Author(s)Goldberg, A. J.
Contributor(s)MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLL QUANTICO VA
KeywordsGovernment and Political Science
Sociology and Law
Military Forces and Organizations
*PRISONERS OF WAR
*MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES)
*UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
*NON-DOD INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
ARMY FIELD MANUAL
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractSince 9/11, American policy has been ambiguous regarding standards for gathering military intelligence in the context of interrogation techniques. American policy makers and the general public have disputed the use of aggressive interrogation methods for military intelligence. Public concern has heightened awareness of abuse by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib Prison and Guantanamo Bay and has led many to question the legality of such interrogations. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government have debated whether interrogation practices comply with U.S. statutes and treaties such as the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Despite these statutes, each intelligence agency and Department of Defense (DoD) organization seems to employ different standards for conducting interrogations. Given the lack of a uniform policy, adversaries of the United States have challenged and attacked these methods. Al Qaeda has focused on the inconsistencies in U.S. detainee handling procedures to launch an effective information operations (IO) campaign. Terrorist groups disseminate propaganda that the United States sanctions cruel and unusual methods of torture against prisoners of war. The negative IO message coupled with domestic debate over the treatment of war prisoners have caused America's moral integrity to be questioned on the world stage. An interagency standard for interrogation tactics, techniques, and procedures must be established to ensure consistent compliance and to restore the image of the United States in front of the world.
EWS Contemporary Issues Paper.
Copyright/LicenseApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Middleweight Forces and the Army's Deployability DilemmaARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA; Herrly, Peter F. (1989-09)The US Army stands at an important crossroads as it looks to the 21st century. On one hand beckons an inviting path of continuing its achievements since the trauma of Vietnam. In 15 years the Army has rebuilt its leadership, reasserted its discipline, and restored its morale, while fielding a new generation of potent, sophisticated weapons, embracing a classic warfighting doctrine, and organizing heavy and light forces with superb combat potential. Yet the Army's accomplishments have not produced the full range of deployable, flexible, and capable forces demanded by a changing security environment. This article will show how emerging strategic and military trends point to another path, one which adds the potential of middleweight forces to the light and heavy units already in our arsenal, thus providing truly versatile land power readier to face tomorrow's complex and difficult global challenges. America's future strategic challenges are clear. More independent allies, skillful Soviet public diplomacy, and emerging regional powers will complicate American security choices and erode US ability to maintain bases, port access, and overflight rights. Worse still, the lingering US debt will exert significant pressure to reduce military expenditures, security assistance, and foreign aid. Declining relative American economic power also reinforces domestic arguments against US overseas presence, deployed and afloat. The net effect will diminish (though not eliminate) American ability to rely upon forward deployments as a keystone of its national military strategy.
VIDEO: Session 4: Modern Challenges and Modern Solutions, and Session 5: The Future of our Public LandsTheobald, Dave; Culver, Nada; Birdsong, Brett; Leshy, John D.; Lance, Linda; Dombeck, Mike (Colorado Law Scholarly Commons, 2016-10-21)VIDEO: 2:50 p.m. - 4:10 p.m. SESSION 4: Modern Challenges and Modern Solutions Moderator and Commentator: Mark Squillace, University of Colorado School of Law Panelists: Dave Theobald, Conservation Science Partners Nada Culver, The Wilderness Society Bret Birdsong, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Law 4:10 p.m. - 5:10 p.m. SESSION 5: The Future of our Public Lands Panelists: John D. Leshy, University of California, Hastings College of the Law Linda Lance, Bureau of Land Management (Invited) Mike Dombeck, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Security Cooperation: Integrating Strategies to Secure National GoalsARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA; Reighard, Robert D. (2006-03-09)Events following 11 September 2001 have confirmed the importance of interagency cooperation in the execution of many national strategies. Cooperation across all levels of government is critical if the United States hopes to win the war against terrorism, sustain regional stability, expand trade and development, maintain friendly ties to global powers, or deal with such transnational challenges as weapons of mass destruction and international crime. As the President's National Security Strategy makes clear, U.S. foreign policy is not confined to short-term unilateral or bilateral defense efforts. Regional security requires a long-term, cooperative, multilateral civilian-military effort to assure allies and friends, to dissuade potential adversaries, to deter aggression, and to defeat the nation's enemies. Theater Security Cooperation, a major DoD program, incorporates specifically designed activities within specific geographic, economic, political, and military situations to achieve national strategy objectives. This paper assesses the United States' capability and capacity to implement global and Theater Security Cooperation strategies to support national security goals. It concludes with recommendations for future planning and coordination of interagency programs to help achieve those goals.