Guantanamo Bay

One of the first promises President Obama laid in his presidency is to shut down the Guantanamo bay detention camp.

The Controversy of Gitmo Bay rose during Bush's Presidency, as the CIA's program of INTERROGATION enhanced, and the use of TORTURE on terrorist suspects serves as a violation of U.S. and international laws.

For example, the Bush administration proclaimed that suspects were not entitled of the protection of the Geneva Conventions, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld stating that they are entitled to some of its protection.

HUMAN RIGHTS became a major controversy in the handling of these prisoners; because they are being sent to a different country to be tortured and are being prisoned without court hearings or being charged. The U.S.'s reputation as the nation that disciplines Human Rights laws is at sake for as long as these illegal actions continue at Guantanamo Bay. 

The importance of the prison's status to MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS is that a major number of the detainees are of Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters, and plenty of other terrorist suspects are of Arab or Muslim heritages. Example: 40 percent of prisoners are from Yemen.

Furthermore, the handling of these prisoners affects the tangible relationship between the U.S. and the Middle East.

President Obama took a step in January 2009 to better the relationship with the muslim world and to better the U.S.'s reputation and ordered to ban tortures and to close Guantanamo within a year time. 

While closing the prison might raise fear of return to those who intent on carrying on terrorist attacks, Obama has said that they are trying to come up with a process that follows the law but also does not release people with TERRORIST INTENTIONS.

How safe is this move towards America's security?

Barack Obama to TALK with Taliban in Afghanistan.

Remember President Barack Obama's Inauguration speech? Specifically when he addressed the Muslim world to working towards "mutual benefits." 

How about his approach towards Afghanistan? Where the real WAR OF TERROR need to be fought?

During an interview with the New York Post, President Obama has admitted that our nation is NOT WINNING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! However, losing to terror is not an option for the U.S. Well, not to worry, our President has come up with a MAGNIFICENT plan.

Here it is... The plan that SHOULD WIN the war in Afghanistan.

... identifying MODERN elements in Taliban and moving them towards peace talks...

In other words, President Obama's approach towards winning the War in Afghanistan is, I'm guessing, joining forces with some of the people he is trying to win the WAR AGAINST.

While witnessing some positive on the U.S.'s end in the Iraq situation after collaborating with modern fundamentalists (isn't it odd how modern and fundamentalists do not seem fit in one sentence), the President is hoping a similar approach would bring some success.

"If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," Obama said. 

However, a few obvious obstacles and questions keep me in doubt of the success of this approach: 

1. Who are the controlling powers of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Modernists or extremists? Assuming they are a group based on fundamentalism and extremism, would their managerial powers who MAKE THE DECISIONS be the most controlling?

2. How is the U.S. going to easily trust those who may PORTRAY themselves as the MOST MODERN of Taliban? 

3. Is there such a thing as a MODERN EXTREMIST?

While I believe negotiations can and will possibly be held to proceed into peaceful resolutions... I highly DOUBT that these talks are going to happen with "Modern Terrorists." Instead, it is going to be held with the most powerful members of the Taliban, simple because they are the characters who will lead to any possible peace and change in Afghanistan. While diplomatic matters is a much preferred alternative for all parties involved in this situation - the Afghani Government, the Afghan people, Taliban, and the U.S. - these talks are NOT GOING TO BE DISCUSSED WITH MODERN FUNDAMENTALISTS. 

President Obama will negotiate, and he will be talking peace deals, but he sure cannot tell the world that he has accepted talking peace with terrorists. Therefore, to lessen judgments by his people, other governments, and the media, the President is going to use the approach of falsely selecting the most prominent Taliban leaders and labeling them "MODERN" to avoid a reputation of the PRESIDENT WHO SHOOK HANDS WITH A TERRORIST.

As of right now: Neighboring country Iran (who says Afghanistan's security is their security), President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Vice President Joe Biden, the Taliban, and the Afghan people are all supportive of this approach. Probably because it is the only approach in the Afghan region that is synonymous with peace.