An Age Of Mass Migration And International Terrorism

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

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.

American’s fear of terrorism is founded on the ideal that it can effect anybody at any point: no one person is safe from terrorism (Anderson). This belief is also demonstrated in the Chapman Study, where participants listed terrorism as one of the five things they most fear (Chapman). By examining expert advice from homeland security and scholars, coupled with images from similar resources, I hope to further the understanding of how America can safe guard against terrorism, while also not compromising the values of liberty and

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States (US) government has focused on terrorism as the biggest threat to stability and national security in the homeland. There have been controversial laws enacted which tested an individual’s Constitutional rights versus the security of the country as a whole, military engagements in foreign countries designed to stop terrorism overseas before reaching the homeland, and a number of law enforcement and government initiatives implemented to identify and investigate terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism or pursue material support activities in support of terrorism. Federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized recently for failing to predict when homegrown violent extremists

Throughout the world, most countries attempt to diminish terrorism through radical wars that create more trauma for civilians than terrorism.The wars that endeavor in reducing terrorism results in hazardous living condition for the disturbed inhabitants of the country. The wars against terrorism result in the reduction of civil rights for the civilians. By defining the effects of wars against terrorism, the loss of civil rights, by refuting those that claim that wars against terrorism do not result in the loss of civil rights, by presenting evidence of country’s statistics; documented research; and interviews of former citizens after a brutal war against terrorism, one will be persuaded that once countries engage in wars that fight against terrorism, there will be lack of civil rights.

When most Americans attempt to visualize a so-called “terrorist” or “extremist”, they most likely imagine a Middle-eastern man with a big grey beard, shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” After the attacks on September 11th, The United States changed dramatically and permanently. The government declared war on a new type of terror, and directly gave the public the impression that our freedoms and “way of life” were under attack and being imminently threatened. A radical threat that most citizens almost never think about, are the ones that exist within our own borders, the domestic variety. Domestic threats that have been active and relevant for a much greater span of time when compared to modern international terrorist organizations. In fact, the oldest American terror group reached its 150th anniversary just last year – The Ku Klux Klan (cite).

Through a number of laws aimed largely at deterrence after the 9/11 attacks, such as instituting severe penalties for aircraft hijacking, the US government has helped protect American citizen’s rights to life and property. For example, in 1973 legislation was introduced that made boarding-gate security measures mandatory throughout America and as a result, US hijack attempts dropped from 31 to 3 and 3500 pounds of high explosives, 2000 guns and 23,000 knives and other lethal weapons were found (Wilkinson, 2006, pp 128). Although such legislation was put in place before the War on Terror, similar legislation has been passed post-2001 and so the findings can be extrapolated to suggest that stricter security measures employed in the War on Terror have helped to protect civilians from further attack and in turn protect their basic human rights such as the right to

Over 12,000 acts of terrorism attacks occur worldwide! The concept of terrorism is not based upon casualties but the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Since Post 9-11 in the United States occurred, a controversy has commenced over the essence of security or privacy. The issue between security and privacy can be viewed as the philosophy of the “Zero-sum game, of which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.”

The 2001 terrorist attack in the United States had negative social and economic effects in the country and generally stirred the peace of the citizens. Terrorism is a major threat to any sovereign country in the world including the United States where. There are other threats that influence the comfort and the interests of the residents of the United States in varying measures (Decker, 2001). The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with the protection of the people from any activity that influences their interests and prosperity in the country and elsewhere in the world. Since the 2001 attack that caused a major drawback in the political and social welfare of the people of America, measures have been taken to provide better

This newfound paranoia within the US is best epitomised by the fact that exactly a week after “September the 11th my class was sent home from school because a child said “im going to kill you” as the school ‘ in light of recent events took the accusation very seriously’. Yet what was the most significant aspect of the 9-11 attacks for American foreign policy can be seen to be the birth of the National security state. the introduction of the “patriot act” which focus was “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (USA PATRIOT ACT) ACT OF 2001) and the creation of Homeland security has arguably added a sinister edge to US foreign policy. The US now can be described as an international “Police state” ( bamford 2009). This creation of Homeland security and the NSA can be seen directly resultant of reports that as Bamford points to information that he believes that the NSA knew prior to the attack and points out the lack of cooperation between the NSA and the FBI that, perhaps, led to the failure of our government to stop the plot” ( Christiansen

The government of the United States has no greater concern than protecting her people, both when at home and at abroad (Harvey, 2012). Thus, being prepared to combat terrorism is of critical importance, not only because of the often severe consequences of the attacks in terms of loss of life for innocent Americans and property damage, but equally because of the destruction which the attacks or threats can cause to the independence and the legal order (Franco & Sell, 2010). When a politician,

With the advent of a new age of Terrorism sweeping the world since the 9/11 attacks on America, much debate has followed as to whether the prevention of terrorist attacks should take prevalence over basic civil liberties enjoyed by any civilian of a liberal democracy. If we take the definition of civil liberties to be “Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference” , it is very hard to envisage a society in which both can exist.

The whole world watched as the Twin Towers came crashing down. Over 85% of Americans feared another terrorist attack was imminent after that devastating day in September 2001(Gallup). Terrorism is now playing more and more of a role in our everyday lives, while it's a sad reality, as a country are we winning against terrorism? The “Yes” author, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, seems to think we are. He claims that the U.S. has done a good job of keeping Americans safe and we are still a powerful prosperous country. While the “No” author, William C. Martell, Professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, says the U.S. is not carrying out the most effective methods to tackle terrorism. William C. Martel presents the

The approach taken by the United States to fight terrorism following the 9/11 attack has been criticized in many spheres. The declaration of a worldwide “war on terror” by the Bush administration has been condemned for lack of moral and ethical justification. Specifically, the country has been vilified for the lack of moral justification to lead the fight against terrorism. The adoption of an open policy by the Bush Administration where anyone suspected of having links with terror groups can be held without trial and the right to attorney and even killed if deemed necessary has received the highest criticism (Struhl, 2005). Critics argue the approach adopted by the nation to fight terrorism represent an ideology of fear and repression that

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.