Detaining Suspected Terrorists

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

It is against human rights to detain and place possible terror suspects in detention centers without a trail. In America, everyone has a right to a fair trial even if a suspect could potentially pose a threat to our country. It is in violation to the Fifth Amendment and the essence of American due process and the rule of law. It is also going against what our Founding Fathers originally acclaimed our rights were. I find it unethical and is unconstitutional to have terror suspects detained without a trail.

Figuring out who is or not a terrorist after 9/11 the government agencies cannot agree on the identification of terrorist suspects. Violating the civil liberties to combat terrorism is weakening the law and potentially the failure to the country. The investigation of terrorism the governmental agencies can form a case against that appears to a serious crime. The different type agencies have to label a terrorist and who is not a terrorist. The federal prosecutors are having problems a third of the in federal courts on terrorism offense are not identified as a suspect to terrorism. The government is not sure who should label as a target terroristic activity. The United States are having problems in bringing charges to the suspects in terrorism matters. The government has a difference in opinion how to deal with terrorism that will affect all American. The improper investigations that lead to countless of government fund lost that terrorist are incorrectly being prosecuted in the courts. The investigator are going around in circles targeting the wrong suspect and fail to get apprehend the real terrorist. It’s very to track down terrorist under the limited criteria that the government have t their disposal. In recent year there has been focus on the political debate between the White House and Congress in the civil liberties and suspect terrorist that is on the watch list

Individuals who use terror techniques as a way to intimidate U.S. citizens about the justice of war may be terrorist themselves. Many terrorist weather apart of a larger organization or acting as a lonewolf are intent on attacking liberalism because they view it as a rival doctrine. I wonder then should leveralism be constrained in responding to such attacks as September 11, 2001. In the aftermath of the worst attack on U.S soil since Pearl Harbor, many Americans of my generation have held the view that this attack has changed our world forever. I believe that this is certainly true for local and state police agencies and their chiefs. It has become increasingly clear that several federal agencies, such as the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI,

Prior to 9/11there had been various terrorist attacks on Americans around the world and on American soil. However the events of September 11 intensely changed the United States Government’s approach towards terrorism. After September 11, the Bush Administration changed the previous American approach, which had primarily employed the combined tools of diplomatic cooperation, economic sanctions, and internationally coordinated law enforcement measures (Lee 2007: 137). Instead, the President declared in the aftermath of September 11 that the United States was engaged in a war on terrorism. In this war all terrorists who plotted against the United States and those who supported them were subject to American justice. This new

Our nation’s actions toward seeking justice and preventing any attacks of this scale from happening again came with quick notion, “Less than a week later (following the 9/11 attacks), Congress authorized the President to use military force ‘against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,” (Yin). In essence, Congress gave the president the ability to use the military to seek out and detain terrorists responsible for 9/11, showing our country’s dedication to ending these attacks and those who initiated them for good. Overall, this tragic event revealed the need for stricter defense regulations against non-state actors (terrorists). For this reason, 9/11 was the catalyst for the beginning of the War on Terror and, consequently, the opening of Guantanamo Bay.

Often in American history terrorism has gotten the best of us. Terrorism has torn our people apart and caused us to be afraid of going about our lives, therefore succeeding in its purpose. One of those attacks being the event that occurred September 11, 2001 when “terrorists

Throughout historical evidence government shouldn't be limited to combat terrorism. For instance, according to amendment 14 no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process, (Amendments, 1998. Pg.40). When terrorists attack, they are looking to take away our freedom, and doing that would break amendment 14. Therefore it is necessary

Terrorism is something that has shaken America for hundreds of years. One of the most crucial terrorist attacks was the “9/11” attack. After this attack, it made our nation’s leaders realize the danger of terrorism. After all the strikes on the U.S following the September 11 attack, the three branches of government has decided to place, enforce and interpret these terrorist laws to help protect our grounds and civilians; from President Obama and Bush’s proposals of the laws to the Supreme Court’s passing of these laws to the explanations of these new rules.

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

The USA Patriot Act also known as "Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” is an official record that was ratified by congress and signed into law by former President George Bush. This law was passed to prevent another event of terrorist attacks such as the ones that took place on September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington, D.C. In less than two months of the 9/11 attacks, this act was released to inform citizens of the United States that their freedom from interference would soon come to an end. Ever since the Patriot Act was put into effect it has violated the American’s civil rights by allowing for invasions of privacy, permitting illegal searches and seizures, and legalizing racial profiling.

In chapter seventeen, terrorism, multinational criminal justice, and global issues I found many aspects of the chapter to catch my interest. I even managed to find something that came as a surprise to me within this chapter. And I was able to find a case of terrorism that greatly relates to the chapter.

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

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.