American History Unit expansion & wwi learning Goal I will be able to
Misleading Headlines Can Influence Readers More Than Actual Content
Yüklə 251,73 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Examples of Misleading Headlines
- Study Shows Headlines Skew Readers’ Thoughts About Content
- What Does This Mean For Writers
Misleading Headlines Can Influence Readers More Than Actual ContentYou’ve probably run into it dozens of times: you click on an interesting article headline only to be taken to content that doesn’t exactly fulfill the headline’s promise. Sites that have been labeled as click-bait farms, such as BuzzFeed and Upworthy, are often accused of this. However, even long-standing and reputable publishers have started using misleading headlines to get traffic. Now, a new study shows that these headlines can have more of an effect on a reader’s interpretation of an article than the text in the article itself – even if the whole article is read. Examples of Misleading HeadlinesEverybody’s familiar with tabloid-style headlines that are clearly exaggerations or fabrications. Misleading headlines in supermarket tabloids and gossip magazines are to be expected. But what happens when the line between tabloid and hard news starts to blur? For example, anybody who isn’t a news junkie would likely consider a source called the Washington Times to be a reputable publication. However, take a look at this article from March of 2013 titled “Take it to the bank: Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to raise minimum wage to $22 per hour.” That headline might grab you, but a quick read of the article will reveal that Warren never truly posited the minimum wage should be raised to $22. A little research reveals that the Washington Times has long had a conservative bias. Stuff like this can be found everywhere – there’s no shortage of biased news sources for both liberals and conservatives. But what happens when one of the most well-known, supposedly unbiased news outlets is just as misleading? Check out this CNN article from earlier this year titled “Ebola in the air? A nightmare that could happen.” Again, this headline is definitely going to get some clicks (“ebola” was the top search term this year), but the experts interviewed for the story claimed that the chances of ebola mutating to spread through the air are actually very small. The headline could just as easily have been “Ebola in the air? Experts say it’s unlikely.”
|
Spanish Ambassador Enrique Dupuy de Lome
|
|
Learning Goal 3 – I will be able to:
-List and explain the steps to American victory in the Spanish American War
-Identify and explain the Teller and the Platt Amendments
-Summarize and explain the hardships American soldiers faced and how Teddy Roosevelt became a war hero
-Identify and locate on a map the territories the US acquired
|
Teller Amendment |
|
Platt Amendment |
|
Hardships |
Teddy Roosevelt |
|
|
|
The Teller Amendment
Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the Island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian civilization, culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States battle ship, with two hundred and sixty-six of its officers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, and cannot longer be endured, as has been set forth by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, upon which the action of Congress was invited: Therefore,
Resolved, First. That the people of the Island of Cuba are, of right ought to be, free and independent.
Second. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.
Third. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions into effect.
Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
The Platt Amendment
The President of the U.S. is hereby authorized to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people' so soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows:
I. That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgment in or control over any portion of said island.
III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.
IV. That all acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected.
VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.
VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States.
What’s the contradiction? ____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
Underline or highlight the contradictory statements that support the sentence(s) you wrote.
Subscribe to this RSS feed *****The first two articles argue in favor of keeping the prison open. The second two articles argue in favor of closing it.*****
Don’t Close Guantánamo
By JENNIFER DASKAL
Published: January 10, 2013
Connect With Us on TwitterFor Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
IN 2010, I was branded a member of the “Al Qaeda 7” — a notorious label attached to Department of Justice lawyers who were mocked by critics claiming they had “flocked to Guantánamo to take up the cause of the terrorists.” My crime: I advocated for the closure of the detention facility — a position that has also been taken up by the likes of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell — and for more humane living conditions for those imprisoned there.
At the time, I reacted defensively. I was indignant. I insisted on the legitimacy of my convictions. But even then the writing was on the wall. For a core group of detainees, closing Guantánamo would not mean release or prosecution, as most human rights and civil liberties groups have long advocated. Rather, it would mean relocation to the United States, or elsewhere, for continued detention.
