Pakistan is winning its war on terror | The Spectator

In the words of Edward Bunker in a 1972 Harpers article War Behind Walls, wrote on

What the War on Terror Owes to the War on Crime | …

All countries violate their citizens to some degree, but this is beyond violation: for example, what has happened thus far, has a tendency to, violate the Constitution of the United States, as it relates to the Eighth Amendment, but it does not violate the Constitution as it relates to the Thirteenth Amendment as it relates to slavery.
For instance, we all know from our early history of how people were treated in slavery, not only in the United States, but by countries such as, Egypt and Africa, just to name a couple.
However, it does appear from this writers perspective, that there is a conflict of interest within these two amendments; whereas, a third conflict of interest comes to light due to, signatures on the United Nation agreement, as to prisons and soldiers that are captured in war in relationship to torture.

Long before the War on Terror, there was the War on Crime

Is the 'war on terror' really a war

Long before the War on Terror, there was the War on Crime. And as much as 9/11 was a watershed event, many aspects of the nation’s response to the terrorist attacks find longstanding precedent in the American criminal justice system.

Thirteen years after the United States initiated a military response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the nation continues to prosecute what it considers an armed conflict against transnational terrorist groups. Understanding how the law of armed conflict applies to and regulates military operations executed within the scope of this armed conflict against transnational nonstate terrorist groups is as important today as it was in September 2001. This is because the core purpose of this branch of international law (what was historically known as the law of war) is to strike an effective balance between the necessity of using armed violence to subdue a threat to the nation with the humanitarian interest of mitigating the suffering inevitably associated with that use. How this core purpose of the law of armed conflict has influenced operational decisions related to all aspects of the military response to al-Qaeda and associated forces is the focus of this book. Each chapter will address a specific operational issue, including the national right of self-defense, military targeting and the use of drones, detention, interrogation, and trial by military commission of captured terrorist operatives, and the impact of battlefield perspectives on counter-terror military operations and illustrate how the law of armed conflict influences resolution of that issue. Some chapters will go further. All will reinforce the essential link between respect for the law and strategic legitimacy, perhaps the most enduring lesson from this on-going national challenge.

How the War on Terror Has Militarized the Police

It is no accident, either, that laws passed in the name of terrorism–both the AEDPA and the USA-PATRIOT Act–have been used to trample on the and prosecute ordinary American lawbreakers, including and , far more than to round up actual terrorists. If the War on Crime fed the War on Terror, the War on Terror has also expanded and relegitimized the War on Crime. All this has happened with the approval of both political parties, virtually guaranteeing that the legacy of 9/11 will be an endless war at home, as well as abroad.

War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military …

Over time and emotional distance, somethings can change. Director Steven Spielberg’s 1997 World War II opus Saving Private Ryan couldn’t have come out 50 years earlier, and not because the practical effects technology didn’t yet exist to film the grisly battle sequences. It simply would have been too much for a generation that had just lived through it. Back then, the movies of the era focused on heroism rather than the terrible sacrifices the heroes had to make.

The Dahiya Doctrine: State Terrorism and a Philosophy of War Crime

Page 233: In 1970 Warden Nelson had served on the Committee on Riots and Disturbances of the American Correction Association. The first firm decision the group came to was that convict ringleaders must be “removed and isolated from the general population before an opportunity to carry out their plans presents itself.” In other words, “troublemakers” were to be identified and punished before they committed any offenses.”

The War on Terror, Crime and the Shadow Economy in …

War movies often gauge how the culture at large views a war during a moment in time. For example, when John Wayne marched off to Vietnam in the 1968 film The Green Berets, mainstream opinion had yet to turn against the war. Critics may have hated its blatantly jingoistic tone, but ticket buyers clearly wanted to see an unconflicted account of the conflict. A decade later, Americans certainly didn’t march to the same drummer, and the first in a crop of bleak films about Vietnam — The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now — hit theaters.