Counterterrorism
As the result of those massive terrorist attacks, the government made sure that they will take action and prevent further invasion of those monster terrorists. Counterterrorism, the practices and strategies of the government, military, police departments and corporations in response to threats of the terrorists. In the book that is written by John P. Crank and Patricia E. Gregor called Counter-terrorism after 911 it shows us how our government responded to the terrorist attacks and how are we going to fight it . There are lingering questions in mind of the readers on what would they do if they were the president or even officials for the federal government. There were some thoughts that I formulated upon reading the book.
If I am a senior counter-terrorism official for the federal government, I will send agents who will monitor the orderliness of the community. I will put agents in every corner of the community regardless of the situation of the area will be. Some of those agents are going to be more of like civilians that will interact with the people in the community. I will even send some of them to attend mosques so they can observe more about the Arab community just like what I am going to send to the other minorities living in the community. Of course, those agents that I will send should be with the same race with them as well or I will let American agents disguise to act the way the minority acts so that they will not know that they are being monitored. People will tend to act differently if they know that they are being My agents will be trained and will be educated about the lifestyle of the people who are living in the area.
Race will never be an issue regarding the way I run the communitys security. I will not focus in a single minority just for the reason that they belong to the race of the terrorists that attacked the US at that time. If there will be any protocols and actions to be made under my power, I will see to it that everyone in the community to which my powers are manifested will be automatically included. However, I will not going to develop informants to those who are already living in the community because I believe that a friend could be your worst enemy. This is the time when everybody can be a suspect. You dont put your hundred percent trusts to people for they can be terrorist or even just advocates. Although some people might think that by putting an unfamiliar person in the community will not gain the trust of the people but I will see to it that the informants that I will place will look trustworthy. The informants should undergo a psycho analysis as well as study the nature of the community in order for them to get easily used to in living with them. These informants should report to us once in a while and that we are never going to lose contact to the federal government.
In time of disorder and chaos, I believe that people would follow leaders who can manifest strong will and power as well to those who can lead fairly. I will also consider being ethics wise to the fact that my city has a significant Arab population. Im not going to isolate the Muslims leaving them thinking that they are all terrorists. We should see to it that we seek justice for people who are being treated badly because of their color or race.
Everybody who commits a crime should be subjected for its corresponding charges. Although we know that the attacks of 911 are made by terrorists, (but according to the documentary Fahrenhight 911 there are tcontroversies that it was just a conspiracy that President George W. Bush was also involved to what happened to us on that day) we should not just focus our attention to Arabs and other Muslims. In the The War on Terrorism Law Enforcement or National Security Terwilliger et al. classified MEANINGFUL DISTINCTIONS EXIST BETWEEN CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS IN THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION
A. Citizens at Home Enjoy the Broadest Constitutional Protections Against the Federal Government
An American citizen or national is entitled as a constituent of the American policy to the protective restrictions the Constitution imposes on the United States government. Law enforcement accordingly is held to requirements of reasonableness and probable cause in performing searches and seizures against United States nationals.(Terwilliger et al. 2005)
If there will be an American Citizen who is involved in a terroristic act in the United States, he or she should be tried accordingly by the law. Also, to those citizens who are abroad, the U.S. Government should also follow established procedural trial.
B. Non-Citizens Enjoy Lesser Protections Under the Constitution
The Supreme Court has similarly rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States. In times of war, domestic application of the Fifth Amendment to nonresident aliens is not presumed Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to war-time security. The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a declared war exists. (Terwilliger et al. 2005)
All non citizens of America who have been arrested for terroristic violence should be punished. We need to have iron hands so that they will know that we are not merciful if we found out that they do such terrorstic violence.
Citizenship Procured by Fraud is VoidAb Initioand Provides No Safe Harbor
Admission to the United States is a privilege and an alien has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.Congress and the Executive have clear legal powers to exclude terrorists, to remove them if they get inside our borders, and to revoke their citizenship if that citizenship was based on fraud.
Other aspects of this paper make clear that the Constitution confers ample powers on the President and Congress to defend the nation from international terrorists on U.S. soil. This portion addresses why aliens who obtain their immigration status by fraud should be deemed without lawful status and, therefore, not entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections accorded to United States citizens.(Terwilliger et al. 2005)
Torture to those people who were captured for terroristic violence can never be justified for as humans, they still have rights even if they are American citizens, someone who was a foreign national engage in terrorism in the United States, an American citizen fight American forces abroad, a foreign national, but not a member of a nations military, fighting American forces abroad.
