3. Counter-Terrorism Strategies Reveal the Limits of Human Rights as a Cosmopolitan Discourse in the Age of Global Terror. Discuss.

“Ideas about human rights have evolved over many centuries. But they achieved strong international support following the Holocaust and World War II. To protect future generations from a repeat of these horrors, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and invited states to sign and ratify it”

On September 11, 2001, a series of terrorist attacks were directed for the United States by means of four hijacked planes. Two of which hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one hit the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, and the fourth crashed in a field near Pittsburg after it was meant to hit the White House. The terror spread in the United States and brought concern and fear to the citizens. The impact of these terrorist attacks caused serious and detrimental damages within the country, and their result on the people were enormous; insecurity, helplessness, and susceptibility spread. Especially after the release of a videotape in which Osama Bin Laden, head of Al-Qaeda, admitted that he was responsible for the terrorist attacks. Hence, President George W, Bush declared the “war on terror” against all terrorists in the Arab world, specifically Afghanistan and Iraq. In the following paper, we will be discussing how the war on terror was waged, its effects on the target countries, and how it was perceived by political thinkers, where some saw it as a conspiracy theory against the Arab countries, and others believed the USA was the victim.

On the date September 11, 2001, the world stood still and watched the horror of terrorism unfold in the heart and soul of the United States of America. For the world, this was just the beginning of the terrorist attacks that will take place. In my essay I will carefully evaluate the measures taken by Governments to stop the terror attacks from happening, through my paper I will discuss the United Nations (UN) and global counter-terrorism, summarising the facts on the 9/11 attacks, furthermore the connection between Muslims, United

Human rights - they are an ongoing issue in the world today, with the constant struggle against violation. The United Nations has accepted 30 articles on human rights, which help protect millions from political, social, and legal abuses (UDHR). Even with the insistence from the world’s leaders to follow and honor these rights, violation is common and provides a serious threat to people all over the world. One example of a violation of human rights such as equality and safety in possessions is shown through the issue of Japanese American internment camps (UDHR).

The author, Mr. Paul Kennedy reports that both the actions needed to protect human beings, as well as report environmental issues, and world wide record keeping efforts have soared both in requests for services and the needed manpower to deliver these services. Continuing, the world is crying out for the kinds of services that could protect all humans. Ideally, an international police force that could serve and protect people in all corners of the world- would be a strong deterrent toward these acts of terrorism that we see each night on the world news scene (Human Rights).

The events surrounding the September 11 attacks on the United States of America have often been shrouded in a cloud of controversy and mystery, with no one individual seemingly able to apprehend the “true” details of the terror attack. Many proposed theories have been brought forth, the most widely accepted being that of co-ordinated attacks by terrorist organisation “Al-Qaeda”. “9/11”, as the event is commonly known, is simply one of many global terrorism attacks that have seemingly consumed the contemporary world. Thus, it is up to the acts and responsibilities of governments and legal organisations to undertake action in attempt to achieve justice and equality throughout the world, ensuring the safety of all people. Although, it is

The research of the literature, news items and articles that have been written in the days, weeks, months and years since the Boston bombings provide such detail to the point that the victims become a household name and we know everything about their lives, their family and where they were standing at the time the bombs were detonated. However, we know nothing about the 35 lives lost through a terrorist attack in Somalia the day before the Boston bombings, or the 22 lives lost in Pakistan on the day after the Boston bombings. I recognise that a terrorist attack in the US, has significant implications for the world from a security perspective, however it is a little difficult to understand how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems to mean different things for different people, in different countries.

Although there is not a mutual agreement on how to handle terrorism there is the shared common belief that it needs to be dealt with and at the same time the citizens need to be protected. With that being said, this chapter goes along side with chapter 10 which deals with human rights and human security.

I appreciate your forum post this week on terrorism. I agree with you on terrorist activity can be dealt with through the legislative process, but unfortunately, many terrorist attacks that are carried out result in the death of the terrorist. So, it goes back to how can we prosecute dead? I feel that they had good intentions when they generated the USA Patriot Act of 2001 by thinking of what, when, where, and how by surveilling our citizens to see if they aided in any terrorist attack but fail to realize the act was violating our constitutional rights.

September 11th was a day that was burned into the conscience of the American identity. The response of the Bush Administration was to launch a full-scale military operation against terrorist entities, in particular Al Qaeda and their foreign supporters. This series of operations, became what was to be known as the “Global War on Terror”. Subsequently, the invasion of Afghanistan and other military operations resulted in the capture of high value targets with known connections to terrorist organizations. While these events this had dramatic ramifications on geo-political landscape, American courts were also given the unenviable task of determining if those captured by the U.S government were entitled to the rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court in particular faced a particular set of problems in confronting this issue. Precedent on the matter had been established over fifty years earlier under far different circumstances that were unable to reflect today’s modern challenges. Secondly, the Court needed to determine whether they had the jurisdictional authority to accept writs of habeas corpus from detainees held in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Looking at the national security vs. human rights question from the points of view of internal and external national security, one should first examine what concrete human rights may be waived or limited for the homeland security and protection purposes. Natural human rights like the right for life are not the subject to address in this essay. The rights addressed in this essay are defined primarily in the U.S. Bill of Rights. These are civil right for privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to personal freedom, the right to a fair trial and the right of equal protection, usually in the list of the rights which under certain conditions may be waived for the efficiency of homeland security and protection.

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

to health and right to peace all go hand in hand. A country at war

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.

War Against Terror and Human Rights The Human Rights Act 1998 took full legal effect across the English and Welsh legal systems on October 2nd 1998. The Act, allows people to claim a number of the rights and freedoms that are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government had high hopes that when the act was passed it would create a 'Culture of Human Rights within the United Kingdom.'