Home > Articles of interest > The Costs of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy |

The Costs of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy |


The more the US distances itself from the weight of applicable international law, and more importantly, from the weight of international opinion about applicable international law, the higher the cost in terms of national security and national reputation as a supporter of human rights.

But if none of this impresses you and all you want to hear about is dollars and sense then consider this:

The annual cost of detaining an individual in Federal prison: $27,251

The annual cost of detaining an individual in Guantanamo: $800,000

via The Costs of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy | Human Rights First.

Categories: Articles of interest
  1. Peter Kavanagh
    05/31/2012 at 11:08 pm

    Hi, is there a way that these blog posts could come bundled…right now wwe see nothing and then a bunch all in one day…maybe it is my settings, but can this be changed?

  2. davidbfpo
    06/01/2012 at 12:59 am

    A good American article asking ‘How extremism is normalized; The Obama administration has converted once unthinkable government claims into permanent political fixtures’

    Link: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/30/how_extremism_is_normalized/singleton/

    This could equally go on your post from Harpers Magazine ‘Eye of the drone’ and the comments made elsewhere on the drones impact in the Yemen.

    The argument for CT policies and actions are to create or gain time by curtailing, sometimes eliminating violence and so enable political changes – when those who use violence desist. Drones in their selective assassination mode (hat tip to Fuchs on SWC for that) do gain time by decapitation, which must be looked at, no reviewed in the light of their impact and potential downsides.

    With the core AQ and strongest affiliates I see no prospect of their campaign based on hatred and more reaching a point where political changes can occur.

    What is needed is a clear, repeated explanation why a drone strike was used – akin to “These people plotted murder in a place where law enforcement was not available, nor local action and the risk was too high to let them continue”. Where a mistake is made, accept it was so and enable compensation.

    Points made in the usually conservative Daily Telegraph, by a columnist, Peter Oborne and their chief foreign correspondent – a rather unusual place for some to see such comments.

    Links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9300187/It-may-seem-painless-but-drone-war-in-Afghanistan-is-destroying-the-Wests-reputation.html and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100161679/choosing-who-lives-and-who-dies-the-methodical-assassinations-of-barack-obamas-kill-list/

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: