. It is a tough problem all around: figuring out who has actually done what and who has important pieces of intelligence, determining what to do with those about whom we know little, and finding countries to take these people once we decide to transfer them out. However, as difficult as it may be, the Obama administration must find a way to solve this issue in a responsible manner so that we can move shut down Guantanamo and find a permanent solution to the issue to terror suspect detention.
By John Lim
]]>The conference, held every spring, is a weekend-long series of panel discussions and papers presented by students from various participation universities. “The Conference on the American Polity was an idea that was suggested to me by Randy Drew, one of our Forum alumnus.” said Dr. Patrick Deneen, Associate Professor of Government and Founding Director of the Tocqueville Forum. Deneen organized the conference after reflecting on the fact that, for all the research and writing the average undergraduate does every year, his work is typically seen only by the professor who assigned it—a trend that does nothing to advance a profound and deliberative discussion of the ideas that students spend so much of their time studying.
Seeking to ameliorate this lack of an audience and simultaneously provide students with a venue to discuss and debate their ideas, Georgetown’s Tocqueville Forum collaborated with its sister program, the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to organize the first Conference on the American Polity, held at Georgetown University in 2008. Since then, the venue has alternated each year between Georgetown and Princeton, even as additional schools have begun sending their own students and faculty.
Dr. Deneen foresees that the conference will continue growing to include more schools and participants, and perhaps become the starting point for a series of regional conferences around the country.
The Georgetown students who presented original material were Justin Hawkins (COL ’11) on “Tocqueville and the Decline of the American Puritan Tradition” and Kate Bermingham (COL ’11) on “Liberal Individualism and the Encumbrance of Affectionate Love,” a portion of her senior thesis that addresses the effects of liberal democracy on each of C.S. Lewis’ “Four Loves.” Mr. Hawkins and Ms. Bermingham were accompanied by seven other undergraduates from various universities, who presented their work and received critiques from designated respondents along with the audience of students and faculty.
The intellectual stimulation provided by the quality and substance of the papers was noted by all in attendance. Chris Mooney (COL ’14), one of the Tocqueville Forum student fellows in attendance at Princeton, said that “attending the conference was worthwhile just because it provided the opportunity to experience true academic interaction between fellow students with passions for the same subjects.”
But it was the presenters themselves that spoke most highly of the conference. “It is a unique honor to be able to present my work in this setting,” Mr. Hawkins said, “and the opportunity to present an academic paper to an audience and receive pointed criticism is valuable experience for my prospective academic work on the graduate and Ph.D. levels.”
Ms. Bermingham expressed similar thoughts: “this conference was an opportunity for me to see if my paper had substantive potential beyond the immediate context in which it was written.” But she also noted that it served a more far-reaching purpose: “[the conference] reminded me that the work we do at Georgetown is part of a broader scholastic community and long liberal arts tradition.”
It is that long liberal arts tradition that the Tocqueville Forum seeks to foster on Georgetown’s campus. The Tocqueville Forum itself was founded in 2006, according to its Mission Statement “to reinvigorate higher education at Georgetown and elsewhere by cultivating civic knowledge. The Forum accomplishes this end by advancing a probing yet sympathetic understanding of the United States and its roots in the Western philosophical and biblical traditions.” The mission and work of the Tocqueville Forum has even attracted the attention of the national media when the Wall Street Journal featured the Forum in a 2007 article entitled “The New Campus Dissidents.”
Dr. Deneen says that he was motivated to begin the Tocqueville Forum because of concern that the classical, liberal arts tradition to which Georgetown was once so strongly committed was being lost. “I believed that it was necessary to create an institution within Georgetown to maintain that tradition,” Deneen said, “in the belief that in its absence, that tradition would eventually attenuate and die.”
The Conference on the American Polity is just one of the efforts organized by the Tocqueville Forum to promulgate the western tradition among undergraduate students at Georgetown. The Tocqueville Forum student fellowship program is currently comprised of almost seventy undergraduate fellows selected in the fall of each academic year to participate in reading groups, student retreats, lectures by visiting lectures, book discussions, and to act as contributors and editors for Utraque Unum, the Tocqueville Forum’s student-run journal of undergraduate research named for the motto of Georgetown University and published biannually.
