Tenet Of Redemption

The authority of the Judiciary—Article III—enables the Supreme Court to rule on all laws and treaties, enabling the branch to oversee and regulate the powers of war. “It is virtually impossible to discuss the national security enterprise without discussing the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.” During the 190 years from the signing of the constitution, to the War Powers Act of 1973, the influence of the Supreme Court greatly enhanced the precedent of executive powers.

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

As we move steadfast into the twenty-first century we are confronted with more complex and compromising issues affecting the intricately connected global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend countless hours configuring ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking within and across national borders. Instead of submitting ourselves to the tyranny of chance, which cruelly deals out futures blighted with catastrophes that can remain vivid in our memories, President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an attempt to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

"…the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of

The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The

“Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. We have taken the necessary security precautions and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect America and Americans.” President George W. Bush

An unnecessary war is a critique of the possibility of war with Iraq. Mearsheimer calls Saddam Hussein cruel yet can be easily dissuaded. The author predicted then that if the United States is to invade Iraq, it will be because Iraq fails to comply with the United Nation inspection to the administrations liking. According to the author, the real reason the United States will invade Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein because they believe that he is not dissuaded and that he may use WMDs. Advocates of the war acknowledge that the mission may take too long and become costly but a nuclear Iraq under Saddam Hussein is not acceptable. The notion that deterrence would not work and that Saddam Hussein should not

Secondly, through the research shows that United States in order to take the military sanctions to against Iraq, Washington 's own one-side to take-no-fly zones in the northern and the southern of Iraq. At the same time, the research states that after the first Gulf War, the President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton signed an agreement which is a legally effective power of attorney in order to overthrow and dismantle Saddam Hussein 's regime and preventing Saddam 's military coup. Not only does it prevent Saddam 's military coup, but also it can take effective means for the Iraqi military.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.

The Bible teaches us in Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” From Genesis 3 till present day man has sinned and we have been in search of redemption. Either by our own ways or through a higher power. As I grew up I would beat other people to church to learn and hear the Gospel. I wouldn’t pay attention in school but in church, you couldn’t distract me from the Word. I turned away from him after I left home during my trials and tribulations. So redemption is something I myself have longed for my whole life.

The use and threat of the use of force is prohibited by article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter . The only exception in which States may use force unilaterally (without authorisation of the United Nations Security Council), is when they invoke the right of self-defence . The right of self-defence can only arise in situations where the state’s security is threatened, and its vital interests are at stake . While it has been argued that the right to self-defence is inherent, the limitations of the right ‘are inherent in very concept of self-defence’.