A Brief Note On Public Security And Terrorism

Today, domestic terrorism is one of the major threats to the national security of the US. Since 9/11, the US intelligence services and law enforcement agencies viewed international terrorism as the major threat to the public security of the US but the threat of domestic terrorism has been underestimated. At any rate, American law enforcement agencies conduct active campaigns to prevent international terrorism but domestic terrorism become a serious threat to the national security of the US. In such a way, the US needs to develop effective strategies to prevent the rise of domestic terrorism. Otherwise, the US may face a threat of the consistent growth of domestic terrorism as do some European countries, such as the UK, for instance. Therefore, law enforcement agencies should focus their attention on the prevention of domestic terrorism because, even though domestic terrorism is unseen, it may be even more dangerous than international terrorism. Domestic terrorists undermine the country from within, while international terrorists attack the US from the outside and the US can raise barriers to protect Americans from the foreign threat, while domestic terrorism needs effective work of law enforcement agencies nationwide. Therefore, domestic terrorism is a serious threat to the national security of the US and American law enforcement agencies along legislators and the public have to unite their efforts in the struggle against domestic terrorism.

Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion, disaster has struck! The implausible has just happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government’s obligation to the people to ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of

Ever since 9/11 when both World Trade Center buildings were attacked by an Islamic Group, attacks by Islamic Terrorist on U.S. soil have been less of a threat than Domestic Terrorists. Domestic Terrorism has been shown these passed for years but yet again most of these cases have not been classified as acts of Domestic Terrorism they most likely fall into the category. Now the definition of Domestic Terrorism is basically "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator 's own country against their fellow citizens". Now personally I don 't know how our government is working with these popular cases like Charlottesville, Las Vegas, and a new that just happened recently actually two but I 'll just say one, the New York attack that

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

According to the course text, the creation of the torture warrant can only be imposed by a judge in cases where there is need for information in order to save lives and if there is probable cause that the criminal has information and is not willing to reveal the information to law enforcement (Siegel, 2015). If I was a government agent as was holding a prisoner that has been arrest for being a suspect terrorist and the bomb was about to go off in two hours, then I would definitely use torture. The reason I would use torture is because despite times calls for despite measure sometimes. In addition, it is normal for law enforcement to put pressure on suspects to get information (Siegel, 2015).Therefore, I would do what I had to do to ensure

are sworn to serve. In order to do this law enforcement need to understand the

Homeland and counter-terrorism programs outlines the policies needed to improve U.S. and global security in the 21st century. The policies analyze how the U.S. and foreign allies will work together toward goals by combating terrorism and their organizations. According to Joint Publication 3-26 (2014), joining with other key partners and allies to develop strategies and theater campaigns plans, helps protect U.S. interest in a common security agenda. This approach not only strengthens the U.S. but it also expands the international multilateral counter-terrorism agenda. For instance, U.S. policies heighten conversation on homeland security and counter-terrorism because it aims to serve globally and nationally. After the twin towns were attack, the department of Homeland Security created a policy called Homeland Security ACT 2002. This act covers multiple areas that needed improvement but it also gave an understand what is expected for security and the future of the country going forward. Science & technology, immigration, emergency response, and bioterrorism, are some of the policies that were created under the Homeland

“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. Levin cites different hypothetical situations in order to logically prove his argument. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to an understanding of the applications of his policy on torture. The examples he uses include a hypothetical terrorist attack on Manhattan and hospital robbery. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites lack strength due to their inapplicability to the current world. Equally important, in today’s terrorist centered climate, there is no room for Levin’s position on torture. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why torture is a valid form of punishment, because his assertions rely too heavily on the speculative, and are not contemporary enough for use in modern times.

As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, most Americans have a general knowledge about terrorism. The U.S. military has been at war for around a decade, continuing the concentration of the media and politicians on Middle Eastern countries and terrorist groups. Consequently, the focus of the nation tends to remain on international terrorist groups rather than domestic terrorist groups. There is a vast amount of terrorism groups in America, including the Army of God, the Aryan Nations, and the Animal Liberation Front, who possess extreme ideals and exist for different reasons. The fact that there are numerous terrorist groups that are composed of American citizens performing tremendous acts of violence within the U.S. seems to go somewhat unnoticed by the general public.

In homeland security they have many strategies to help protect the United States. Whether it is preventing a terrorist attack, or preventing a natural disaster. Homeland security has a strategy to make sure that everything works out. Now to give a brief background, President George Bush came up with the national homeland security strategy in July, 2002 after the attack of September, 11th. “The strategy set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from attacks that occur (Rabkin).” Now in November of that same year, the Homeland Security Act, was passed into a law furthermost creating the department

I think to answer the claim that torturing possible terrorists could prevent death and injury to possible victims of terror would be to first to say sorry. I think torturing possible terrorists could prevent death and injury to possible victims of terror because they would be safe but I think the family of the terrorists would now be the victims of terror because it would be “an eye for an eye”. I also think that by torturing possible terrorists that it will not make them feel any different about what they did and in the long run we can find a better way to get information out of them. I think torturing possible terrorists are doing the same thing they were doing except we are “legally” torturing them for “our” gain for information or

One of the first questions to address is whether torture is an effective means of dealing with threats such as terrorism. The effectiveness of torture argument is based on the straightforward logic that individuals, fearing for their personal welfare, will provide whatever information they can in order to avoid harm.

Torture can also help during the ticking time bomb scenario because the pain of one single person out ways the deaths of hundreds and possibly even thousands. Instead of murder, torture is often agreed upon more, which the author of the article “Torture is just a means of Preventing Terrorism” explains when they state:

Theoretically, I would agree and act on Kant’s philosophy. His principles rest on a categorical imperative and judges what fundamentally makes an act morally right or wrong by locating morality in certain duties and rights, regardless of the consequences. Although it is accurate that torturing the innocent child produces the greatest amount of happiness, you would not want others to use you as an object without regard to your will. Choosing on the child's behalf to torture him, to extract the bomb’s location from the terrorist, is inherently wrong. However, in reality, I would act so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number and most importantly less pain because hundreds of thousands will die. Consequently, I would go with the Utilitarianism approach because there are too many lives to risk for Kant's belief. As a consequentialist then, I will permit torturing the child, for the only valid option is to save as many lives as possible because the highest principle of morality is maximising the general welfare. Despite, Utilitarianism has no room for personal rights, the good of the many comes first and especially when the lives of hundreds of thousands are at risk. In this light, Bentham's argument for torturing the child for the ticking bomb to be stopped is the most sensible approach in that while torturing the child is inherently wrong, it would

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.