Freedom Isn 't Free : Combating 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.

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

The world has become a scary place where evil runs rampant and bombings and shooting are becoming more common. The act of terrorism puts fear into the average person, and American essayist and social critic H.L. Mencken observes this by writing, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” That concession is certainly true, because in a contemporary society where terrorism reigns American citizens are willing to give up their freedom and rights for the feeling of security.

Domestic terrorism has been a major threat in the US since the catastrophic event that took place during attack on 9/11. Following the aftermath of the terrorist attack, the US intelligence services and law enforcement agencies emphasized heavily on combating terrorism on global scale as international terrorism was views as the major threat to the public security of the US which caused the issue of domestic terrorism to be overlooked. We have seen many terrorist attacks since the attack on 9/11 that were planned and executed by individuals and groups born and raised in America. Some of those attacks include the Oklahoma City bombing, the Boston marathon bombing. There has also been increasing number of mass shooting by individuals that were identified as to be radicalized by terrorist groups abroad, the most recent mass shooting that was identified as a terrorist act was in Orlando where more than 50 people were killed (Alveraz, p.1). The cases mentioned above will be discussed in detail later in the essay. Although, American law enforcement agencies are actively conducting intelligence and operational missions to prevent international terrorism, however, the US needs to develop efficient tactics to prevent the rise of domestic terrorism. Otherwise, the United States may face a danger of the unfailing growth of domestic terrorism similar to some of the European countries; such as the United Kingdom. Consequently, law enforcement agencies should concentrate on the preclusion

Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist

The United States of America is undoubtedly one of the world’s largest and most powerful nations. However, it has been facing the problem of terrorism for many decades, most notably after the tragic events of September 11th. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after these events in response to the acts of terrorism witnessed by the whole nation. At the time, it seemed rational and logical to allow this bill to pass, due to the extreme anger of American citizens, and the willingness to fight against terrorism. However, certain breaches of privacy came with the introduction of the Patriot Act. We as Americans want to feel protected from the threats of terrorism, however, we are not willing to give up certain privacies and liberties in order for that to happen, even when put to a vote.

September 11, 2001 was the day where everything in America had changed. A series of four terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a reaction to this, Congress passed the Patriot Act, severely limiting citizen’s civil liberties as promised by the Constitution. American’s civil liberties and constitutional rights cannot be denied and/or put into jeopardy to protect national security, for it goes against American ideals and may persecute non-partisan individuals, while allowing the executive branch to unconstitutionally abuse their power.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001teerrorist attacks, Congress and President Busch drafted, passed and enacted a number of laws that were focused on improving the nation’s security form terrorist attack and upgrading its ability to search for, identify, and eliminate terrorist threats at homes and international. Two of the most important and far reaching laws to come from the political and legislative action for the fall were the Uniting and Strengthening Americas by Providing Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001(USA Patriot Act) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. While the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act of 2002 have formed the backbone of terrorism laws in the United States, they are not without their problems, especially in terms of how far they infringe upon the right, freedom, and liberties of the public.

The attacks on the United States of America on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the way the government and its citizens viewed freedom and liberty. With the subsequent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, security became the government’s top priority. (The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) Congress, eager to put a law on the books to prevent another attack, fast tracked the bill through both houses in six weeks. It passed by a near unanimous vote, with the majority of dissent coming from Democrats. A highly contentious and debated law, the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on Natural Law and the American citizen’s Civil Liberties. Also it violates the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Many amendments in the Constitution are at a direct contrast with the law’s many broadly worded sections, specifically the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Islamic extremists carried out the deadliest terrorist attack ever to happen on U.S. soil. Not only did almost 3,000 U.S. citizens die, but fundamental American values were put to the test. In response to this tragedy, the country came together, and President George Bush, also shocked and embittered by this calamity, funneled the resulting patriotism to launch his “War on Terror”. The primary weapon of this war was the 2001 U.S.A Patriot Act (“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”). A usually precarious balance the government faced between national security and individual rights was tipped entirely towards national security in the wake of 9/11 and the 2001 Patriot Act was signed into law almost unopposed.

After losing 2,977 lives one fateful September morning, we realized we left the doors to our country wide open to attack. As a result, we ramped up our security and instituted new programs to combat terrorism to make ourselves invulnerable to similar attacks. But as the government began to develop programs within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to prevent such an attack from ever happening again, the government began to infringe on the rights which were laid down in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Although the American government protected its people from another possible attack, the government itself attacked its own people by denying the rights which it formerly recognized.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

Attacks receive more coverage when they harm or kill victims, involve hijackings or aircraft, have known perpetrators, and select targets associated with Western countries. A study of transnational terrorism shows that attacks that inflict injuries are twice as likely to attract media attention as those that do not. The attacks in which the perpetrator can be identified are four times as likely to be reported in a newspaper and ten times as likely to be reported on television (The Media’s Role in International Terrorsim). Attacks in the Middle East or Europe are twice as likely to receive media attention as attacks perpetrated in Latin America (The Media’s Role in International Terrorism). There are very similar factors that influence media coverage of attacks that take place within the United States.

“If the media were not there to report terrorist acts and to explain their political and social significance...terrorism as such would cease to exist” said John O'Sullivan, an editor of the Times of London.1 This is also the way many other people feel about the recent increase in terrorist activity; they feel that the media is causing it. The media is doing this by fulfilling the terrorists' need for publicity.2 Terrorists need media publicity in order to get their views spread to the public.3 Because of this need for publicity, terrorists are committing their acts of terrorism in areas where a lot of publicity will be gained; the United States and Western Europe are the most recent targets. The bombings of the federal building in