Fight Terrorism without Infringing Human Rights Essay

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

Terrorists deny the authenticity of states, the rights of people , the unique importance of individual human beings and ultimately morality. Terrorists for one reason or another, loathe our freedom and our way of life. (Zupan, 2004)

The argument here is that terrorism has gone through three transitory phases since 1945. The first phase was dominated by nationalism, and the second emphasized ethnic

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

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.

The counterargument that civil liberties may be reduced in order to combat terrorism has a valid point. For example, in times of crisis, national security can take priority over civil liberties. This point, though valid, does not make the most compelling

Throughout history, America has been confronted by opponents who wish to challenge its sovereignty. Over time, these challenges have been coined terrorism, and those that engage in terrorism have been known as terrorists. While allowing terrorism to thrive is an option that the leader of the free world rejects, the effects of combatting terrorism can appear to be just as damaging. As times have evolved, so has this threat of terrorism; with the evolution of terror comes the evolution of methodology in combating terror. Since its development, the nation’s rivals have campaigned to disrupt the American way of life, and though written in the Constitution, it is understandable to reason that these liberties American citizens hold so dearly must be suspended in order to successfully combat the nature of today’s threat from terror. Prevention of terror is vital in today’s age. Terrorism has plagued the nation and in an effort to prevent such acts, the nation has embraced the belief of infringing upon civil liberties in an effort to safeguard its borders from terrorism in America in the name of national security.

They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common

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 argument proposed is for the protection of human rights universally, therefor not excluding terror suspects. The aim is to establish whether the current methods operating are protective of terror suspects human rights, and if not, what changes can ensure the protection. Through considering counter-terrorism legislation pre and post 9/11 and its effectiveness, alternatives will be proposed in order to protect the rights of terror suspects.

Terrorism has disreputably arisen as a 21st century problem, wreaking havoc anywhere at any given time with no easy solution to combat it. The term ‘terrorism’ is notoriously controversial as various factors can encompass such an act. Hence it has never been successfully defined by the international community. Despite this, the threat of terrorism is imminent and many nations recognise the need to prevent acts of terrorism. Australia in particular has enacted laws to combat this threat, often in great haste and number. However due to the severity of these laws, human rights have been infringed, in particular the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention and arrest and the right to privacy. Hence the question arises

Several human rights scholars consider the judgment issued by the ECtHR in Gillan and Quinton v. UK to complement article 15. We may thus assert that contracting states are not allowed to adopt counter-terrorism acts solely on the ground of religious believes, albeit the fact that it is not explicitly stated in Article 15 of the

The United Nations has condemned all forms of terrorism, but what exactly that means is still up for debate. Most states would probably be willing to extradite a “terrorist,” but not quite as willing to extradite a “freedom fighter.” The first step that is necessary to close this loophole is defining the concept of terrorism itself. The current usage of the term “terrorism” is politically contrived. The former U.S. Judge to the International Court of Justice, Richard Baxter, has shown the problem with the definition of terrorism: “[W]e have cause to regret that a legal concept of terrorism was ever inflicted upon us. The term is imprecise; it is ambiguous; and above all, it serves no operative legal purpose”

Prominent advocate for this assumption is obviously Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who urged states to “adhere to their international obligations to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms when conducting counterterrorism”. This has become a key component of UN-endorsed Global Counterterrorism strategy. Another key leader, supporter of this assumption former US President Jimmy Carter in his remarks on Human Rights Defenders conference said: "policy changes in the United States and other nations because of pre-occupation with the use of force as the sole means to combat terrorism ... led to an alarming erosion

Law enforcement in the nation should have one single goal in each city in which they serve. That duty is protect and serve the nation in order to make it safe for citizens. Each officer take an oath by swearing in before they begin this career. Some law enforcement officers are doing their job unethical by not protecting human rights or even considering them. Terrorism has been a problem in society for several decades and as time has continued to pass it has been the duty of law enforcement to protect human rights while countering terrorism. Law enforcement is to be trusted to upkeep the laws of the nation and individuals to look up to them in honor. All citizens of the nation have the right to due process, equality and to peaceful protest at all times. When citizens have a concern about their safety they shouldn’t be treated as the enemy, hence individuals are free to exercise their rights without having the fear of decimation or other abuse whereas, citizens have rights also. Within this research paper I will be discussing protecting human rights while countering terrorism by first giving history of human rights, how human rights relevant to terrorism, fighting terrorism with violating human rights, and last but not least how terrorism have an impact on terrorism.