Murray Rothbard, an American intellectual and Libertarian, stated that there is a just war existing when people are fighting against a coercive dominion of another group of people. It also exists when people are trying to overthrow an already existing domination. There is no however a just war when people try to rule over or dominate another people or try to retain an already existing dominion. The Just War Theory has two sets of criteria, the right to go to war (jus ad bellum), and the right conduct within war (jus in bello). There will only be a right to go to war when the following are met
Just Cause. In 1993, the US Catholic Conference stated Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.
Comparative Justice. One party must suffer more than the other. In other words, the sufferings endured by one party must outweigh that of another party. However, this principle is quite questionable as it can be used by some clever organizations to their advantage.
Legitimate authority. Those who can wage wars are only the duly constituted public authorities. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and
outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
Right intention. Only a truly just cause is acceptable ground for waging wars. Furthermore, the war must be fought only because and for that certain cause. An example of a right intention is correcting a suffered wrong. Material gain or maintaining economy is not a valid and acceptable reason for waging wars.
Probability of Success. In cases where disproportionate measures are needed to succeed, arms may not be used. This is also true for a futile cause.
Last resort. All non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Proportionality. The expected evils or harms of a war must be in proportion to the anticipated benefits. This is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality.
There are also guidelines on how to act during just wars and they are as follows
Distinction. The acts of war should be directed only towards enemy combatants. Non-combatants and innocent individuals must not be involved or harmed in any way.
Proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that there would be excessive incidental civilian injuries in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Military necessity. There should be minimum force applied in a just war. The goal of any attack or action is to help the military defeat the enemy. It must be an attack on a military objective and not an act to harm civilians or destroy civilian properties. Should there be harm or destruction against civilians, it should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Having all these stated, it can be deduced that the war on terror is a just war. It has a just cause with the right intention, given by someone in authority. Also, it is already needed to protect the citizens. It is no longer right and acceptable to allow terrorists ruin the lives and properties of innocent individuals. Even if they claim that they have a mission to fulfill or a message to deliver and that they needed to do such acts, still it is not just and totally a violation against human right. With what these terrorists did and are still capable of doing, the military is left with no choice but to wage a war against them. Remember that the military is condemning the act of terrorism and not the Arabs or any race for that matter. Fighting terrorism would only cease to be just if it violates any of the above-mentioned principles. If it was done solely for the personal gain or revenge, if it does not consider innocent lives and would just be aggressive in killing the enemies. These are the
only grounds for a war against terror to be not considered as just. Apart from these, the war against terrorism is a necessary action to protect and preserve precious lives and properties and to put an end to this worldwide violence and terror.
Anti-Americanism, since it first appeared in Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828, was defined as opposed to America, or to the true interests or government of the United States opposed to the revolution in America. In the Australasian Journal of American Studies, the history of anti-Americanism is based on what commentators and scholars have labeled it. There is no widely agreed definition of the term. According to the journal, the most detailed study of the subject is by Paul Hollanders Anti-Americanism (1995). It was stated to be a one-sided attack on anti-Americanism as an irrational position largely misguided left.(Connor, 2005)
There were a lot of propagandas about America and saying that our country was a new Imperialist. The Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne regretfully remarks in this quote about the American anti-Vietnam War movement
Critics of American foreign policy have nearly always been
labelled anti-American by their foes being cast into the
political darkness is one of the risks of dissent. But rarely
have dissenters cooperated so willingly to validate the
claims of their enemies. By embracing anti-Americanism as
a noble cause, the farther fringes of the New Left divided
and set back the anti-war movement. (Connor,2005)
The primary suspect of the 911 attacks, Bin Laden, was interviewed in 1996. He greatly acknowledged that America can be forced to surrender due to some instances and saying that Americans are cowards.
when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983. . . . You were
turned into scattered bits and pieces at that time 241 mainly Marines
and soldiers were killed. And where was this
courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden
after the attack on the USS Cole in less than twenty-four
hours
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia, where - after
vigorous propaganda about the power of the United States and
its post-Cold War leadership of the new world order - you
moved tens of thousands of international forces, including
28,000 American soldiers, into Somalia. However, when tens of
your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one pilot was
dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat, and your dead with you. (Connor,2005)
Bin Ladens ideas are also the same as the terrorist group, al-Qaeda and that is because of the religion that they belong to which is Islam. There is another quote from Bin Laden strongly talking harsh against America.
