Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index

НазваниеPolitics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index
Дата конвертации13.02.2013
Размер2.68 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   67

P72. Politics of the “War on Terrorism” Reader I.


Bruce D. Larkin [larkin@learnworld.com] University of California at Santa Cruz

TA Pascha Bueno [pascha@cats.ucsc.edu] MWF 12.30-1.40

Fall 2002 Stevenson 175

Politics 72

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’

Reader Index

The Reader items for this course are in two parts. Reader I [Public Sources] is required. The texts in Reader II [Sources Under Copyright] are optional; it is a ‘virtual’ reader, in that there are no hard copies. [Exception: Item 8.F.9c on confidential informants is optional. It is reproduced so that the complete set of related guidelines is available to you.] The items in Reader II may be read directly on the Web at the URLs given, and many of them will be referred to in lecture. This index includes a box for every item, including those which appear in Reader II, as an aid to keeping track of both required and optional material.

The course is divided into eleven weeks. For each week there may be one or more readings assigned for the week as a whole: they are indicated by numbers of the form [1.Week]. Others are associated with a specific day, and in addition are numbered from [1] to [n] for that week: for example, [1.W.1] indicating first week, Wednesday, item 1. Items in Reader II are marked [II]. These numbers and information about the source appear in the summary list, immediately following these paragraphs, and in a box before each item.

There are a few exceptions from this neat plan: some Week readings, for example, are not in Reader I, and are therefore optional, not required.

These Readers provide the main reading for this course, with the two required books. We will teach both in lecture and sections on the assumption that you have read the material assigned in Reader I before the lecture or section meets. In lecture and section we will use these works, and add to them by taking up significant issues around, or complementing, or supplementing the assigned texts, including especially material in Reader II.

Topics [By Week]

1 Preliminaries. [18-20 September] The 1993 World Trade Center attack. Attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and on the USS Cole. Clinton Administration measures. The election of 2000 and the early anti-terrorism actions of the GW Bush Administration. Was the US ‘unprepared’?

1.Week [II] Barton Gellman, “A Strategy’s Cautious Evolution: Before Sept. 11, the Bush Anti-Terror Effort Was Mostly Ambition,” Washington Post, 20 January 2002:


Document is ©. The Washington Post maintains a special Web page on 9.11 and its aftermath: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/attacked/ They have reorganized their archives on 9.11, and could do so again. But if the URL above doesn’t work, go to the general URL, labeled “America Under Attack,” and do an advanced search for author Gellman on 19 or 20 January 2002.

1.W.1 Interpol account of the 1993 World Trade Center attack.


1.F.2 Summary article on Ramzi Yusef: http://www.mahk.com/sc750.htm

1.F.3 [II] The New York Times, 9 June 2002, reviewing key issues before Congressional inquiry [also listed later in the course]:


2 Precursors. [23-27 September] The great Civil Wars and revolutions. Nationalism. Anarchism. The anti-colonial movement. The Russian and Chinese Revolutions. ‘National liberation movements.’ The Israeli-Palestinian issue. The 1990s of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Was ‘Islamic extremism’ inevitable? Were the American Revolutionaries ‘terrorists’?

2.Week Alien and Sedition Acts [1798] and related state resolutions:1

• Alien Act: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/alien.htm

• Sedition Act: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/sedact.htm

• Virginia Resolution: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm

• Kentucky Resolution [Draft, October]: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffken.htm

• Kentucky Resolutin [3 December 1798]: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm

American Revolution

2.M.1 [II] Suppressing Rebellion: http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=97&parent=17

2.M.2 Declaration of Independence: http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html

Sacco & Vanzetti. Brief summaries:

2.W.3 [II] Google Web Directory: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Crime/Trials/Sacco_and_Vanzetti/

2.W.4 [II] d’Attilio: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html

2.W.5 [II] Richard Newby: http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/newby-sacvan.html


2.F.6 [II] This is ©, no cacheing: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

2.F.7 [II] Chris Lewis, Univ of Colorado: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/mccarthy.htm

3 The Attack of 9.11. [30 September – 4 October] The GW Bush Administration response. Launching of the ‘war on terrorism’. UN Security Council endorsement. Origins of a ‘coalition’ [distinguished from the Gulf War coalition]. Could the Administration have responded differently?

