IS THE PRE-EMPTIVE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISM LAWFUL?
INTRODUCTION
Is the pre-emptive use of force against terrorism lawful? This has become one of the major topics of discussion within the international system. Terrorism, has been around for several years and was brought into the limelight during the 9/11 attacks that occurred within the United States of America (USA). These were the first attacks that occurred on US soil since the Pearl Harbor.
As a result, the Bush administration which was the, then ruling government, declared a war on terror. Therefore, the US declared war on rogue dictators such as Saddam Hussein and terror suspects and groups such as: Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda respectively.
Throughout the years this ‘War on Terrorism’ has culminated into a global issue which has posed a serious and significant threat upon the lives of innocent human beings. Furthermore, due to the fact that we are continuously interacting and inter-relating with one another due to rise in globalization; the security of regions is under threat because it has spread transnationally through the access of information and technology. Therefore, it makes it a very difficult problem to solve at this point in time.
This therefore brings us to really examine whether it is lawful for a state to use force to protect its citizens from threats such as terrorism. We then examine the laws that have been put in place by international organizational bodies such as the United Nations (UN).
Using the concepts of security, terrorism and risk learnt in this unit, critically evaluate the record of global counter-terrorism measures since the 9/11 attacks.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
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.
By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to
The War on Terror caused the United States to send troops overseas. Other countries joined the United States in the “War on Terrorism”.
The Bush administration commenced this war on terror because the Al-Qaeda terrorist group from Afghanistan had declared that they were accountable for the attacks (Green). In order to attempt to keep America safe, the U.S. strived to take apart these terrorists. Removing the Taliban government that was shielding the Al- Qaeda terrorist group was another reason the “war on terror” began (Green). Another war that started was between Iraq and the United States. After 9/11, the U.S. conquered Iraq on March 2003 and defeated Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government (Bodden 44).
Therefore, the attacks of 9/11 brought a new enemy to our shores that were radical in their thinking and the methods they employed. Furthermore, they wore no uniforms and belonged to no single government, which made them hard to identify amongst our population. Therefore, the United States declared war on these terrorists and implemented some radical new ideas that were institutionalized immediately after 9/11.
The War on Terror was a title referring to an international campaign that had started after 9/11. The term “War on Terror” was first used by President George W. Bush on September 20th, 2001. He then called on other states to join the fight against terrorism then stating “Either you are with us, or you are terrorists” There were many governments who had joined his campaign. In October 2001, the U.S. and its numerous different allies that took over Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was initially based. The Taliban, was protecting Bin Laden which then allowed Al Qaeda to run training camps in the country. Eventually, there were U.S based military who were then able to bring down the terrorist group. Ever since the September 11 attacks, a large amount of terrorists involved with Al-Qaeda were either captured or terminated. On May 1, 2011, U.S. troops killed Bin Laden where he was hiding in Pakistan. The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. Then President George W. Bush and other U.S. leaders believed that the country’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, was hiding terrible weapons that could be given to terrorists. Hussein was captured and later put to death by an Iraqi court. No weapons of mass destruction were found (History Channel: War on Terror).
A U.S. TRANSPORT plane touched down at Guantanamo Bay at about 2:15 p.m. ET. Speaking on condition of anonymity, military officials told NBC that about 15 detainees were aboard the flight, including some who were unable to walk because of their wounds.
Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California
The world has been changed forever since the tragic attack on September 11, 2001. An observer described the atrocity by saying, "It just went 'bam,' like a bomb went off. It was like holy hell (CNN 1). " The new world will be different from what any American has known before. A new war has arisen, not against a foreign country or a major region of the world, but rather against a select group of people who have the capabilities to destroy the lives of so many. The war against terrorism which the United States is now forced to wage will not be an easily won battle. This war will not be fought solely on scattered battlefields in certain countries. It will instead permeate through every aspect of life as we
Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.
Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…
Global terrorism is a threat to global peace and security which has now surpassed borders of nations and delved into culture, religion and personal beliefs to encapsulate the entire world with terror. The world has witnessed wars from time immemorial with the military of various nations engaging with each other to either acquire or retain a certain amount of power to establish their dominance over the world. The need to become a “Superpower” exists within every nation which leads them to commit acts of violence on other nations through armed conflicts. Thus, to limit this age-old practice of war, The Geneva Conventions and The Hague Conventions which are aspects of International Humanitarian Law determined the law of war and the ways in which war can be limited. Section III of The Hague Convention of 1907 hostilities need to be preceded with a well-reasoned declaration of war. Article 2 of The United Nations Charter of 1945 sought to curtail the right of member states to declare war. Such limitations were indeed effective in stopping frequent wars from occurring across the world but it leads to something even more horrendous than war itself that is ‘state sponsored terrorism.’ It is a type of covert operation of war by countries to acquire their political goals without violating any principles of international law through non-state actors acting for the state. The United States Department of State recognised Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Saudi
The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.