Yet with all this activity sponsored and organized by the Forum, Dr. Deneen has even broader plans for the future. “I aspire to bring more faculty – whether at Georgetown or from elsewhere – into our conversation and begin to be able to offer courses…Perhaps someday we might have a minor or certificate program in the Western Tradition.” Meanwhile, Deneen is pleased with the success that the Forum has had thus far and is optimistic about the Forum’s ability to continue attracting serious students who are aware that they do not yet know all that they ought to know. “I hope that we can continue to undertake the activities that have become mainstays in our programming,” Deneen said, “But to continue what we’re doing, and with the caliber of students we have been attracting, would remain highly satisfying.”
By Justin Hawkins
]]>The response of the global community has been very supportive—a simple Google search will produce myriad results of how to donate or contribute to the relief effort. Awareness of the tragedy is far-reaching, as the media and disaster aid organizations have been broadcasting the devastation and how to help.
Devastation from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Courtesty of EuroNews.
Students at Georgetown have responded no less supportively. Campus-wide, many student organizations and clubs have rallied together to organize relief efforts and fundraisers to benefit the cause. The Georgetown community has embraced the challenge of raising both awareness and support for Japan in the form of bake sales, academic programming events, event fundraisers, and more.
On April 16th, the Georgetown International Relations Club partnered with the Georgetown Japanese Network, as well as the Asian Studies Department and other Georgetown departments, to host the IRC/J-Net Spring Formal, a black-tie optional fundraiser event with proceeds going to the Japan relief effort. The event was held this year in the Leavey Conference Center Ballroom and featured a classic 007 theme.
Both the IRC and J-Net were excited to host an event that simultaneously provided a way to learn about the disaster and its implications as well as an end-of-the-year social event. Eitan Paul, the Chair of the International Relations Club, expressed his thanks to all those who attended and helped to organize the event. “After the disaster, we wanted to host an event to better explain what happened as well as its implications and offer a way for students to get involved,” he said. “We were proud to partner with J-Net and others to make this a reality, and we are thankful to all who contributed.”
The event featured speakers who discussed the political ramifications of the tragedy, US-Japanese relations and their recent interactions, and the implications of the nuclear disaster. J-Net also provided further information about the disaster and additional ways to get involved with and aid the relief effort. “We were so pleased with the turnout,” Paul said. “It was great that so many people showed up and that we were able to organize the event so quickly after the disaster occurred.”
The response was very positive. Approximately 180 students attended the event and over $3,000 was raised to support disaster relief in Japan. Students were able to dress in theme and also enjoy music, dancing, and food. However, they were also able to contribute to something much greater, an effort that was able to unite students of varied backgrounds to contribute to a common goal. The event was a wonderful way to end the school year on a positive note, but it also greatly supported a worth-while cause. “What made the event worth it was seeing such a diverse group of students from different walks come to together to support this cause,” Paul added. Professors from various Georgetown departments were able to provide more insight into the disaster and the current situation, a stimulus for conversations throughout the night.
This is only one example of the many ways in which students at Georgetown are contributing to the relief effort. The quick response of the International Relations Club, the Japan Network, and every other club that organized fundraisers and support drives speaks well of Georgetown students and their open-mindedness, creativity, awareness of global issues, and determination to make a positive impact on global affairs.
If you have not already become involved in Japan relief with your own students club or organization, feel free to visit Redcross.org or text REDCROSS to 90999 to automatically donate $10 from your phone. Additionally, GlobalGiving.org has recently launched the Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Relief Fund and is accepting donations through their website, and UNICEF is also accepting donations at unicefusa.org. As was proven by the impressive turnout and large proceeds of the IRC/J-Net Spring Formal, students can provide invaluable support and contributions to the relief effort—get involved!
By Rachel Farell
]]>“Tonight, I can report to the American people and the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin Laden the leader of Al-Qaeda,” the President said. Bin Laden was hiding in a compound near Abbottabad, Pakis
tan.
Within moments, students began posting the news on Facebook. DC students poured out from Georgetown, George Washington, American, and Johns Hopkins University, running off campus and towards the White House to celebrate the announcement
Grabbing their American flags and donning clothing that read “USA” and “America” while others simply ran off in whatever they were wearing to be present for the event. Some climbed trees chanting “U.S.A,” “Four more years,” and “Yes We Did.” Others sang the national anthem and America the Beautiful.
Preliminary reports say that no Americans were injured in the assault and there were no civilian casualties.