Now, almost four years later, I have changed my mind. Despite recognizing the many policy imperatives in favor of closure, despite the bipartisan support for this position, and despite the fact that 166 men still languish there, I now believe that Guantánamo should stay open — at least for the short term.
While I have been slow to come to this realization, the signs have been evident for some time. Three years ago, Barack Obama’s administration conducted a comprehensive review of the Guantánamo detainees and concluded that about four dozen prisoners couldn’t be prosecuted, but were too dangerous to be transferred or released. They are still being held under rules of war that allow detention without charge for the duration of hostilities.
Others happened to hail from Yemen. Although many of them were cleared for transfer, the transfers were put on indefinite hold because of instability in Yemen, the fear that some might join Al Qaeda forces, and Yemen’s inability to put adequate security measures in place.
While the specific numbers have most likely shifted over time, the basic categories persist. These are men whom the current administration will not transfer, release or prosecute, so long as the legal authority to detain, pursuant to the law of war, endures.
President Obama raised the hopes of the human rights community when during his re-election campaign he once again said the detention center should be closed. But it was not clear whether he had a viable plan, and any such plan would almost certainly involve moving many of the detainees into continued detention in the United States, where their living conditions would almost certainly deteriorate.
Guantánamo in 2013 is a far cry from Guantánamo in 2002. Thanks to the spotlight placed on the facility by human rights groups, international observers and detainees’ lawyers, there has been a significant, if not uniform, improvement in conditions.
The majority of Guantánamo detainees now live in communal facilities where they can eat, pray and exercise together. If moved to the United States, these same men would most likely be held in military detention in conditions akin to supermax prisons — confined to their cells 22 hours a day and prohibited from engaging in group activities, including communal prayer. The hard-won improvements in conditions would be ratcheted back half a decade to their previous level of harshness.
And Guantánamo would no longer be that failed experiment on an island many miles away. The Obama administration would be affirmatively creating a new system of detention without charge for terrorism suspects on American soil, setting a precedent and creating a facility readily available to future presidents wanting to rid themselves of a range of potentially dangerous actors.
The political reality is that closure of Guantánamo is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and if it did, it would do more harm than good. We should instead focus on finding places to transfer those cleared to leave the facility and, more important, on defining the end to the war.
In a recent speech, Jeh Johnson, then the Department of Defense general counsel, discussed a future “tipping point” at which Al Qaeda would be so decimated that the armed conflict would be deemed over. Statements from high level officials suggest that this point may be near. And as the United States pulls out of Afghanistan, there is an increasingly strong argument that the war against Al Qaeda is coming to a close. With the end of the conflict, the legal justification for the detentions will finally disappear.
At that point, the remaining men in Guantánamo can no longer be held without charge, at least not without running afoul of basic constitutional and international law prohibitions. Only then is there a realistic hope for meaningful closure, not by recreating a prison in the United States but through the arduous process of transferring, releasing or prosecuting the detainees left there.
In the meantime, we should keep Guantánamo open.
Jennifer Daskal is a fellow and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center. She has served as counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice and as senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.
Opinion
Why Guantanamo Bay should remain open
The recent death (a suspected suicide) of a prisoner at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has helped reignite the debate over whether the facility should be closed. It’s a complex issue. However, I think Guantanamo should remain open.
As I see it, there are two major considerations that should drive the debate about Guantanamo’s future. The first is whether keeping the facility open is the best way for the U.S. government to protect the American people.
I think it is. It offers several compelling advantages over the alternatives. For one, the detainees are guarded by well-trained MPs, isolated from support and held in a place from which escape would be nearly impossible. Remember, many Guantanamo detainees are resourceful, ideologically committed enemies of the United States who have stated that they want to maim and kill Americans, so it’s important that they’re kept in a facility that’s as secure as possible.
