History Repeating
By Anna Schwartz

Did Iran learn nothing from the war in Iraq? The International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear watchdog for the United Nations, slapped Iran with a censure for the nuclear weapons program it has concealed for the past 18 years this morning. The censure did not include any immediate action by the U.N., but did leave open the possibility for sanctions by the Security Council. After President Bush labeled it one third of the “axis of evil” in last year’s State of the Union address, one would expect that Iran would take the hint and dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Exactly the opposite occurred, however, and the Iranians have continued on the secretive path to weapons development by pursuing plutonium and uranium enrichment, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The threat of U.N. sanctions is an insufficient means to dissuade a nation that has pursued a nuclear weapons program, despite its agreement to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to dismantle its program entirely. The New York Times recommended yesterday that today’s resolution include “a trigger mechanism to force international action if Iran reverts to stonewalling or deception.” Is the idle threat of “international action” sufficient recourse, however? Iraq faced the same ultimatum last fall, but when it came down to the wire, Security Council members were unwilling to commit to the use of force. The United States withdrew its position that today’s resolution should include economic sanctions – probably to build political capital with other nations within the UN – but this was an unwise decision.

Experts claim that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within a few years, if its programs continued to develop at a rapid pace. But Iran’s only incentive to dismantle its program is the threat of United States-led invasion – and that threat has not been posed. The fact that Iran has been developing its weapons program for 18 years – since just after the 1979 Islamic Revolution – means that its commitment to the program is not likely to wane because of a slap on the wrist – a slap that comes with no force or negative reinforcement to back it up. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the I.A.E.A., called today’s actions a “very serious and ominous message” to Iran; this statement remains true only if the message that the I.A.E.A. intends to send is that the weapons program should continue.

The Iranian Foreign Minister claimed that today’s resolution demonstrated Iran’s commitment to “peaceful nuclear activities,” an exercise in diplomatic rhetoric: although Iran has agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program and give weapons inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities, it has not committed to total suspension of nuclear programs. Iran’s only practical use for nuclear weapons is as a deterrent against a United States attack, but the timeline is faulty: without actually possessing the weapons, Iran is powerless against U.S.-led invasion. The lack of support that the United States currently has for chasing down WMD – both domestically and within the international community – does not mean that an attempt to dismantle the nuclear program is unwise. As the global hegemon, the United States must sometimes pursue unpopular policy. For this reason, we should not have abandoned the idea of sanctions as a deterrent – especially if the Bush administration wishes to claim that the Iraq war was really about WMD. An I.A.E.A. censure is ultimately useless in preventing nuclear proliferation: in due course, for the interests of national security, the United States should make a more credible threat – with economic sanctions and the potential use of force. Only then will Iran learn to apply the lessons of Iraq.

Oh Yee of Little Faith
By Jermaine Smith

In the war on terror, the challenge begins on our own soil, and it begins with our policy on terrorism.

Since 9/11, the government has taken many liberties in response to “terrorist activity.” There are currently over 650 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay alone, mostly members of al-Qaida or associated groups captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some may be guilty. Some, such as Capt. James J. Yee, may be victims of a fearful society.

The American military recently released Capt. Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, after nearly three months of detainment based on suspicion of espionage. The army dropped charges against Yee for transporting classified information without the proper cover; an infraction deemed insignificant as it pertained to national security. However, the detail of many charges both preceding and succeeding Yee’s detainment is vague. This fact, coupled with military law, gave the military not only the ability to make the initial arrest, but to uncover more scandal to mar Yee’s name.

Despite the dismissal of the original charges, Capt. Yee now faces fresh charges of adultery and storing pornography on his government computer. While perhaps a question of morality, this has little to do with national security. After an arrest for suspected espionage and accusations of adultery, neither of which have led to a conviction, what will be left of Yee? This situation has tarnished his name and status in the military, all for the sake of minor violations. If the courts ultimately clear Capt. Yee of all charges, is the military not to blame for its rash judgment of one of its own? Three months of false imprisonment and irreparable damage to Yee’s character are serious crimes of which the military is certainly guilty.

No one faults the government for its concerns for national security. Most citizens feel safer at night believing that all suspicious characters are imprisoned somewhere far away, where they can hurt no one but themselves. However, there must be a more judicious use of such authority. While it may be fair to investigate a threat to national security, the military has no right to invade the privacy of any citizen, civilian or otherwise.

In this case, Capt. Yee became a scapegoat. Once it was clear he posed no threat, the military brought additional charges against him that served little purpose other than to justify his arrest as an immoral character, not as a terrorist threat. It is irrelevant whether he is guilty of these allegations or not. Ultimately, he, and every other detainee held without evidence, is guilty is in the minds of the average citizen, considering the character assassination the media attention and accusations provide.

Allies have noted our practices and policies regarding these detainees abroad as well. President Bush recently made a goodwill trip to the UK, in hopes of garnering more support. However, our major ally, Great Britain, is beginning to question the ethics, or lack thereof, associated with prisoner treatment in Guantanamo Bay. Of course, the prisoners of particular interest to them are of British citizenry; nonetheless, one of Britain’s most senior judges has personally condemned the system, calling it a "monstrous failure of justice." From an ally whose justice system ours is based upon, that is a particularly unflattering description.

The cavalier attitude America has adopted towards fighting terrorism may well win Bush votes next Election Day, but the cost is an international showcase of American xenophobia. We compromise our nation’s integrity and lose the respect of other countries when we disregard basic civil liberties: the same civil liberties so important to the founding of this nation.