In my research I have looked at several ads put forth by Amnesty International. Their campaign suggests that in the months and years following 9/11, the Bush administration successfully created an atmosphere in America that forever changed our concept of justice. The ads point out the blatant state of hypocrisy that was created the day GTMO became a holding station for terror suspects. The crux of their argument is hard to argue against. America is a country that was founded on the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Guantanamo Bay however completely contradicts these ideals. The President has essentially established a Government supported entity that completely goes against all that this country stands for. By ignoring an individuals right to due process, the Bush administration is clearly going against the basic principals that so many Americans have fought and died for.

 Even after conceding to the argument put for by Amnesty International, the question of how the Bush administration was able to get away with the blatant hypocrisy still remains to be answered. Based on my preliminary research, and the data obtained from my survey, I believe the answer to this question is fear and patriotism. I believe the administration successfully exploited the patriotism seen in the post 9/11 world, and used it to frame an “us vs. them” argument. Furthermore, I believe that fear was a powerful component in the creation of GTMO, and the willingness of Americans to look the other way while possibly innocent lose their freedom.  

Amnesty International tours GTMO cell, deliberately misleads public.

The Minority Report.

June 26, 2008.

Retrieved July 25, 2008, from:

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/steven_foley/2008/06/26/amnesty_international_tours_gitmo_cell_deliberately_misleads_public

·        The image of a GTMO cell bed covered in board games is designed to convince the audience that life at GTMO is not as bad as some groups would lead you to believe. The title of the story for which the image was found in says it all.

·        Steven Foley is a writer for a semi-popular, but admittedly conservative, online blog. His writings are driven by the conservative ideology, and because of this, his image has an inherent bias toward the Republican Party.

·        The image is relevant to my research because it provides balance to my argument. This image informs my audience that I did not simply jump on the AI bandwagon, but rather looked at all sides of the argument. By acknowledging the fact that AI, and groups like it, may exaggerate the poor living conditions at GTMO, I’m taking attention away from the partisan politics that drive the debate, and bringing it the focus back toward my central argument. GTMO is still wrong regardless of its seemingly ample living conditions because it denies individuals due process of law, which goes against everything America stands for.

Re-election Campaign Ad.

Washington Post.

March 5, 2004

Retrieved July 25, 2008, from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31696-2004Mar4.html

·        The image is designed to stir up its audience’s memories of the tragic events of September 11^th, 2001. The ad reminds viewers about a terrible crisis, while also indicating that the crisis could have been worse if not for the strong leadership of George W. Bush.

·        The creator of this image has a strong bias toward George W. Bush. His job and livelihood depended on Bush getting re-elected, thus making the message behind the image very one-sided.

This image is relevant to my research because it backs my argument that 9/11 has been transformed into a political tool by the current administration. It also provides proof to my claim that false patriotism and fear have been continually used by the Bush administration as a means of pushing a desired agenda onto the American people. 

Retrieved July 25, 2008, from:

http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4241791042&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4241791049&cisb=22_T4241791048&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=17&nodeStateId=411en_US,1,82,80&docsInCategory=865&csi=8075&docNo=2

• The source of this article is a notoriously left newspaper. The author is writing in the context of the post 9/11 world. The article is meant to persuade readers into agreeing with his major point that, GTMO may serve a purpose, but its ends do not outweigh its means.
•  

1. “My experience advising former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on these issues has convinced me that there’s a way out, but it will take some painful truth-telling to get there. For even if Guantanamo Bay could be defended in legal or moral terms, it still hurts us more than it helps us in battling al-Qaeda” (Waxman, pg B04).

I think the author is trying to put forth the idea that GTMO is still in operation due to the lies and deceit put forth by the Bush Administration. I believe this idea to be true. This notion resonates with me because it affirms my beliefs. Since hearing about GTMO, I always had a problem with its existence. This article simply affirms my stand, and further bolsters my negative feelings toward GTMO and the Bush Administration. The quote does not raise or answer any questions for me, but instead reaffirms a set of beliefs about liberty and justice, and why GTMO should be closed.

I find the quote to be interesting because it reveals a great deal about the Bush Administrations mindset. I truly believe GTMO goes against all American ideologies regarding liberty and justice, and by creating and supporting its existence for 5 years, President Bush has affirmed his stance in history as the worst President this country has ever seen.

2. “Guantanamo Bay’s defenders and detractors have gotten carried away. For example, the soothing notion among some critics that everyone at the prison is an innocent bystander erroneously swept up in post-9/11 dragnets is a fantasy. But so is the Bush administration’s dogged insistence that all the detainees there are the “worst of the worst.” Some of them should never have been there (including several supposed jihadists turned over for bounty based on assertions that later proved flimsy), and such imprisonments have had tragic and dangerous consequences” (Waxman, pg B04).

