Bush Administration Information Policy and Democratic Values

2011 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
G. David Garson
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Center ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Information Policy ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
Information Awareness ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
The Government ◽  
Surveillance Society

Bush administration information policy raises fundamental questions about the survival of democratic values in what is increasingly a surveillance society. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, Bush administration information policy abandoned the transparency in government policies of the Clinton administration and the 1990s, moving the pendulum toward a policy of secrecy in government and massive classification of documents. From perpetuating core elements of the Congressionally-banned Total Information Awareness program to warrantless electronic searching on a mass basis to undermining provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Bush administration has sought as a matter of policy to curtail the democratic freedoms it purports to protect. A comprehensive civil remedies statute needs to be enacted in order to assure that citizens have a clear legal claim in litigation against the government when they suffer various forms of injury as a result of wrongful surveillance and intrusion into their privacy.

The Afghanistan War, 2001–?

2019 ◽  
pp. 119-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Lebovic
Keyword(s):  
World Trade ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
Global War ◽  
International Security Assistance Force

With the September 11, 2001 attack by al-Qaeda terrorists on the World Trade Center, the Bush administration conceded to decisional bias. It committed to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan without duly assessing the implications of a Taliban defeat or how it might serve the administration’s “global war on terrorism.” Once engaged, the administration defined the US mission in Afghanistan broadly yet remained detached from harsh realities—including Afghan government corruption and ineptitude, finite alliance resources (in the International Security Assistance Force), and a Taliban resurgence—that hampered the achievement of these goals. The Obama administration capped US involvement in pursuing the limited goal of “reversing” the Taliban’s momentum. Although the administration increased US force levels in Afghanistan, it did so modestly and temporarily and then pursued a troop exit despite the country’s ongoing violence and instability. The administration stuck to its plan, slowing, not reversing, the withdrawal as the country’s security conditions worsened.

scholarly journals Constitutional Status of FATA: Pre & Post Merger Comparison of Legal & Administrative System

2021 ◽  
Vol VI (II) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Sadia Fayaz ◽  
Sumaira Gul ◽  
Aasia Khatoon Khattak
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
Administrative System ◽  
The Past ◽  
The People ◽  
Line Region ◽  
The Status ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
The Government ◽  
Great Step

FATA, located in northwestern Pakistan, was once a battlefield for nineteenth-century imperial domination. Soon after Pakistan's independence, various tribes admitted allegiance to the state. There was a separate political and administrative system in FATA; this system retained the traditional way of 'JIRGA' system in these areas, which were included in the 1973 constitution of Pakistan. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon, FATA became the front-line region in War on Terror, which greatly affected the area. The people of FATA faced exploitation of their rights in the past. The government of Pakistan in 2018 took a great step towards the development of FATA by its merger into KP, which was a great change in the status of the area, supported by different political parties.

Listening to the City

2014 ◽  
pp. 176-199
Author(s):  
Jon Linden
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
World Trade ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diverse Group ◽  
The World ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
The Government ◽  
The City ◽  
Center Site

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America incurred one of the most devastating acts of terrorism in its 200+ year existence. For approximately a week, the entire country was in shock. For those who lived in and around Manhattan or were otherwise there that week, the experience was unprecedented. During that week, people in Manhattan experienced a city that was numb with awe. As the cleanup of the World Trade Center site in downtown Manhattan in the financial section went forward, the planning had already begun with respect to rebuilding the site and its immediate environs. This chapter is the explanation and elucidation of not just the resulting reconstruction but also the innovative process by which a diverse group of stakeholders and the government designed the rebuilding. This chapter describes a sociological experiment. The questions asked during this experiment are very specific: 1) Can a small percentage of interested parties truly represent the opinions of the majority of between 30 million and 300 million people? and 2) Can a group of people without huge access to capital or significant political power truly influence the end results of such a tremendously large project with worldwide interest?

Patriotism and the Reconstruction of Washington, D.C., after the British Invasion of 1814

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony S. Pitch
Keyword(s):  
World Trade ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
War Of 1812 ◽  
Public Buildings ◽  
George Washington ◽  
The World ◽  
National Capital ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
The Government

Symbols are the choicest targets for those who would make war or instill terror. Destroying the symbolic center of a nation or culture destroys the spirit of its people—or so it would seem. This chapter examines the British invasion of Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812 and reveals how the attackers carefully chose to torch a set of buildings symbolically important for the upstart republic. In the wake of the attack, Washington nearly lost its raison d’être, as Philadelphia, Georgetown, Lancaster, and other cities vied for the honor of becoming the national capital. Invoking the memory of General George Washington himself, the city’s proponents finally convinced Congress to stay put. By hastily reconstructing the edifices of government, Congress effectively sealed the decision to remain and assured the recovery of Washington, D.C. The program of surgical destruction calls to mind the events of September 11, 2001, when another set of symbols—the Pentagon and the World Trade Center—was similarly targeted and, in the case of the WTC, destroyed. But rather than wreck the country’s spirit, both actions instead galvanized the nation and strengthened its commitment to unity, freedom, and democracy. Washington in 1814 was a steamy southern backwater with a population of only 8,000 residents, one-sixth of whom were slaves. The attorney general at the time, Richard Rush, described it as “a meager village, with a few bad houses and extensive swamps.” Nonetheless, it was the capital of the young republic, and capitals, however meager, have symbolic import. The British raided Washington in 1814 partly because they wanted to humiliate and demoralize the Americans, and they calculated that razing public buildings in the nascent capital would accomplish this in the most direct way. After all, Americans had done much the same in the Canadian capital of York the year before, when they torched and plundered public buildings before raiding villages on the Niagara frontier the following year. To retaliate, the British admiral George Cockburn pressed for the seizure of Washington, arguing that the fall of a capital was “always so great a blow to the government of a country.” By this time the countries had been at war for two years.

“Aerial Security Law.” Case No. 1 BvR 357/05. 115 BVerfGE 118

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 466-471
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Nina Naske ◽  
Georg Nolte
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Center ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
German Constitution ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Trade Center ◽  
The Government ◽  
Efficient Mechanisms

“Aerial Security Law.” Case No. 1 BvR 357/05. 115 BVerfGE 118. Available at <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>.Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), February 15, 2006.On February 15,2006, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held the Aerial Security Act to be unconstitutional. This act authorized the use of military force against any aircraft intended to be used for the killing of human beings, if the use of such force was the only means to avert an immediate danger. The Court based its ruling on two grounds: first, that the federal level of government had no legislative power to enact such a law, and second, that the act's authorization of military force infringed upon the guarantee of human dignity as embodied in Article 1(1) of the German Constitution, or Basic Law (Grundgesetz).On January 5, 2003, a small airplane circled over the Frankfurt banking district. For a few moments people saw themselves confronted with a terror attack, recalling 9/11 and the pictures of the burning World Trade Center. The police evacuated several buildings and two Air Force fighter jets arrived before it was established that the pilot was not a terrorist but merely a mentally confused person. A year later, in January 2004, the federal government proposed a draft federal Aerial Security Act. The government argued that the attacks of 9/11, along with the Frankfurt incident, made clear that in order to protect against such attacks, it was necessary to clarify the roles of the federal and state (Länder) governments. “This draft is meant to achieve that aim … and to establish quick and efficient mechanisms for information gathering and decision.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document