This essay will explore assumption that we can fight terrorism without infringing upon human rights.
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 …show more content…
So, although terrorism involves spreading fear and terror, prosecution of terrorists should stay within accepted standards regarding human rights. In this regard, Norway certainly set the standard in dealing with “lone wolf case” of Anders Behring Breivik.
To further test this assumption we need to look into CT efficiency in several cases where we had human rights violations. First one is obviously Guantanamo Bay case. This prison has become destination for captured Talibans from Afghanistan but also for all alleged and proved terrorist from around the world. It is in some way legal “black hole” which can even nod on human rights violations. Although US declared War on Terror, detainees in Guantanamo were not entitled to POW status arguing that Al-Qaida is not a country, hence these fighter were not protected by Geneva Conventions. Human treatment at Guantanamo was very harsh: torture and degrading treatment or punishments. After number of years of discussion and number of cases that proved ill-treatment, President Obama signed order for closure of detention facility on January 22, 2009 and also banned the harshest interrogation techniques used. This brought lots of negative publicity for counterterrorism.
Second case to consider is issue of human rights in drone attacks in Pakistan and Jemen. Amnesty International raised the question of legality of these attacks “that resulted in unlawful killings
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Imagine for a moment what it would be like if the entire population of Sonoma County, California was killed, and twenty years later not many people knew a great deal about it. When over 500,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a great tragedy. However, no one rushed to the country’s aid. Now it is vital that the horrors of the instance that violated the human rights of so many, is not forgotten. Human rights are the universal actions and objects that all people are entitled to because they are human. Human rights have been violated in numerous ways over time, typically as a result of a person in power having their own best interests in mind rather than the peoples´. Various groups, such as Amnesty
Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a
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.
This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.
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
Perhaps one of the most notable examples of violated civil liberties in the fight to thwart terrorism has been prolonged detention of suspects by the United States government without a charged crime or access to legal counsel. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, there have been numerous cases of where individuals have been arrested and detained by the government without even charging them for a crime. Such actions are in clear violation of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees “the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you” (US. Const. amend. VI). The matter was brought into the national spotlight with the arrests of Jose Padilla, who was arrested for allegedly conspiring with Al Qaeda to set off a bomb in the United States. After Padilla was arrested, for 16 months he was not “charged with a crime, nor given access to his lawyers” (Jost 1). Padilla was able
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
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.
The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected
To develop the Department of Defense’s (DoD) position on the reevaluation of the operation and regulations regarding drone warfare. This paper addresses the importance of understanding the risks involved with drone strikes, to include the important violations of international law, the consequential casualties incurred during the strikes and the overall moral issues at hand.
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.