3.Week [II] A timeline, with British emphasis, of events for several months after 9.11. Follow the links from this page into 2002.


3.M.1 White House FAQ re 9.11. Identifies attack as an “act of war” on 9.11.


W GW Bush:

3.W.2 11 September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html

3.W.3 15 September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915.html

3.W.4 17 September 2001. Islam is peace: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

3.W.5 20 September 2001 [Jont Session of Congress]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

3.W.6 29 September 2001: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010929.html

F Foreign responses [also see timeline, above]:

3.F.7 UNSC Res 1368 [2001.09.12]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1368e.pdf

3.F.8 UNSC Res 1373 [2001.09.28]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1373e.pdf

3.F.9 UNSC Res 1377 [2001.11.12]: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1377e.pdf

3.F.10 Tony Blair [2001.10.04] in House of Commons, and Tory response [Column 671]: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=qaeda+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011004/debtext/11004-01.htm#11004-01_spmin0

4 Vulnerability. [7-11 October] Are all polities inherently vulnerable? Are democracies especially so? And what of societies reliant on complex technological infrastructure? Can sources of attack can be foreseen? Why was 9.11 not foreseen? What are the chief vulnerabilities to which US society is exposed? What constitute ‘adequate’ measures to preclude attack? Is it always true that a few can cause great harm, if they choose to do so?

+ Enemies. If you were trying to identify and rout people with plans to commit terrorist acts against the United States or US citizens abroad, how would you do it? Is organizational membership a good criterion? Funding an organization? Speaking well of an organization? Having friend and associates in an organization? And what of whole countries: how should we understand the concept of “a country which harbors terrorists’? And do Iran, Iraq and North Korea constitute an ‘axis of evil’ which threatens the United States?

4.Week [II] A US Department of State report: Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001. [May 2002]. This is a slick, long report, an illustrated push for the Administration’s position on terrorism. [


4.M.1 Could the attacks have been foreseen? Intercepted? This is an NPR timeline [May 2002] of intelligence information which might have been interpreted to suggest an attack:


4.M.2 Condaleeza Rice says it could not have been foreseen:


4.W.3 Federal indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui:


F Focus on young men from Muslim countries: AP 21 November 2001 on Portland, Oregon refusal [© Oregon Public Broadcasting]:

4.F.4a [II] OPB 21 November 2001: http://www2.opb.org/nwnews/trans01/ppbinterviews.asp

4.F.4b [II] OPB 30 November 2001: http://www2.opb.org/nwnews/trans01/refash.asp

5 Perspectives. [14-18 October] Views and assessments.

5.Week Bruce Larkin: “Why This is Not a War, And Why It Is Important to Understand that This is Not a War”. 17 October 2001.






6 The Congress. [21-25 October] Undertaking ‘war’ silenced Democratic critics in Congress. In February 2002 the Administration proposed a budget with massively enlarged spending for the military. Does calling the response a ‘war on terrorism’ deny the elected Congress an effective voice? How, and on what issues, are the Administration and the Democrats bargaining with each other? Would it be different if Senator Jeffords had not left the Republican Party? And now, with results of the mid-term election in hand, how has the election changed this relationship?

6.Week The New York Times, 9 June 2002, reviewing key issues before Congressional inquiry.


6.M.1 [II] Helen Dewar, Washington Post, 5 May 2002. “For Daschle, a Grueling First Year: GOP Attacks, Dissent in Democratic Caucus Test Senate Leader”:


W Arms Control Today, October 2001. Wade Boese, “Democrats Withdraw Missile Defense Restrictions”, Carl Levin on defense priorities, and a critique of Levin:

6.W.2 http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_10/misdefoct01.asp

6.W.3 Carl Levin: http://levin.senate.gov/releases/200201col2.htm

6.W.4 Center for Security Policy. “The ‘Next War’: Will Carl Levin be Allowed to Leave America Vulnerable to Missile Attack?”: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?topic=defbudget§ion=papers&code=02-D_24

F Bipartisanship:

6.F.5 [II] Thomas E. Mann, Brookings, C hristian Science Monitor, 29 November 2001, “For a Bipartisan War President”: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/mann/20011129.htm

6.F.6 [II] Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 4 March 2002. “George W. Bush’s Partisan Strategy of Non-Partisanship”: http://www.dscc.org/2002/New_Folder/DSCC%2003-04-02.htm

6.F.7 Martin Frost [Chairman, House Democratic Caucus], critique of alleged Republican use of the ‘war’ as a campaign theme: http://dcaucusweb.house.gov/home/documentViewer.asp?ID=185

7 Civil Liberties I. The Prisoners and the Courts. [28 October – 1 November] What is the Constitutional basis for military tribunals? Are the Administration’s actions consistent with US obligations under the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III) of 1949? Are captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters ‘prisoners of war’ or ‘unlawful combattants’ or ‘detainees’? Why were some of those captured moved to Guantanamo Bay? What of the prosecution of John Walker Lindt?

7.Week.a Human Rights Watch, “Background Paper on Geneva Convention and Persons Held by US Forces, 29 January 2002: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

7.Week.b Geneva Convention (III) 1949. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument

M Links from the University of Chicago Law School site:2

7.M.1 The site: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/index.html

7.M.1a GW Bush 13 November 2001 order on military tribunals: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/exec_order.html

7.M.1b Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on the proposed tribunals, 6 December 2001: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/doj_hearinghtml.htm

A 1996 symposium on military tribunals:

7.M.1c [II] (I) Spencer J. Crona and Neal A. Richardson: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/crona_rich.html

7.M.1d [II] (II) Daniel M. Filler: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/filler.html

7.M.1e [II] (III) Robinson O. Everett: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/everett.html

7.W.2 The 21 March 2002 revised rules for military tribunals:


F Other comments:

7.F.3 Cato Institute on 21 March 2002 rules: http://www.cato.org/new/03-02/03-21-02r.html

7.F.4 [II] BBC on 21 March 2002 rules: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1886000/1886446.stm

7.F.5 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 2002 briefing on the 21


8 Civil Liberties II. Domestic Surveillance and Control. [4-8 November] The USA PATRIOT Act. Definition of ‘terrorism’. Expanded authority for electronic wiretap. Denial of confidentiality of lawyer-client conversations. Detention without indictment or trial. Refusal to release names of those in detention. Focused interrogations. Profiling. Focus on specific groups: Muslims, foreigners, persons of Middle Easterrn descent, students. Visa controls. Controls on airline passengers. Use of technology (computers, databases, networking) to consolidate and use information about individuals. Proposed national identity card.

8.Week The USA PATRIOT Act. HR3162. [From the Electronic Frontier Foundation web site]. As passed by the House, 25 October 2001:


M Critiques and analyses:

8.M.1 [II] Association of Research Libraries. Resources on the USA PATRIOT Act: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/ATL.html

8.M.2 ACLU statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Department of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism.” 28 November 2001:


8.M.3 Draft analysis of HR3162. Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP: http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/matrix.pdf

8.M.4 [II] Analysis of USA PATRIOT ACT. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP: http://www.sidley.com/cyberlaw/features/patriot.asp

W Detentions:

8.W.5 [II] Amnesty International. Report on US detainees [14 March 2002]: http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510442002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

8.W.6 [II] CNN 3 April 2002. US DoJ IG to study dentions: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/03/inv.detainees.treatment/?related

F Listening to lawyer-client conversations [see ACLU statement, above]. Surveillance of religious and political groups. Visitor surveillance.

8.F.7 6 June 2002. Ashcroft announces “National Security Entry-Exit Registration System”:


8.F.8 30 May 2002. Ashcroft announces “Guidelines” for FBI anticipatory investigations.:


30 May 2002: Guidelines [texts]:

8.F.9a [a] “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations”. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/generalcrimes2.pdf

8.F.9b [b] “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations”. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/fbiundercover.pdf

8.F.9c [c] “The Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants”. 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/dojguidelines.pdf

8.F.9d [d] “Procedures for Lawful, Warrantless Monitoring of Verbal Communications.” 30 May 2002: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/lawful.pdf

9 Weapons of Mass Destruction. [13-15 November] The attack of 9.11 did not employ a ‘weapon of mass destruction’. Could attackers have used chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons? Could they have launched missiles, armed with such weapons, against the United States? Does 9.11 confirm the need for National Missile Defense, as the Bush Administration insists, or does it show that realistic threats actually lie elsewhere? And what is the significance of the anthrax attacks?

+ Military and the Policy of Preventive Intervention. The new model of warfare: technology, special ops, reliance on local forces. Bases. Paul Wolfowitz on preventive intervention. Policy of self-reliance. US nuclear policy: forces not to be constrained by treaties.

• Bill Keller, “Nuclear Nightmares,” The New York Times Magazine, 26 May 2002, pp. 22-29, 51ff.

[© material. Probably not on line. I’ll pass around a copy.]

M ‘Hawk’ position on 9.11 and NMD:

9.M.1 [II] Frank Gaffney, Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/gaffney.htm

W Rumsfeld statements that terrorists obtaining WMD is ‘inevitable’, and equivalents. [To be supplied]

F Should the United States [invade] [have invaded] Iraq to oust Sadaam Hussein? [See GW Bush’s 29 January 2002 State of the Union Message.]

10 The Israel-Palestine Imbroglio. [18-22 November] Can the United States win coalition assistance from states with largely Muslim populations if it does not commit meaningfully to a Palestinian state? A Palestinian state [a] in the next few months, and [b] unqualifiedly coextensive with the West Bank and Gaza? Can one draw a meaningful distinction between “resistance to occupation” and “terrorism”? Is Israeli approval a necessary precondition to any outcome? Is the status of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict significant for recruitment to the most violent of the Islamist organizations, such as Al Qaeda? or would they find recruits regardless how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved? Is there a relationship between US policies concerning Israel and US domestic electoral calculations?

10.Week Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

10.Week.a 17 October 2000. . “Report on Israel’s Violations of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occujpied Since 1967, Submitted by Mr. Giorgio Giacomelli, Special Rapporteur.”


10.Week.b 6 March 2002. ““Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories, Including Palestine”, report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. John Dugard.


M Fragments:

10.M.1 7 February 2002 Bush-Sharon press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020207-15.html

10.M.2 8 June 2002 Bush-Mubarak press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020608-4.html

10.M.3 [II] 13 May 2002. The New York Times. Likud policy: [© material. No URL.]

W The New York Review of Books, interviews and replies:

10.W.4a [II] 13 June 2002. Benny Morris, “Camp David and After: An Exchange. (1) An Interview with Ehud Brak”: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501

10.W.4b [II] 13 June 2002.Robert Malley, Hussein Agha, “ … (2) A Reply to Ehud Barak”: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502

10.W.4c [II] 27 June 2002. Benny Morris, Ehud Barak. “Camp David and After: …” Continued: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15540


11 Foreign Relations. [25-27 November] Allies: Britain, Canada, Australia. Bases. Pakistan. Politics of deference to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, Russia, Israel. Hubert Vedrine criticism of the US as ‘unilateralist’. Effects on the United Nations. Foreign views of the GW Bush Administration policies resisting and rejecting muiltilateral constraints: Kyoto Protocol, ABM Treaty, CTBT, START process, &c. Will the US response to 9.11 lead to a loose global coalition against US unilateralism?

11.Week [II] A Reuters review of steps in the first week after 9.11 to build a global coalition against terrorism:

The Hindustan Times, 18 September 2001: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/180901/detAME71.asp

M European criticism of GW Bush’s policies:

11.M.1 [II] Arms Control Today, March 2002. Alex Wagner, “Bush Labels North Korea, Iran, Iraq an ‘Axis of Evil’”: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_03/axismarch02.asp

11.M.2 [II] CNN, 7 February 2002, reporting French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine’s remarks: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/07/france.bush/

11.W.3 G.W. Bush, speech to the UN General Assembly, 10 November 2002:


F Implications:

11.F.4 [II] Kathleen Collins, ‘The End Game in Central Asia”, from The Wall Street Journal, 18 October 2001. She is assistant professor of government and Central Asian studies at the University of Notre Dame: http://www.nd.edu/~prinfo/news/2001/10-18z.html

11.F.5 [II] Charles L. Glaser, “Terrorism Weakens the Case for Missile Defense.” Harris School Research Report, Winter 2002. Charles L. Glaser is a Professor and Deputy Dean at the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago. He is the author, with Steve Fetter, of "National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy," International Security (Summer 2001): http://www.harrisschool.uchicago.edu/publications/qrr/02wint_editorials.html

1 Preliminaries. [18-20 September] The 1993 World Trade Center attack. Attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and on the USS Cole. Clinton Administration measures. The election of 2000 and the early anti-terrorism actions of the GW Bush Administration. Was the US ‘unprepared’?

1.Week Barton Gellman, “A Strategy’s Cautious Evolution: Before Sept. 11, the Bush Anti-Terror Effort Was Mostly Ambition,” Washington Post, 20 January 2002.

Reader II. Unfortunately, the URL of this excellent article changes in the Washington Post archive, so that it is available on line only for a fee. In Reader II.

1.W.1 Interpol account of the 1993 World Trade Center attack.


12 May 2002 International Criminal Police Review - No 469-471 (1998)

The Bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City

by Dave Williams

How the World Trade Center bombers were identified by a combination of patience, skill, determination and co-operation.

On 26th February 1993, at approximately 12.18 p.m., an improvised explosive device exploded on the second level of the World Trade Center parking basement.

The resulting blast produced a crater, approximately 150 feet in diameter and five floors deep, in the parking basement. The structure consisted mainly of steel-reinforced concrete, twelve to fourteen inches thick. The epicenter of the blast was approximately eight feet from the south wall of Trade Tower Number One, near the support column K31/8. The device had been placed in the rear cargo portion of a one-ton Ford F350 Econoline van, owned by the Ryder Rental Agency, Jersey City, New Jersey. Approximately 6,800 tons of material were displaced by the blast.

The main explosive charge consisted primarily of approximately 1,200 to 1,500 pounds of a home-made fertilizer-based explosive, urea nitrate. The fusing system consisted of two 20-minute lengths of a non-electric burning type fuse such as green hobby fuse. The hobby fuse terminated in the lead azide, as the initiator.

Also incorporated in the device and placed under the main explosive charge were three large metal cylinders (tare weight 126 pounds) of compressed hydrogen gas.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   67

Добавить в свой блог или на сайт


Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconTerrorism and Political Violence in Post-War Europe, 1945-2000

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconTerrorism 0: Understanding Perceptions of Technology, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Spain

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconPsychology of peace and mass violence war, ethnopolitical conflict, and terrorism: informational resources

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconReader in Development Politics

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconThe Irish Revolution: from war of independence to civil war donal ó drisceoil

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconViewpoint: Yes, although airpower did not win the war, its broad effectiveness made it a decisive factor in the outcome of World War II

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconThe Counterfactual War (The Multiverse War – Book Two)

Politics of the ‘War on Terrorism’ Reader Index iconA proposal for a Dissertation on the Subject of Religion’s Effects on Bellicosity in the Post-Cold War Period: Nine Theses on Religion and War

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница