Suchergebnisse

This book assesses President Barack Obama's counterterrorism policy as it evolved throughout his presidency, from the expanded use of drones to the controversial decisions regarding the Syrian conflict. President Obama has achieved the dubious distinction of having been the longest continuous war president in American history, and this title explores how Obama pursued and expanded executive war power in key areas, simultaneously committing to a light footprint approach for U.S. military forces and emphasizing the use of drones, targeted killing of terrorists, and training, advising, and assisting local forces to defend themselves from militant groups such as ISIL. It also provides an in-depth analysis of the defining issue of the Obama counterterrorism strategy: Syria, and his refusal to militarily commit to defeat Bashar al-Assad and support Syria's insurgency. The work concludes with a consideration of counterterrorism policy post-Obama.--

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government in conjunction with NATO allies conducted a military campaign in Afghanistan that deposed the Taliban, destroyed Al-Qaida camps, and took 700 suspected terrorists into custody for internment and trial by military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six years later about 355 detainees remained in Guantanamo amid reports of persecution, ill treatment, mental and physical health breaches, rape, and torture. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, as have many foreign governments and prominent current and former U.S. officials. For its part, the Bush administration has denied committing any acts of torture against the detainees and has insisted that its approach to the trial and punishment of the alleged terrorists is legal and consistent with the principles of international humanitarian laws. This article focuses on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the extent to which the President, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court have addressed human rights guarantees consistent with the rule of law and principles of justice. Adapted from the source document.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government in conjunction with NATO allies conducted a military campaign in Afghanistan that deposed the Taliban, destroyed Al‐Qaida camps, and took 700 suspected terrorists into custody for internment and trial by military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six years later about 355 detainees remained in Guantanamo amid reports of persecution, ill treatment, mental and physical health breaches, rape, and torture. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recommended closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, as have many foreign governments and prominent current and former U.S. officials. For its part, the Bush administration has denied committing any acts of torture against the detainees and has insisted that its approach to the trial and punishment of the alleged terrorists is legal and consistent with the principles of international humanitarian laws. This article focuses on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the extent to which the President, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court have addressed human rights guarantees consistent with the rule of law and principles of justice.

Although fourteen American states periodically hold automatic referendums on whether to hold a state constitutional convention, no state has approved a constitutional convention referendum since 1984. This study explores the puzzle of why voters would oppose an opportunity to broadly reform state government and the factors that underlie these attitudes. Analyses of two statewide surveys of registered voters in New York during the 2017 Constitutional Convention Referendum campaign reveal that campaign framing, elite cues, and instrumental concerns have led voters to take risk-averse positions in order to minimize potential losses that could result from a constitutional convention.