I like this quote because it reminds me of the other side of the argument. I believe it to be true. The quote resonates with me because it challenges a belief that I had created in my head. With all of my anti-Bush sentiment, I forgot that GTMO does hold some pretty bad guys.  I like the quote because it reminds the audience of this fact, while keeping in mind that GTMO does also hold many innocent individuals. It raised several questions for me, most importantly, would I rather 10 innocent men be punished to ensure that one guilty man does not walk remain free, or are the lives of those 10 innocent men important enough to let the guilty man go. Furthermore, I must ask myself does the degree of guilt or possible danger affect my decisions, and if so, should it?  

The answer to the above question will not be easy to find. I believe I will spend a majority of my paper trying to determine if a line exists, and if so, where should it be drawn. I had always felt that insuring the freedom of the innocent was more important than insuring the punishment of the guilty. But when dealing with a crime as heinous as 9/11, I truly don’t know how much I still believe that.

3. “Criminal prosecutions should be carried out whenever possible, but the evidence against a particular suspect often can’t be presented in open civilian court without compromising intelligence sources and methods” (Wasxman, pg B04).

This quote reminds us of the logistics of closing GTMO. I also find this quote to hold truth. It resonates with me because it provides a very logical reason for why the closing of GTMO is so difficult. Providing possible terror suspect the same due process rights as Americans does do a great deal to jeopardize our efforts in the war on terror. This quote forces me to ask myself how willing I am to ensure liberty and justice for all. It again makes me question my pervious belief that ensuring the innocent are free will always outweigh ensuring that the guilty are punished.

Logistically, closing GTMO would pose several problems in terms of keeping Americans safe from terror. Although I don’t believe these problems are as insurmountable as the Bush Administration would have us believe, I do think that they are real, and must be handled with extreme caution.

1.  
   1. Where you, or anyone you know, directly affected by the events of September 11^th?
   2. Rate the following issues on a scale of 1 –5, with 1 being not important, and 5 being extremely important.

A.     The Economy

B.     Terrorist Attacks

C.     The War in Iraq

D.     Civil Liberties

E.      The State of the American Justice System

1.  
   1. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being very safe, and 1 being not safe at all, how confident where you in the Governments ability to protect you in the months following 9/11?
   2. On the same scale as above, how do you feel today?
   3. List in order of importance, four words or phrases that you believe accurately describe the ideals for which America was founded upon.
   4. In regard to your previous response, do you feel that any of these words or phrases took on different meanings after 9/11, and if so, which ones?
   5. On a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being not informed, and 5 being very informed, rate your knowledge of the following topics.

A.     The Iraq War

B.     Guantanamo Bay

C.     Waterboarding

D.     The Geneva Convention.

1.  
   1. Rate the following issues on a scale of 1 –5, with 1 being not important, and 5 being extremely important.

A.     Safety.

B.     Freedom.

C.     Due Process

D.     Prosperity

1.  
   1. In regard to our current situation in the Middle East, do you feel that one must choose between liberty and safety?

How does the average American feel about giving up rights for safety?

2. How do I plan on discovering it? (This is called your research methods or methodology)

I plan on conducting a face-to-face interview with a random sample of common Americans in which I will directly ask them how they feel about GTMO, and how willing they are to give up liberties for safety.

3.      Who am I going to talk to/observe/survey? (These people are called your subjects or participants)

I will pick a common place that people of all ages, races, backgrounds attend, most likely a shopping mall, and I will ask a random sample of the total population to participate in my face-to-face survey.

4.      How am I going to be able gain access to these groups or individuals?

I will approach them one at a time, and ask them if they are willing to participate in a brief survey.

5.      What are my biases about this topic?

Biases on the topic will come from several sources. A person’s age or race can significantly alter their opinion on the topic. Furthermore, anyone who is or was directly affected by 9/11 will have a certain bias when answering my questions.

6.      How can I make sure my biases are not reflected in my research methods?

I can never assure a completely non-bias survey group, but I can do my best to make sure that the sample is as evenly disbursed as possible. I will make the sample as random as possible by going to several different parts of the mall, and obtain responses from at least 50 different individuals.

7. What do I expect to discover?

I expect to discover that most Americans are a bit fed up with notion of having to choose between freedom and safety. I think those who where more directly affected by 9/11 will be less likely to share this sentiment than those who where not. I also expect the more conservative members of the population to be more likely in favor of the current situation in GTMO.

Amnesty International

http://blogs.amnesty.org/blogs/closeguantanamo/2007/09/10/1189441080000.html

Conservative Blog Therapy

http://conservativeblogtherapy.blogspot.com/search?q=guantanamo+bay