This further promotes the global normalisation of terrorism and the “War on terror”. Furthermore, Blair says “just a choice; defeat it or be defeated it”. These charged words and many more are the backbone to Blair’s address to the nation.
Causes of Domestic Terrorism John A Aiple Ashford University Survey of Homeland Security & Emergency Mgmt HSM 305 Blake Cheary March 30, 2013 Causes of Domestic Terrorism Throughout the history of the United States domestic terrorism has been a means for individuals or organizations to threaten or intimidate our government in order to achieve a political or social purpose. Understanding their structure and their operating procedures will give our counterterrorism system a better chance of thwarting the next tragedy. I think that it is important to first differentiate between a simple criminal act and an act of terrorism. All actions perpetrated by terrorist are criminal but not all criminal acts are considered terrorism. The criminal act stops when the person has achieved their goal whether it is money or goods.
Affirmative Case I strongly affirm the resolution that the United States ought to extend to non citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process it grants to its citizens. I offer the following definitions: Ought is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “to express duty or moral obligations.” The word “Terrorist” is defined by the United States code of the Secretary of State as “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Due process is defined by lectlaw.com and the 14th amendment of the constitution as “the idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair [...] that the government cannot take away anyone's basic rights to life, liberty, or property.” I value morality; Those punished as result of accusations of terrorist action should be ascertained as terrorist in a court of law under due process. Due process is a preemptive measure in order to prevent the incrimination of the innocent, such as the recent Sami Al-Airan incident in which he was convicted of participating in radical Jihads he had known nothing about. My value criterion is minimizing terrorist action, as it is the best tool with which to measure my value being held in the debate. There are 2 main reasons for this First, terrorism causes death and violence, which leads to dehumanization.
In any form, terrorism sends a message. Terrorists, governments, and the media see the function, roles and responsibilities of the media when covering terrorists’ events from differing and often competing perspectives. Such perspectives drive behavior during terrorist incidents, often resulting in both tactical and strategic gains to the terrorist operation and overall terrorist cause. The challenge to both the governmental and press communities is to understand the dynamics of terrorist enterprise and to develop policy options designed to serve the interests of government, the media, and the society. Terrorists must have publicity in some form if they are to gain attention, inspire fear and respect, and secure favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the "unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Terrorism, 2012). The Department of Homeland Security was created after the September 11 attacks mostly to protect the United States and U.S. Territories. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has been added to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce laws and regulations of persons entering the United States however after 9-11, two other enforcement agencies were created, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Homeland Security - Protecting our Borders U.S. Mexico border stretches approximately 1.954 miles with an estimated half a million people enter the U.S. illegally.
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
Habeas corpus is considered the “great writ of liberty” in both the English and American constitutional values. The writ allows individuals to challenge imprisonment as unlawful. There are many issues surrounding terrorism, civil liberties, and presidential power in regards to the ongoing debate about habeas corpus and the war on terror. Although civil rights should be protected and detainees should be dealt with on an individual basis by the Supreme Court, the President of the United States should have full authority to suspend the right of habeas corpus to those who are suspected of terrorism, especially during times that are declared as a “national emergency.” Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is considered the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government can either charge a person or must let him go free (Rutherford, 2013).
Title II, surveillance procedures, allows agencies to use enhanced surveillance procedures for any suspected terrorist. Title III, anti money-laundering to prevent terrorism promotes the prevention, detection, and prosecution of an persons financing terrorism ("USA patriot act," 2001). Title IV, border security, provided higher levels of power to the immigration and neutralization services (INS). Title V, removing obstacles to investigate terrorism, allows rewards to be offered for the assistance in preventing or combating terrorism ("USA patriot act," 2001). Title VI, victims and families of victims of
However, any restriction placed upon civil liberties must be proportionate to the threat. If there are disproportionate measures put in place, it may be questioned as to whether, they can be legally sanctioned. One of the most fundamental rights of major concern is that of ”freedom of speech.” This right, following the atrocity of 9/11 is perhaps used more restrictively. A person may fear that their speech may lead to investigation if it is seen to be threatening or anti-governmental in its nature, as it may be classed as being associated with the idea of a terrorist. Arguably, under the Terrorism Act it was made possible for the police to stop and search persons if there was belief that they were likely to be involved in some sort of terrorist activities.
When evaluating the President’s relationship in regards to habeas corpus, one must first consider whether or not the President even has the right to confine individuals. “Absent a military conflict, the answer is likely no, whereas when Congress specifically authorizes detention, the answer is certainly yes” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). After 9/11, Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF allowed the President 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 organization or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons” (Howe, 2014, p. 678). No matter what AUMF says however, one thing that it does not clearly state is whether or not the President is allowed to confine individuals.