The American government is independent in name only. We
believe that it represents and is controlled by Israel. If we take
a look at the most important ministries in the current
government the Clinton administration, such as the defense
department and the state department, and the sensitive
intelligence services and others, we find that the Jews have the
final say in the American government. The Jews manipulate
America and use it to execute their designs in the world,
particularly in the Muslim world.(Connor,2005)
People who participate in inciting violence should be accountable when they glorify violent acts against America even themselves do not engage in it because they add in fueling the issue. They are accountable as for they can be blamed, yes, for the reason that as spectators they can do something against it but they decided not to. Is more of a sin of ommission as oppose to the sin of
commision. Basically, the difference between advocates and the terrorists is that the advocates are the indirect supporters, those are the people who glorify the deeds and the idea of the formulated
plans for some things. If there are no other people like those advocates that will also talk more aboutthe violence, most probably the execution will not be plotted.
Remember the medieval torture, people are being stoned to death. It was one of the most humiliating tortures ever in the history. They will tie a person to horse and it will drag him and will be taken to the village to let everyone see him. People would throw stones and other sharp objects so that the person would suffer. Some people would constantly yell to the person who was invicted ans say harsh words to him while watching the poor person beng stoned by the executioners. Other villagers, because of their rage, they would also throw stones to the person until he dies. Imagine the difference if there will be no audience to support the executions and killings, the scenario will never be the same. The person who was being execute could just die in pain with less humiliation. The executioners wrath will not be more hightened.
There are a lot of remedies that the government could do like educating people regarding violence and terrorism. The government could rely to the Commision on Education so that at the early age of people they can be aware of what is happening around them. They can put ties with different sectors of the government and to the civic society in formalizing education regarding terrorism.
We should also promote patriotism in the country in order for us to love our country as well as to be loyal to our own land. For the other minorities who resides in the US, they should also be given enough knowledge about what is happening to our country. The government should respect all the minorities and give them proper treatment so that they will not support any terrorism. It is easier to persuade advocates to stop supporting terrorism if they know that they are going to benefit in our country. Also, terrorists get financial and moral support from the advocates. For they know that those advocates have the same beliefs with them, they can encourage them to raise funds for the planning of the act of terrorism.
Let us try harder in stopping racial discrimination. Different races residing in America and they are being disappointed whenever they hear about racial discrmination. Also, racial profiling can be a reason for different complains from all of the people. The recent racial profiling that happened at the University of Chicago caught the attention of students, professors and people nationally. Racial profiling is a problem here in the U.S. That the government gives a little acknowledgment. According to the Analysis of Racial Disparties in the New Yoek City Ploice Departments Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices, In 2006, half a million of pedestrians were stopped by the NYPD for being suspected in criminal involvement. Majority of the people were nonwhites. (RAND Corporation) Most of the people who were arrested during the 911 attacks were Arabs. They were being questioned regarding the involvement in that dreadful incident.
Our government should be ruled with justly acts and not bragging about how powerful our nation is. If we will constantly think that we are better than any other nations, most probably people will think bad about us. We are bound by our own judgment however it is not a basis for being bias. to every foreigners who live in our country.
The USA Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. (Public Law Pub. L.107-56). The bill was called Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 by the Department of Justice who drafted it. President George W Bush signed this on October 26, 2001. The bill gathered a huge support from both Republican and Democratic parties in both chambers of congress, passing it eventually. However, the Act was unpopular in the majority of the citizens and the law opponents due to its controversies regarding the violations of some sectors of the United States of America Constitution.
