An international debate

Constitutional clauses, war stories and torture tactics - opinions on all three topics flew fast and furious on Wednesday night, as a five-person panel discussed the validity of the war on terror.

Non-profit think tank The Roosevelt Institution invited five panelists, including two military veterans and three leaders of student groups at the university, to talk about the war and terrorism around the world. Before a crowd of about 60 students in the Prince George's Room in the Stamp Student Union, the debate grew heated as panelists were grilled by the moderators as well as the audience members about various aspects of the war.

The debaters included two veterans: Mike Waler, who spent six years with the U.S. Army in Jordan and Iraq, and Dan Hardisty, who spent six years in the Navy stationed in the Middle East, as well as John Allenbach, newly elected president of the College Democrats, Chris Banerjee, president of the College Republicans ,and John Brinjak of Maryland Students for Liberty.

The panel argued about various aspects of the war, such as the suspension of habeas corpus, warrentless wire tapping, the definition of torture, withdrawal from Iraq and racial profiling. The panel was meant to educate students about the war and the effects it has had on the American judicial system and citizens, said Andrew Hallowell, co-director of The Roosevelt Institution.

"In order to have a functioning democracy, you need to get competing visions and competing views," Hallowell said. "It's good for people to hear those things."

One of the most contentious issues debated by panelists and audience members was the use of waterboarding by U.S. forces when trying to obtain information from captives.

Banerjee took a hardline stance on the issue, arguing "the cost of putting a terrorist in a stress position [standing or sitting in an uncomfortable way] versus losing 3,000 or 4,000 or 100 American lives is a no-brainer." Banerjee also argued America must be willing to use unpopular methods such as waterboarding - which he does not consider torture - because of the tough nature of today's war.

Walker, however, didn't see waterboarding as a necessary tool.

"I don't think the fact that the people that we are fighting are savage means that we should be savage," Walker said, adding that the interrogators he had spoken with were not in favor of waterboarding, and that the FBI was largely against the use of the tactic.

"You can beat an answer out of someone, but that's not intelligence," Walker said.

After the panelists had worked their way through the institute's set of questions - When can we suspend habeas corpus, withdraw from Iraq or use racial profiling? - the audience lined up behind a single microphone to take on the pundits.

One student asked the panelists how America's actions in Iraq were any different from the acts of terrorists, noting the high civilian death toll.

"You guys keep talking about the war on terrorism, and for me, it's apparent that that means to fight terrorism with terrorism," she said. "I don't understand how what's happening in Guantanamo Bay, how what's happening in Iraq isn't terrorism."

The panel members all countered her claim, but did so in different ways.

"To say that the way we conduct ourselves in Iraq is terrorism, that we wantonly kill innocent women and children, torturing people in Iraq on purpose - I fundamentally disagree with that," Hardisty said.

Banerjee agreed, arguing there are "very, very few incidents" of civilians being killed by American forces. He also added that whenever these incidents have occurred, the responsible parties have been held accountable.

"Has al-Qaeda been court-martialed by the Taliban?" Banerjee asked. "There aren't Americans flying planes into Iraqi buildings."

sleimandbk@gmail.com