]]>Obama’s plan would cut the deficit by 400 billion dollars less than Ryan’s, and outlines spending for the next twelve years as opposed to the next ten. Ryan recommends almost two trillion dollars more in spending cuts than Obama.
Graph of public debt over the next 15 years for each proposal.
Although the plans have some similarities, Ryan’s plan more aggressively targets entitlement programs like Medicare and and Medicaid, while Obama’s focuses on increasing taxes and cutting defense spending. Ryan recommends almost two trillion dollars more in spending cuts than Obama.
The Republican plan would cut Medicare spending by changing the program into a voucher system. This would decrease the amount that the government covers of the total premium, but increase the options available to seniors and encourage people to purchase more reasonable affordable plans. All citizens under 55 would be affected by this change. Obama has opted to maintain the current system, simply working harder to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
Under Ryan’s plan, Medicaid would become a block grant given to states by the federal government. The states would then be responsible for distributing the grant on their own. This should decrease spending by $771 billion by not allowing states to rely on the federal government to pick up the tab. Obama’s proposal relies on many ideas that he has already put forth that will make Medicare more efficient, cutting spending by approximately $100 billion.
Neither Ryan nor Obama propose any significant changes to Social Security
Both Ryan and Obama call for reducing the number of loopholes in the tax code and eliminating tax breaks. The major difference is that Ryan also suggests cutting the overall tax rate for corporations and individuals, as well as the repeal of Obamacare and the attached tax increases. Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire and to limit itemized deductions.
The Republican proposal does not target military spending with as much vigor as the Democratic plan. Obama suggests $400 billion in military spending cuts, while the Republicans have opted to maintain the current proposed spending levels for 2012. However, in terms of discretionary spending, the Republicans have identified $1.6 trillion in cuts over the next ten years, compared to $600 billion identified by President Obama, although he does recommend decreasing mandatory spending, such as agricultural subsidies and federal pension plans.
Ultimately, both plans offer a very comprehensive overhaul and a sharp move towards fiscal austerity, even if Ryan’s plan is far more comprehensive. Ideas from both plans could be combined to truly decrease the deficit, such as Ryan’s health care proposals and Obama’s military spending cuts. But whether either of these plans gets off the ground is in Congress’s hands now.
By Jacob Arber
]]>Airpower has an ignominious record in humanitarian intervention. While a valuable tool for waging war, airpower quickly loses effectiveness in asymmetrical conflicts like insurgencies or guerilla campaigns. Moreover, the successful application of airpower
Taken from PressTV
essentially reduces its future utility; a target-rich environment becomes a target-poor environment. Thus, in Libya, the easiest targets have already been destroyed, leaving hardened, mobile, or camouflaged targets. Most importantly, allied airpower can do little against Gaddafi’s forces in the field, especially in urban conflict. While the allies successfully attacked Gaddafi’s convoys, they failed to prevent his counteroffensives into newly-gained rebel territories. Even if NATO completely eliminates Gaddafi’s tanks and air force, NATO cannot eliminate his ground forces or their ability to wage war; because Gaddafi’s troops are qualitatively superior to those of the rebels, airpower cannot by itself secure the rebel-held areas, much less guarantee regime change.
Because airpower will not ensure regime change in Libya, Obama has decided to look for non-military solutions. However, the policies he advanced are by no means sure outcomes. First, Obama seeks to enforce an arms embargo against Libya. While allied control of the Mediterranean helps to ensure a maritime arms embargo, Obama can do little about the vast inland area several hundred miles south of Tripoli. Along this long land border Gaddafi can smuggle the basic arms he needs to keep fighting, if not heavier systems like tanks or aircraft. Moreover, Gaddafi has arms and ammunition stockpiles prepared; while NATO airpower may eliminate some of these, others will be well hidden or employ human shields.
Second, Obama wants to freeze Gaddafi’s assets. A certain portion of these ($33 billion) have already been seized. However, Gaddafi has been hoarding resources in Libya itself for years; some experts claim he has up to $6 billion in gold bullion in a vault in Tripoli. If so, it might take a while for Obama’s asset seizure to truly impact Gaddafi’s ability to support himself and his regime.
Lastly, Obama has decided to support the rebels, presumably with arms and training. While this is the most straightforward move for the US to make, it does bear substantial risks. On one hand, it might not work; the rebels so far have had few military successes, and they’re up against a (more) professional army. Unless the rebels make substantial qualitative improvements, they have little hope of succeeding against Gaddafi. On the other hand, extremist elements threaten the integrity of the rebel movement itself. Gaddafi was no friend of the Islamists inside Libya, and experts say jihadists from around the region have returned home to fight. While they probably constitute a small percentage of the overall rebel mass, the extremists do not have liberal democracy at heart. In this sense, any aid the US gives the rebels could potentially fall into extremist hands and be used against US interests in the theater. After US experiences with arming the mujahedeen, policymakers may be extremely cautious to implement support for the rebels.
In the end, tribal politics, not airpower or non-military efforts, will be the determining factor of Gaddafi’s demise. Since seizing power in 1969, Gaddafi has emphasized the role of tribes in Libya’s political structure. Now, his power rests on the allegiance of the Warfalla, Margaha, and Qaddafa tribes. These tribes have stayed loyal to Gaddafi mainly based on the wealth and privilege he afforded them in society. The West’s campaign – and Gaddafi’s heavy-handed response – may have created tensions or frayed alliances within the Gaddafi regime. Because NATO has little intelligence on these relationships, it will not be able to accurately predict the series of events leading to Gaddafi’s fall. If and when the tyrant is overthrown, it will come out of tribal decisions opaque to the West and provide a stark reminder of the limitations of both airpower and “non-military” soft power in the pursuit of humanitarian operations.
By Jon Askonas
]]>Sagan noted that the number of countries pursuing nuclear energy has been increasing steadily, especially in the developing world. The problem is distinguishing between the countries harnessing nuclear technology for non-military purposes, versus nuclear armament. According to Sagan, compared to countries already using nuclear technology, countries pursuing nuclear power are generally less adept at controlling corruption and regulating businesses. They also tend to be less politically stable and undemocratic.
Such countries should not be barred from obtaining nuclear technology. However, it is a source of some concern that their nuclear facilities and technology may be more likely to fall into the wrong hands or be used for non-peaceful ends.
Sagan emphasized the importance of international regulation in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He denied that any particular political regime type is inherently better at controlling the usage of nuclear technology. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has played a key normative role in preventing countries from seeking nuclear weapons, as countries respond to international pressure to ratify it and conform to its regulations.
Map of Nuclear Nations, Taken from the University of Melbourne
The NPT, he said, has helped limit the number of weapons-capable countries. There are far fewer countries with nuclear weapons potential than commonly thought, due to mistakes in the original research that did not distinguish between countries with nuclear power potential and those with weapons capabilities.
The current threat of nuclear terrorism and the increasing number of countries pursuing nuclear technology call for reform of international regulation. International institutions, such as the NPT, should ensure nuclear security even when a country withdraws from the NPT. Sagan said countries can easily withdraw from the NPT without any consequences. He advocated for a requirement that withdrawing countries return their fuel rods and other nuclear components to the country where they originated. Sagan emphasized such management of the fuel cycle as the most important technical aspect of preventing countries from gaining weapons potential. Sagan also highlighted the importance of examining a country’s internal security situation and its commitment to safeguarding nuclear facilities and technology before exporting nuclear capabilities.
Sagan said he supports abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, as it is only due to a tremendous amount of luck that we have avoided outright nuclear war or terrorist attacks. Maintaining the status quo will only create greater nuclear insecurity in the long run. According to Sagan, establishing a level of trust and transparency is critical to reducing nuclear weapons.
I agree with Sagan’s point that over the long run, we are all better off without nuclear weapons. However, some argue that it took not just luck but also hard work to prevent the Cold War from escalating into a nuclear war. These efforts thus created a more stable world system. However, at the current time, there are rogue non-state groups and states seeking nuclear weapons in an attempt to upset global stability and security. Given these forces that are so contrary to the U.S.’s interests, it would be foolish to pursue any significant unilateral nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons can serve as a deterrent and a defensive posture against such rogue states and terrorist groups.
We should also consider other legitimately recognized nuclear weapons states. Russia, China, Britain, and France are the other four states recognized nuclear weapons states. India, Pakistan, and Israel – all non-signatories to the NPT – are recognized as de facto nuclear weapons states. All of these countries may have future foreign policy interests that run counter to American objectives. History has shown that nuclear arsenals can be effective tools for international politics and diplomacy, in addition to deterring foolish escalation of tensions and conflicts. Without a significant decrease in the arsenals of other nuclear weapons states, decreasing the U.S. nuclear stockpile may prove detrimental to our foreign policy goals later on.