The Patriot Act, just like what it was designed for anti-terrorism somehow minimized the attempted terrorist attacks since the 911. But fear did not subside within the people in the United States. They still felt unsecure in the land that they were living in not mainly because of the thought
of being attacked by the terrorists but to this new Act that the government had implemented. Civic groups and simple citizens protested and rallied upon learning what the Patriotic Act was. Even
New York City did not like the Act and its council approved the resolution condemning this law. In an article of Washington Post The state joined 246 municipalities and counties and three states that have passed legislation in opposition to the Patriot Act, according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, an organization that helps local governments craft anti-Patriot Act legislation. (Garcia,2004)
I personally think that this law was not giving people its freedom and giving more power to the authorities to abuse the citizens. According to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, Search and Seizure, Peoples right to be secure against unreasonable searches in their persons, houses and other belongings. It shouldnt be violated as well as no warrants should be given unless it is supported by affirmation. ( HYPERLINK httpwww.usconstitution.netxconst_Am4.htmlhttpwww.usconstitution.netxconst_Am4.html) In USA PATRIOT Act Title II - Section 213 Delayed search warrant notification, ( HYPERLINK httpwww.experiencefestival.comusa_patriot_act_title_iihttpwww.experiencefestival.comusa_patriot_act_title_ii) clearly gives us the idea that they can search or even seize things without any formal warrant if they suspect somethingsomeone that is connected to any terrorist attack or capable to launch an attack against the state. In Section 215 Access to records and other items under FISA, USA PATRIOT Act Title II, violates the 1st Amendment which is the freedom of speech. They prohibit the recipients of search orders from telling other people about it even if there is no need of hiding the information to others.
The incident about Brandon Mayfield is a serious matter regarding the violating of the 4th Amendment of the Patriotic Act. According to the blog of Ephemerallaw, Mayfield is an American citizen, a retired officer of the army and hes never been arrested but since hes a Muslim the FBI became very suspiscious of him based on a partial match fingerprint, that Mayfield may have been involved in the terrorists bombings in Madrid, Spain. They even had their telephone connection wire tapped. Even though the Spanish police did not have the same thoughts about this, the FBI arrested him and detained for 2 weeks. Mayfield was released when the Spanish National Police informed the FBI about the fingerprint which belonged to an Algerian, Ouhane Daoud.
Here is Mayfield court stated
Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the government has been prohibited from gathering evidence for use in a prosecution against an American citizen in a courtroom unless the government could prove the existence of probable cause that a crime has been committed. The hard won legislative compromise previously embodied in FISA reduced the probable cause requirement only for national security intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act effectively eliminates that compromise by allowing the Executive Branch to bypass the Fourth Amendment in gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.
Section 3144, as enacted by Congress as a part of the Bail Reform Act of 1984,22states, in full If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The courts have not imposed much of a burden on the government with respect to establishing the materiality of a prospective grand jury witnesss testimony. In Bacon, the court commented that, in the case of a grand jury proceeding, we think that a mere statement by a responsible official, such as the United States Attorney, is sufficient to satisfy criterion (1).28 In Mayfields situation, the exalted stature of fingerprint identification evidence in the American criminal justice system was sufficient to satisfy the materiality component. He did not fare any better with the impracticable component. Satisfaction of this component usually requires some indication of possible flight29 or refusal to comply with a subpoena.30As noted above, the gravity of the situation to which he appeared to be connected was adequate in Judge Jones mind to justify detention. Once again, as Judge Jones remarks reflect, the determinative evidence was the latent fingerprint match If its his fingerprint, unexplained in with detonators in Spain, it is a powerful reason for him to flee if hes facing capital punishment.
Regarding Mayfields case, there wasnt enough evidence and materials that would testify for his arrest.
Although the Patriot Act is said to protect us from terrorism, our freedom became limited because of the government. They want us to assist terror investigation for they can monitor every single thing that we are doing. They can have access to the internet, telephone networks and they even have the right to monitor the bank transactions. Just like regarding money laundering, everything is now being monitored. Even the telemarketers could attest to that. Yes, they want us to be free from terror but our privacy is at stake. They can also monitor the conversations between attorneys and can deny Americans who are being accused. I do not think that there is a freedom of representation there. Americans can also be jailed without a definite trial or without any statements from the witness. Once you have been suspected for is said to be an act of terrorism, you are already subjected to be put into jail.
The only advantage about the Patriot Act is that it provides communications between agencies so that they can work hand in hand in investigating terroristic activities. They can connect easily and it is very useful to access information. It also provides funds for the families who were vicitmized by terrorism.
There are a lot of things to say to oppose this Act for it can definitely be stated that it has somehow violated our constitution. The government can give us security that we need and we are willing to cooperate for the good of the nation but they need to respect our rights in everything that the constitution says. This Patriotic Act needs to put a whole respect for the United States Constitution.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment