Debate of Anti-Terrorism Policy

Debate of Anti-Terrorism Policy
NAME
COURSE
Introduction
Recently, a debate about President Barack Obama`s Anti-Terrorism Policy emerged. Former Vice-President of the United States, Richard Cheney, argues against the Anti-Terrorism policies made by the present President of the United States, Barack Obama (Rourke, 2). The position of this paper will be with President Obama`s side of the policy. The Anti-Terrorism policies of the Bush administration stripped the rights given to the citizens from the constitution itself. The values upheld by the pioneers of the United States and that composed the Constitution of the country were ignored by the policies made for the investigation of the terrorists. Many think that there are many other alternative policies rather than what the Bush administration did. This paper will be a critic of the debate of President Barack Obama and former Vice-President Richard Cheney as presented in the book You Decide! 2010 edition by John Rourke.
The Debate
The article has two speeches from both sides of the debate. The first speech comes from Richard Cheney. His position is that President Obama`s actions lead to endangering America (Rourke, 4). While President Obama claims that the constitution must be maintained, or the very fundamentals of the country will be forgotten. They both point out a valid point of view. But President Obama`s position is more important than that of Cheney.
The American Constitution made America what it is today. It conquered many wars, and many believe that it can also conquer the war against terror. The gentle yet powerful American Constitution coursed through many wars and won them. The previous wars are far different from the war on terror, but still, terrorists are extremists, just like any other enemy in a war. By studying President Obama`s position, what power does the constitution have against the enemy?
What power can they use to fight an enemy who uses terror as a weapon?
The President`s Position
In President Barack Obama`s speech, he started by mentioning the crises and progress that the United States had recently (Rourke, 13). One of the most important issues is America`s safety. But in the first part of the speech, the President debated on his decision in closing Guantanamo Bay. This is a response to the criticism of his campaign in closing Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and transferring the suspected terrorists to mainland America`s prisons. The speech was also a response to his decision of upholding the constitution, meaning, removing cruel interrogation methods and warrantless inspection and the like, amidst the achievements that the Post-9/11 policy of the Bush administration made for the safety of the American citizens. He argues that, however effective the policy may be, it still undermines the rule of law same as what Meliá concluded in his article for the journal The New Criminal Law Review of winter 2011. He also mentioned that the very fundamentals of the United States constitution created the United States as to be seen today. And America faced every challenge with such values. The President`s position is against the brutal interrogation given to the terrorists, for the reason that, it will change how the world sees America, and thus, can change everything for them.
The next part of the issue about the President`s explanation on the closure of the Guantanamo bay prison camp. He mentioned that only three terrorists became convicted out of the seven-year existence of the system, which, the Supreme Court soon invalidated (Rourke, 15). Before President Obama was elected, and the Guantanamo bay closed, two-thirds of the total detainees in Guantanamo bay has been released (15). He also claims that the existence of the Guantanamo bay only made terrorist recruitment more active. This means, it only made their enemies fueled to fight. It made their enemies stronger.
The third part of the issue was about his decision on reviewing the pending cases of the remaining detainees from Guantanamo bay. This is to help the government to categorize the detainees to which prison they are to be put. If others ask if this is safe, according to the President, there isn`t a single individual that escaped America`s "supermax" prisons (Rourke, 16). This means that, the safety of America is still sustained even if the detainees are moved in mainland America.
The second part of the speech was about the maintenance of security and the transparency of the government. Information gathered from investigations, and also information about the methods about national security, must not be disclosed to the public if it threatens the security of the citizens (Rourke, 19).
There are laws that must be followed. It does not mean that terrorists do not deserve rights that the government will also not follow the law if they are against terrorists. Laws are made to be followed, so that a country upholds its very own framework. It is the very foundation of the United States of America, and thus, if broken, can cause a serious damage to the structure.
Richard Cheney`s Argument
Richard Cheney`s position in the debate was that, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were essential in finding what the terrorists will do next. Because the 9/11 attack was a direct hit, not only to America`s security but to the hearts of American citizens, they had to do everything necessary to prevent other plans against the United States (Rourke, 7). And that, because of these methods, the government had justified steps made to counter the following attacks. This is in response to the previous attacks made by the terrorists. The congress saw that the next attack were heavier than the previous, that is why they chose to create a different policy after the 9/11, a policy that they believed can prevent the next terrorist attack. The information gathered from the terrorists was used to plot the plans of the terrorist group. Also, they used the information to track other terrorists and also to cut their networks. Cheney claims that intelligence gathered from the convicted were found useful, and thus, the methods must be continued because it was found to be useful to prevent terrorist acts. They believed that forceful interrogation will soften the terrorists to blow the whistle.
For transparency, the government released photos for the public to know, and these photos are from the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used against the terrorists (7). Even if the photos were disturbing, they released so that the public will see what is happening in the interrogation. This, Cheney claims, endangers the officers that made the interrogation, it also is a matter that damages national security.
Cheney goes on by letting the President think about the future. He continues on discussing his experiences in his position as Vice-President, and that intelligence is very important in the war against terror. He also says that the interrogation is not there to avenge the dead from 9/11 but to prevent more deaths that could happen after 9/11 (8).
Lastly, he claims t...