Post a summary of your group's water scarcity solution. Be as detailed as possible, and include information about potential challenges and how you will solve them. Make sure the names of all group members are in the post.
You must also respond to two other groups' solutions with critique. Write their group members' names at the top, write your critique or challenge you foresee, and write your names at the bottom.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
New York Times Editorial on Torture
All Model UN 1 students who were part of our debate on torture should read this New York Times editorial.
The Torture Apologists
The killing of Osama bin Laden provoked a host of reactions from Americans: celebration, triumph, relief, closure and renewed grief. One reaction, however, was both cynical and disturbing: crowing by the apologists and practitioners of torture that Bin Laden’s death vindicated their immoral and illegal behavior after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Jose Rodriguez Jr. was the leader of counterterrorism for the C.I.A. from 2002-2005 when Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda leaders were captured. He told Time magazine that the recent events show that President Obama should not have banned so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. (Mr. Rodriguez, you may remember, ordered the destruction of interrogation videos.)
John Yoo, the former Bush Justice Department lawyer who twisted the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions into an unrecognizable mess to excuse torture, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the killing of Bin Laden proved that waterboarding and other abuses were proper. Donald Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, said at first that no coerced evidence played a role in tracking down Bin Laden, but by Tuesday he was reciting the talking points about the virtues of prisoner abuse.
There is no final answer to whether any of the prisoners tortured in President George W. Bush’s illegal camps gave up information that eventually proved useful in finding Bin Laden. A detailed account in The Times on Wednesday by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in the years and years of painstaking intelligence and detective work that led a Navy Seals team to Bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.
That squares with the frequent testimony over the past decade from many other interrogators and officials. They have said repeatedly, and said again this week, that the best information came from prisoners who were not tortured. The Times article said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, fed false information to his captors during torture.
Even if it were true that some tidbit was blurted out by a prisoner while being tormented by C.I.A. interrogators, that does not remotely justify Mr. Bush’s decision to violate the law and any acceptable moral standard.
This was not the “ticking time bomb” scenario that Bush-era officials often invoked to rationalize abusive interrogations. If, as Representative Peter King, the Long Island Republican, said, information from abused prisoners “directly led” to the redoubt, why didn’t the Bush administration follow that trail years ago?
There are many arguments against torture. It is immoral and illegal and counterproductive. The Bush administration’s abuses — and ends justify the means arguments — did huge damage to this country’s standing and gave its enemies succor and comfort. If that isn’t enough, there is also the pragmatic argument that most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means.
The Torture Apologists
The killing of Osama bin Laden provoked a host of reactions from Americans: celebration, triumph, relief, closure and renewed grief. One reaction, however, was both cynical and disturbing: crowing by the apologists and practitioners of torture that Bin Laden’s death vindicated their immoral and illegal behavior after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Jose Rodriguez Jr. was the leader of counterterrorism for the C.I.A. from 2002-2005 when Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda leaders were captured. He told Time magazine that the recent events show that President Obama should not have banned so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. (Mr. Rodriguez, you may remember, ordered the destruction of interrogation videos.)
John Yoo, the former Bush Justice Department lawyer who twisted the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions into an unrecognizable mess to excuse torture, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the killing of Bin Laden proved that waterboarding and other abuses were proper. Donald Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, said at first that no coerced evidence played a role in tracking down Bin Laden, but by Tuesday he was reciting the talking points about the virtues of prisoner abuse.
There is no final answer to whether any of the prisoners tortured in President George W. Bush’s illegal camps gave up information that eventually proved useful in finding Bin Laden. A detailed account in The Times on Wednesday by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in the years and years of painstaking intelligence and detective work that led a Navy Seals team to Bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.
That squares with the frequent testimony over the past decade from many other interrogators and officials. They have said repeatedly, and said again this week, that the best information came from prisoners who were not tortured. The Times article said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, fed false information to his captors during torture.
Even if it were true that some tidbit was blurted out by a prisoner while being tormented by C.I.A. interrogators, that does not remotely justify Mr. Bush’s decision to violate the law and any acceptable moral standard.
This was not the “ticking time bomb” scenario that Bush-era officials often invoked to rationalize abusive interrogations. If, as Representative Peter King, the Long Island Republican, said, information from abused prisoners “directly led” to the redoubt, why didn’t the Bush administration follow that trail years ago?
There are many arguments against torture. It is immoral and illegal and counterproductive. The Bush administration’s abuses — and ends justify the means arguments — did huge damage to this country’s standing and gave its enemies succor and comfort. If that isn’t enough, there is also the pragmatic argument that most experienced interrogators think that the same information, or better, can be obtained through legal and humane means.
MUN 4: Final Exam Reflection
Read the Asia Society Graduate Portfolio System rubrics for English Language Arts and Social Studies. In regard to your work in Model UN over the past 3-4 years, highlight where you would rate yourself for each criterion. Your ratings can be based on work in class, at simulations, mentoring younger MUN students, or any other contributions you have made to the Model UN program at IHSS.
After rating yourself on those two rubrics, you will choose an overall rating for yourself: Emerging, Developing, Proficient, or Advanced. You will argue your rating in a two page essay, using specific examples to prove your rating. To refresh your memory, some of your projects this year were:
-Haiti emergency relief simulation
-Nuclear energy simulation
-North Korea/South Korea conflict resolution (semester 1 final)
-MUNSA
-Global Classrooms
-HAMUN
-Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter tribunal
-Terry Jones Mock Trial
-Teacher Assistant for an MUN class (if applicable)
-THE BLOG!!!!!
Those are just a few examples, and you can also use examples from previous years of Model UN.
In your concluding paragraph, use the language from the Global Leadership Performance Outcomes to summarize how Model UN has helped you develop into an informed global leader.
Torture and Interrogation
Read this article about how torture may have been used in some interrogations that led us to find Osama bin Laden. Think back on our discussion from last class, and write about whether you support these kinds of interrogation methods based on what you read. Be sure to justify your answer with examples.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Obituaries: Osama bin Laden
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2008/09/osama-bin-laden.htmlRead the obituaries for Osama bin Laden from Al Jazeera English and the New York Times (read the first page and skim the rest of the New York Times’ obit for the sake of time if you have to). Respond to all the following questions.
1. How does the focus of Al Jazeera’s obituary differ from the focus of the New York Times’ obituary? In other words, what topic does each obituary spend the most time talking about?
2. Do you feel that either of the obituaries are biased? If so, do they take a positive or negative bias toward Osama bin Laden?
3. The New York Times’ obituary argues that bin Laden “railed against globalization, even as his agents in Europe and North America took advantage of a globalized world to carry out their attacks, insinuating themselves into the very Western culture he despised.” Does al Qaeda’s use of the Western world’s technology and other systems undermine Al Qaeda’s mission? Explain.
4. Which obituary is more flattering? Use at least two specific examples to support your answer.
5. From what you see in these two examples, is there a formula to obituary writing? What is the basic structure?
Osama bin Laden Questions
For your post, write the question you will research about Osama bin Laden. Write your predicted answer below. Then post a link to one site that gives you additional information to help answer your question, and explain what it tells you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)