My concern about America’s nuclear security against both states and non-state actors does not mean that I do not support arms control. In fact, I support agreements like the New START treaty, which reduces the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia. Such agreements push us a step closer to an eventual nuclear weapons-free future, but still allow us to maintain the nuclear capabilities sufficient for nuclear deterrence and political bargaining. In the short run, nuclear weapons reductions should not occur unilaterally but rather bi- or multi-laterally to make sure that the U.S. maintains a critical defensive capability while we pursue a long-term goal of widespread disarmament.
When Russia and the United States both recognize that Iran poses the nuclear threat, the two Cold War rivals could go so far as to develop a joint missile defense in addition to enjoying a warmer relationship. International multilateral institutions and treaties help establish that trust. It is in the U.S.’s interest to promote nuclear disarmament and to engage other countries in designing a stronger global non-proliferation regime.
This trust is particularly critical Russia and the U.S.’s coordinated missile defense against Iran. Antagonizing Russia by placing a missile defense system right next to them is likely to cause the Russians to be suspicious of our motives. This is, of course, a different story if we are still secretly worried about a Russian nuclear attack. However, I do not believe that that is the case, even while taking into account Russia’s more aggressive stance over the last few years.
Even Russia recognizes the problems and dilemmas associated with Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons. Russia’s qualms create an opportunity for collaboration with the U.S. on efforts to minimize the threat of Iran’s nuclear capability. Much the way that mutually assured destruction allowed the two countries to cooperate on bilateral arms control, facing a common crisis can open up a way for Russia to be able to work with the United States on security and other issues.
In dealing with rogue states attempting to obtain nuclear weapons or technology, Sagan is absolutely right that multilateral institutions, treaties, and diplomacy play critical roles in preventing nuclear proliferation. Military action is very often neither strategic nor cost effective. A strong, international non-proliferation regime without an easy loophole but with the potential for continued verifications and tough retribution measures is critical for achieving a lasting nuclear peace.
At times, tough negotiations may be necessary to ensure maximum compliance, and a good model for the diplomatic track in this type of situations is the Bush administration’s negotiations with Libya in late 2003 and early 2004. Using both carrots, in the form of normalizing relations, and sticks, in the form of continued embargo and isolation, the Bush administration got Libya to abandon its nuclear program, which had been in operation as a counter to Israel’s supposed nuclear program even though Libya is a signatory to the NPT.
With a clear set of benchmarks and clearly identified positive and negative incentives, as well as other factors, the United States convinced Libya to end all stages of its nuclear weapons development and make way for IAEA inspections. Qaddafi’s primary motivation in pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place was to secure Libya against increasingly unpredictable and volatile Middle East. This aim was achieved by ceding Libya’s nuclear stockpiles in exchange for a degree of implied security – namely that the United States will not attack it as it did with Iraq.
]]>The mission statement of DPS clearly delineates their intent and purpose on campus. Or does it? Most students would like to rest assured that their property and wellbeing is continually under watch. Many would also appreciate a more “laissez-faire” approach to campus security. Unfortunately, a healthy mix is usually rare. Due to frequent misunderstandings between students and the officers, DPS regulations are not always met with compliance and reverence.
College students, in the midst of loud parties and copious drinking, lose sight of what is allowed and appropriate for late hours of the night. DPS officers, in endeavoring to keep campus safe, lose sight of the fact that they are in the midst of college students. No one is particularly at fault. More often than not, the conflicts between students and officers result from differing intentions. No one intends to be obnoxiously loud and no one intends to take on the role of “fun killer.” Sadly, these roles are often the norm.
The Crimes
The squad works on three shifts: 7AM to 3PM; 3PM to 11PM; and 11PM to 7AM. This may be why the majority of student related crackdowns occur towards midnight. The officers who are freshly on the scene have no frame of reference as to what the volume was, so anything and everything is considered “loud and disruptive.” To be fair, the officers are attempting to keep the peace for those around who are not partaking in festivities, but a little leniency towards students who are trying to de-stress from the hectic week does not sound too preposterous.
The biggest area of concern for a majority of students is property protection. For all the work that DPS does, the number of burglaries and break-ins that occur during the year paints a less than pretty picture of their thoroughness. It is of course to be expected that they cannot catch everything, but when it looks like more parties are being shut down and more laptops are being stolen, students cannot help but think DPS is taking a biased approach to policing.
The root of the problem comes down to information: how much information DPS has about its constituents; how much information students have about the officers; and the information regarding what actually goes down on campus. Students may not know that the crime reports for the month can be found online. Surprisingly, they add up. Besides the disconcerting e-mails we receive, there are many more that go unheard. According to the November 2010 crime log, there were eight burglaries, two of which were forced entries. These occurred both on and off, in places like Harbin Hall and Alumni Square. Realizing DPS does not have the capacity to catch every crime. The fact that a majority of cases go unresolved or forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. city police, leaves students with little faith in DPS.
Again no institution is perfect, but in the eyes of the young and restless on Georgetown’s campus, the expansion of DPS a few years ago has accomplished nothing more than increase authority and tighten the administration’s hold on our actions. Regrettably, DPS officers who probably have good intentions, are often disrespected and disdained.
What does this mean for Georgetown?
“DPS officers have heart,” said Will Miller (SFS ’14). It is safe to say that this is the less widely held opinion on campus, but it is good to know someone out there is appreciating them.
Students who have been written up, or in extreme cases arrested, by DPS, cannot seem to understand why the little things matter. So what if a few underage students are drinking? So what if a townhouse is excess in capacity by three hundred bodies? So what? The answer reveals itself when a student gets too sick, or a fire is sparked and the overflow of people becomes a hazard. These outcomes seem unrealistic, but even so, their plausibility calls for DPS’s attention to detail.
We seem invincible, and it appears that nothing could ever touch us. But in the blink of an eye something fun and innocent can turn into a disaster. Although our guardians are not always the most tactful, their presence is not without legitimacy. On a recent Saturday, a DPS officer whose name will be kept secret for liability purposes, was heard on a WGTB Radio show requesting songs of the guests who were playing guitar and singing. If this kind of cohabitation is possible, it may just take a little work on both ends to reach a place of platonic policing and laudable leisure.
By Amanda Wynter
]]>This entire issue centers on the question of who stands to gain and lose from a government shutdown, and in this case, like so many others on Capitol Hill, it all comes down to who can spin things in a more favorable light. The Democrats in Congress are certainly not sweating the prospect of a shutdown. In fact, the last time the government grinded to a halt, it was during the infamous showdown between Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and President Clinton in 1995. The impasse resulted in a shutdown that lasted only twenty-one days, but it wound up being a huge political disaster for the Republicans. The media had a frenzy over the personal vendetta that erupted between Clinton and Gingrich over the budget, and, in the end, the public’s blame for the breakdown was levied against Gingrich and the Republicans. As a result voters became increasingly disillusioned with the Republicans’ inability to deliver on their “Contract,” and the rest is history.
In the same vein, Democrats know all too well the political capital they stand to gain if an agreement cannot be made and a shutdown becomes imminent. What better way to start the rollback of last year’s latest Republican Revolution than by highlighting the inefficacy of a Republican House? The natural question is how they plan to craft this narrative, especially when the Senate Democrats are the ones who are holding up the show.
And here we come to our third player in this pageant:
Dun! Dun! Dun! The Tea Party.
Representatives like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Steve King of Iowa are leading the Tea Party standard in the House, refusing to vote for any additional Continuing Resolutions (CRs, the emergency funding bills that keep things going in the absence of a budget) for a whole host of reasons and urging their colleagues to do likewise. Marching orders have come down from on high that any vote for a CR that includes funding for Obamacare or Planned Parenthood will be met with the Tea Party’s ire. Regardless of the merits and practicality of the Tea Party position (or lack thereof), several Republicans, particularly among the freshman class, are taking this admonition very seriously. This is especially important considering that a great deal of them were elected with ferventTea Party campaign support.
But at the end of the day, Tea Party intimidation only goes so far, and thankfully so. The CRs in the House have passed and most likely will continue to pass as long as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor urge House Republicans to do so, for now at least. However, if the government does shut down, there is no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would relish the opportunity to argue hat Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership were goaded into refusing a ettlement on the budget under pressure from the extreme fringe of the party.
But make no mistake; the ball is very much in the court of the Senate Democrats. According to a Republican Staff Assistant on the House Armed Services Committee, it was recently put forth that the House and Senate could at least come together on appropriating essential funding for the military, while negotiation on other expenses could continue separately. It was revealed that this idea was already floated to Harry Reid and rejected outright. Reid knows all too well that if he concedes on funding for the Armed Forces, he loses his bargaining chip when it comes to everything else that is in contention.
As the weeks turn into months, patience among the entirety of the House Republican Caucus continues to wane even among the leadership, and the firm conviction that a shutdown was off the table is beginning to yield to the notion that Republicans are willing to risk a government shutdown in order to extract spending concessions from Democrats. At the same time the Democrats are livid over what they are calling the Republicans’ refusal to work with Democrats and put forward a feasible plan on the budget. Republicans have retorted that they have already passed a piece of legislation for the FY11 budget, H.R.1, and that it is the Senate Democrats who have proven themselves unwilling to come to the table in a serious way.
And with Congress deadlocked, one has to ask, where on earth is President Obama during all of this? He certainly revealed his interest in mediating Congressional vitriol during the debate on healthcare reform but has generally demonstrated less and less interest in Congress altogether since then, and he is noticeably MIA on the budget debate. Certainly, the President’s input on the budget (particularly what he plans to sign or not sign) would go a long way to inform and focus the negotiation.
All in all, as the number of no votes on the Continuing Resolutions continues to grow, Congressional leaders and the White House are running out of time. While only non-essential services would cease in a government shutdown, analysts are already predicting the unfavorable ramifications. These range from a halt in checks to disabled veterans to an increase in investor panic that could trigger another recession. You can lay the blame at the feet of whichever party or politician you want, but when push comes to shove, it is only the American people who stand to lose from this futile squabbling and power-playing. I don’t know about you, but I’m hoping for a productive week on the Hill.
By Nicholas Iacono
]]>Emphasizing the cost for individuals and families of rising fuel prices, Obama pointed out that three years ago, when the price of gas hit its peak, nothing was accomplished and, since then, nothing has changed. The need for long term energy policy, Obama said, is necessary, admitting that “the same political gridlock” has prevented action from being undertaken during his presidency.
Photo by Colleen Wood
To decrease foreign oil dependency, Obama proposed to cut oil imports from 11 million barrels of oil a day by a third, although he failed to provide specific methods of doing so.
Obama also encouraged America to import oil from regions other than the Middle East. “When it comes to the oil we import from other nations, of course we have to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable and steady,” he said, also mentioning Brazil as a viable source of oil.
In order to reduce oil imports, Obama proposed “finding and producing more oil at home and reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner fuels and greater efficiency,” admitting that even if decreasing the use of fossil fuels is a goal, in the short term, increasing U.S. oil production is necessary, including drilling in Alaska or the continental U.S.
Obama stated that he is willing to allow safe and responsible offshore oil drilling as well, despite the Deepwater Horizon disaster. He claimed that, despite regulations and restrictions on offshore drilling, his administration has approved more permits for offshore drilling than any other.
In order to further decrease dependency, Obama outlined a number of alternatives: shale natural gas, biofuels, high speed rail and energy efficient cars. Citing Energy Secretary Steven Chu as a primary architect, Obama stated that the government is working on developing efficient ways of implementing these technologies, ignoring the work already done on shale natural gas in Canada and Europe and the inefficiency of using corn ethanol as biofuel.
Focusing on electric vehicles, Obama restated his goal to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and provide two billion dollars in grants to improve electric batteries. To achieve these goals, Obama called on the federal government to lead by example and purchase only electric, hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles.
After reiterating the need for the government to provide incentives to make energy efficient technology profitable, Obama turned to nuclear energy. Referencing Japan, he explained that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is inspecting current nuclear power plants for safety and issuing new standards for the next generation of nuclear plants.
In closing, Obama reminded the students that other nations like Germany and China have started to pull ahead in terms of alternative energy investment. “Other countries are exporting technologies that we pioneered,” he said, also describing government funding as “critical to clean and renewable energy research” if we are to compete against other countries.
Although he characterized Georgetown as a school that “suffers from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices,” he reiterated his faith in our generation to change the world for the better and take the steps necessary to increase our energy security.
*****
President Obama’s energy policy proposal is very ambitious. Although he did encourage students and consumers to purchase energy efficient cars and provide the demand boost necessary to spur growth of the clean energy industry, he continually reiterated the importance of the government in creating standards and directing development. Unfortunately, Obama failed to offer a proposal that would provide an open market for investors and inventors to work towards energy efficiency without state involvement. Instead, Obama’s broad strokes rely heavily on government incentives and interventions.
By Jacob Arber
]]>