Actas de recepción 80

Combatants  (p.  1-­‐20)  

U.S.  National  Security  and   September  11  (p.  146-­‐159)  

  Background

/Reading  

History/construction  of  the  idea   of  enemy  combatants;  war   powers  of  the  government;  use  

of  habeas  corpus;  cases  of   detention  of  enemy  combatants  

after  September  11  

Definitions  of  four  policy   positions  (unilateralism,   multilateralism,  isolationism,   hard/soft  power);  four  excerpts  

from  various  sources  to   illustrate  each  position  (a  book   excerpt,  a  letter  from  a  victim’s   parent,  a  policy  statement,  and  a  

newspaper  op-­‐ed)    

Activity   Reading  of  lists  of  compelling   arguments  for  and  against   detaining  enemy  combatants;  

reading  four  case  studies  of   enemy  combatants  

Students  are  divided  into  four   groups  and  given  one  of  the  four  

positions  and  accompanying   excerpt;  each  group  fills  out  a  

graphic  organizer  about  the   excerpt  identifying  the  author’s  

main  points,  policy  position,   criticism  of  other  positions,  and  

students’  policy  

recommendation,  which  they   then  present  to  the  class  

  Classroom  

Discussion   Questions  

For  each  of  the  four  case  studies,   should  the  person  described  be  

designated  as  an  enemy   combatant?  Should  the  U.S.  be  

allowed  to  detain  those   designated  indefinitely  without  a  

lawyer  or  trial?  

Which  of  the  four  authors’   positions  makes  the  most  sense  

to  you  and  why?  What  is  your   sense  of  each  author’s  view  of   human  nature?  How  might  these  

views  affect  foreign  policy?   Which  author’s  suggestion  do  

you  feel  is  a  realistic  foreign   policy  for  the  U.S.,  and  why?   What  seems  less  realistic  about  

other  policies?    

       In  the  two  examples,  both  open  with  class  discussion  about  U.S.  national  policy.   However,  the  Constitutional  Rights  Foundation  works  from  a  framework  of  the   Constitution,  and  thus  has  a  narrative  integration  for  students  to  approach  the  

discussion.  Again,  they  must  first,  as  Hemming  (2000)  requires,  apply  the  use  of  logic,   dialogical  reasoning,  assessment  of  criteria,  and  relationship  of  content  before  moving   into  critical  spirit  of  thought.    In  this  specific  lesson,  these  elements  are  all  possible   because  the  framework  is  provided—the  Constitutionality  of  habeas  corpus  along  with   U.S.  historical  precedent  are  given  as  criteria  for  comparative  analysis;  thus,  making   informed  decisions  about  each  case  study  is  possible  before  moving  the  discussion  into   the  forum  of  what  priority  the  Constitution  should  be  given  in  times  of  trauma—a   provocative  discussion  that  asks  for  deep  analysis  on  the  part  of  the  student.      

       The  September  11  Educational  Trust  program,  in  contrast,  has  no  such  framework  to   work  from  in  the  lesson.    The  readings  used  to  evaluate  the  four  policy  choices  are  not   only  from  different  sources,  but  are  different  genres  with  different  purposes,  as  well  as   different  interests.  Students  are  given  no  criteria  with  which  to  assess  the  policy   choices,  nor  are  they  actually  asked  to  compare  the  readings  themselves,  and  each   group  only  takes  one  reading.    Thus,  students  are  only  privy  to  their  own  group’s  

reading  and  the  other  groups’  interpretation  of  the  other  three  policy  choices.    It  is  quite   possible  that  an  open  class  discussion  of  the  four  policies  might  produce  critical  

thinking,  but  not  likely,  due  to  the  design  of  the  lesson  itself.  Thus,  the  lesson  that  is   more  sheltered—the  Constitutional  Rights  Foundation—through  a  directed  framework   also  provides  a  richer  experience  for  students.  

Student  Responsibility  in  Political  Trauma  as  Exposure    

       Beyond  the  effect  of  individual  activities,  I  looked  at  the  overall  objectives  of  the   programs.  To  see  whether  the  objective  of  the  lessons  provided  shelter  or  not,  I  

examined  each  for  an  essential  question  named  in  their  unit  and  then  derived  either  the   explicit  or  implicit  question  that  emerged.  Each  of  the  curricula  presents  a  current   problem  in  American  society  and  asks  students  to  develop  a  solution  to  that  problem   (or  more  than  one,  in  many  cases).  The  table  below  shows  the  question  of  the  problem   and  the  question  of  the  solution  for  each,  with  the  driving  activity  in  parentheses.    

Table  3.  Questions  of  Responsibility  

CHOICES:  How  can  terrorism  be  considered  a  repercussion  of  America’s  global  actions?   What  responsibilities  do  Americans  have  to  prevent  such  terrorism  in  the  future?   (Students  are  asked  to  debate  the  best  foreign  policy  for  the  U.S.)  

Clarke  Forum:  What  is  the  constitutionality  of  detaining  enemy  combatants  without   trial?  What  responsibility  do  Americans  have  to  protect  the  constitutional  rights  of  our   fellow  citizens?  (Students  are  asked  to  examine  a  case  study  of  an  enemy  combatant   and  write  about  his  rights  as  a  human  being  as  well  as  what  citizens  should  do  to   protect  him.)  

Constitutional  Rights  Foundation:  How  can  America’s  response  to  terrorism  be   interpreted  in  terms  of  constitutionality?  What  responsibility  do  Americans  have  to   protect  innocent  civilians  in  times  of  war?  (Students  are  asked  to  evaluate  various  U.S.   actions  in  terms  of  constitutionality  and  then  write  an  analysis  of  our  effectiveness  at   protecting  constitutional  rights.)  

Constitutional  Rights  Foundation  Chicago:  What  are  the  constitutional  issues  in   holding  enemy  combatants  without  trial?  At  what  point  should  Americans  care  about   personal  freedoms  more  than  our  own  safety?  (Students  are  asked  to  debate  the  use  of   the  PATRIOT  Act  and  whether  it  should  be  overturned  or  not.)  

Families  and  Work  Institute:  How  did  September  11  divide  America  as  a  society?   What  responsibility  does  it  have  for  taking  care  of  one  another?  (Students  are  asked  to   develop  connections  with  students  they  typically  do  not  associate  with  in  school.)   4Action:  How  do  Americans  differentiate  between  Muslims  and  Taliban?  What   responsibility  do  they  have  for  reaching  out  to  Muslim  peoples  to  connect  our  two   societies?  (Students  research  Afghan  culture  and  are  asked  to  write  essays  analyzing   their  findings.)  

Learn  Our  History:  How  has  the  government  kept  America  safe  since  September  11?   What  responsibility  do  Americans  have  to  support  government  policies?  (Students   watch  a  video  directing  them  to  support  government  policies  while  keeping  an  open   mind  about  Afghan  people.)  

September  11  National  Memorial  and  Museum:  Why  do  Muslim  terrorists  commit