Closing the Guantanamo facility and opening a new detention facility in the U.S. would pose profound security risks. The new facility would become a beacon for extremists and an expensive, highly complex challenge to secure. Just look at what happened when the Obama administration attempted to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City (an effort which it has since abandoned). And while many politicians love the idea of a domestic detention facility, few want one in their backyard.
Moreover, over the years the government has invested an enormous amount of money in expanding the Guantanamo facility’s support base. Inmates now have access to a well-stocked library, gym and soccer field. These outlets don’t simply provide humane incarceration conditions and encourage rehabilitation; they also directly serve our national security interests. If the detainees were transferred out of Guantanamo, the benefit of these outlets would be lost.
The second consideration that should drive the Guantanamo debate is whether keeping the facility open is the best way to ensure justice for the detainees as well as the victims of terrorism.
At the core here is a critical legal question: Are the Guantanamo detainees suspected illegal combatants subject to military authority, or are they suspected criminals and thus subject to the civilian criminal court system? I support the prior understanding. The Guantanamo detainees were captured while engaged in armed hostilities against the United States. Their objectives in fighting the United States were manifestly political — and their chosen mechanisms of action were undoubtedly military. Indeed, as criminal-approach advocates often neglect to mention, a substantial number of former Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield. Put simply, operating as part of organized groups like al Qaida, these detainees were at war. From my perspective, if the Guantanamo detainees are criminal suspects, laws of war cannot exist in a compatible reality.
Next, let’s consider Guantanamo’s procedural justice. In the past, many Guantanamo detainees haven’t been given speedy trials. However, with President Obama having finally re-authorized the military commission process, more progress toward bringing detainees to trial will be made. That progress will illustrate America’s commitment to the rule of law and undercut negative perceptions about Guantanamo. Contrary to popular opinion, anger toward Guantanamo amongst Islamic populations is not driven by an inherent discomfort with military commissions, but rather by the perception that Guantanamo is a black hole of permanent, un-reviewed detention.
Ultimately, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay provides an imperfect solution to a highly complex problem. While 82% of all Guantanamo detainees have already been released, wherever possible the U.S. government should expedite this process, repatriating those who are no longer believed to pose a substantial threat. At the same time, the accused should face military commissions. In the end, though, considering the many interests at stake and absence of good alternatives, I believe that the Guantanamo detention facility must remain open for the foreseeable future.
Tom Rogan is an American blogger and writer currently living in London, England. He recently completed a law course and holds a BA in War Studies from King’s College London and an MSc in Middle East Politics from SOAS, London. His blog can be found at TomRoganThinks.com. Follow him on Twitter.
Obama renews push to close Guantanamo Bay prison
The effort to shrink Gitmo’s ranks has gained a small amount of momentum in recent months. | AP Photo
Close
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/28/14 9:45 PM EST
President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address Tuesday to put new urgency behind his drive to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, raising the issue before a joint session of Congress for the first time in nearly five years.
“With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay – because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action, but by remaining true to our Constitutional ideals, and setting an example for the rest of the world,” Obama was to say, according to his prepared remarks.
His high-profile mention of the issue was notable not just because he did not bring up the issue during his four previous State of the Union addresses, but because any discussion of the subject is a reminder of one of the most obvious broken promises of Obama’s early presidency: his vow to close the prison within his first year in office.
“Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now,” Obama declared as he signed an executive order in the Oval Office on the subject on the first full day of his presidency. Obama never made that one-year pledge in front of Congress, but did speak in his February 2009 speech there — one not considered a State of the Union — of having ordered the closing of the prison.
The president announced the plan to close the prison in a year confidently and with little controversy, but essentially abandoned it after lawmakers put up resistance to bringing detainees to the U.S and White House aides decided to focus on other priorities like health care reform and the sluggish economy.
During his first term, Obama grudgingly signed a series of bills containing language making it virtually impossible to move detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. and making it difficult to transfer detainees to other countries without extraordinary confidence they would not later engage in terrorism. This essentially stalled the closure process.
However, late last year, Congress passed a defense bill that slightly eased the transfer restrictions. The effort to shrink Gitmo’s ranks has also gained a small amount of momentum in recent months, with eight prisoners sent home or elsewhere abroad since August.
Obama’s comments Tuesday were in line with those of some legal scholars, who’ve argued that the legal basis for holding the men at Guantanamo will erode or disappear after the U.S. is no longer involved in active combat in Afghanistan —something the president has pledged to bring to an end this year.
Courts have upheld the detentions at Guantanamo under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That resolution refers to the “nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” those strikes. The Al Qaeda organization which planned those attacks has been greatly degraded over the years by a variety of tactics, including military action in Afghanistan as well as drone strikes and financial pressure. Groups with vaguer ties to Al Qaeda now appear more dangerous than the core group, but the connection of the new groups to the 9/11 attacks is more remote or non-existent, casting doubt on the viability of the 2001 resolution to go after those organizations.
In a speech last May, Obama said he wanted to work with Congress to repeal or replace the 2001 measure.
“I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing,” the president said. “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”
Among the legal experts who’ve argued that the basis for detaining prisoners will erode over time is new Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who served during Obama’s first term as the Pentagon’s top lawyer. Johnson argued in a 2012 speech that the fight against Al Qaeda would eventually reach a tipping point after which the effort should return to a model where law enforcement has the lead and open-ended detention is wound down.
“‘War’ must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs,” Johnson declared. “In its twelfth year, we must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the ‘new normal.’ Peace must be regarded as the norm toward which the human race continually strives.”
Closing Guantanamo in the next year face significant complications. The Obama administration has decided that nearly 50 of the 155 men left at Gitmo are too dangerous to release and not suitable for trial. For some of those facing trials, military commission proceedings are currently in active and fairly intense pretrial litigation. Hearings are set next month at Guantanamo for five suspected 9/11 plotters and one man accused of bombing the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In his speech last May, Obama said he was asking the Pentagon to pick a site in the U.S. to hold military commissions. Eight months later, no such site has been announced.
Close Guantánamo. No More Excuses.
The story of Guantánamo remains that of nearly 800 men and boys thrown into an island prison designed to exist beyond the rule of law. Most were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, refugees fleeing the chaos of war in Afghanistan. The U.S. military captured only one in twenty; many were sold for significant sums of money to the U.S. by local authorities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of the 155 men who remain at Guantánamo as of January 2014, approximately half were cleared for release years ago. The vast majority will never be charged with any crime.
On his second day in office, President Obama pledged that he would close the prison within a year. He has reiterated his promise many times since then, and under current law, he has the power to make it a reality, But in 2014, Guantánamo is still inexcusably open and entering its thirteenth year. No more excuses. Guantánamo must be closed.
The men detained at Guantánamo brought the prison back into the consciousness of the world through their mass hunger-strike in 2013. They effectively helped pressure the Obama administration to begin releasing men, after nine months without a transfer. But today, the base is looking more and more like an internment camp for Yemen men. Yemenis now constitute more than half the population at Guantánamo, and most have long been cleared for release, like our clients Tariq Ba Odah, Mohammed al-Hamiri, Fahd Ghazy, and Ghaleb Al-Bihani. The collective punishment of these men based on their nationality must end.
Join CCR to demand the closure of Guantánamo and to build opposition to both this prison and to all sites of unjust U.S. detentions. Take the actions on this page, share it with your friends, and learn about our clients who remain imprisoned. Do your part to advocate to close Guantánamo from wherever you are.
Is Waterboarding Torture?
Before deciding whether to call waterboarding "torture" it's worth considering what the legal definition of "torture" is. It is not necessary to create a new legal definition since there are already numerous formally ratified definitions already in place:
-
Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture:
The term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
-
The US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture:In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
-
Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Conventionany measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
-
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
-
Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
-
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
-
18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
Dostları ilə paylaş: