Neutralization Of Terrorism

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.

There are different elements clarify why terrorism is ethically wrong, regardless of the possibility that different types of murdering are every so often passable. Notwithstanding, terrorism slaughtering considers whether the utilization of different sorts of fear for political as opposed to military use makes terrorism altogether off-base. A few good qualifications that may be critical to the ethical quality and reasonable portrayal of terrorism are incorporated.

The right to liberty and privacy is compromised through existing counter-terrorism measures and appropriate steps have not been taken to protect them. Protection of rights is provided disproportionately amongst terror suspects at the discretion of the

The Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001 came to fruition from the terrorist attacks that occurred in the united states in 2001. This act like many others was pushed through parliament very quickly, it contains many different sections to do with the war on terror which include the right of the government to retain the people’s communications.

The media coverage at the time was highly critical of the government’s position and lack of evidence in the case, and there was much analysis and attack of the impact of the governments new anti-terrorism laws. It caused the government at the time to re-examine many of its anti-terror laws by a parliamentary committee on more than one occasion. Laws have also been examined by the following reviews:

The premise of terrorism has expedited the initiation of integral changes to the legal system, reducing the rule of law and eroding established civil liberties and legal protections. The counter-terrorism measures introduced in Australia confer a power to compel submission to interrogation, a power to detain and interrogate without charge, and a power of preventative detention. In doing so these laws jeopardise the rule of law, expand executive power, diminish existing rights, endanger the separation of powers, and undermine judicial procedures. Further the legislative definition of ‘terrorism’ provides for the

—Brian Michael Jenkins, former leading terrorism analyst, written in 1975. More than forty years later, it is more relevant than ever before.

Specific Purpose Statement: I plan to inform my audience about the history of terrorism and major hypotheses proposed by sociologists.

Bachmann, S. (2012). Bankrupting terrorism: The role of US anti-terrorism litigation in the prevention of terrorism and other hybrid threats: A legal assessment and outlook. The Liverpool Law Review, 33(2), 91-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s10991-012-9115-7

On the other side, surveillance might be allowed to address terrorism because it seems an acceptable solution to target terrorists. I give four reasons to explain why we should support these methods. Yet, some abuses and misuses of technological means to spy upon citizens have risen quite disappointment about national strategies. Despite this, I still believe it is one of the best solutions available.

In order to protect and defend America more effectively, the Department of Homeland Security was created and the Patriot Act was signed into law. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are now able to share information about terrorist threats. The Patriot Act’s anti-terrorism provisions are set to expire, and Congress must renew them in order to keep Americans safe. Congress should also change the law so that all terrorist-related crimes resulting in death will qualify

Today in the 21st century, safety has been at the forefront of our society, as lawmakers and media alike portray it as the most important issue in America currently. To provide a safer environment for all the constituents of the United States, as well as those of the Islamic faith, it is necessary to avoid interloping in other nations’ affairs. Many of the United States’ disputes and wars have stemmed from its involvement in other nations’ political or belief-based affairs. The United States is a country founded on the principles of equality and certain freedoms, and have been brandished all over our government documents and supported by the people of our nation. Contrasting with the policy of isolationism it once had, the United States has sees itself involved with many different groups and nations of diverse ethnicities and beliefs. The United States must take action and reconcile our differences, both culturally and politically, to revitalize peace with groups and nations willing to still do so. However, for those who wish not to establish peace nor accept our forgiveness, they may be the ones we label as threats to our country’s safety. Only those who use cowardly acts of extreme violence as a source of intimidation to the United States should be labeled as terrorists. This terrorism has been an exponentially increasing source of fear for the United States in recent decades. Whilst such acts may be inexorable and unavoidable, and terminating the existence of terrorism is a faulty hope, considering the fact that terrorism can be found universally and daily in places like our own cities or online, there are ways the United States can reduce such instances to promote a safer environment overall.

Terrorism is a huge problem affecting the American public in many ways. There have been 76 cases involving radical islamic terror attacks targeting the United States since the attacks of 9/11. (Mueller) The first issue with Terrorism is laws are not strict enough to deter terrorist from attacking. If terrorist believe they can get out of harsh punishments, then our current laws need to change. Killing innocent people is one of the most unethical acts someone can commit. The punishments for doing so do not reflect the extremity of the action. Current lawmakers should consider the extreme harm terrorism is causing in the United States. Another problem within Terrorism is the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques are currently outlawed because they are seen as inhumane. This is an issue because terrorist now do not have to talk or explain why or how they did it. Even after committing an act of terror and killing innocents, they don’t have to explain themselves. If the government understands a specific person knows the information to stop another terror attack, they could not do anything about it.The final problem with Terrorism is American lives are lost and billions of dollars in property damage are lost as well. Terrorists are bringing fear into the lives of the American Public. Lives are lost and many are injured after a terror attack. Many Americans are in fear that they will be the next victim. “More broadly, 3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist

According to Elie Wiesel, "Terrorism must be outlawed by all civilized nations - not explained or rationalized, but fought and eradicated. Nothing can, nothing will justify the murder of innocent people and helpless children." Terrorism has been a major concern for many people

Terrorism iscertainly not innovative and despite the fact it has been documented throughout history, it is moderately difficult to define what terrorism is. When discussing terrorism, it is publicly implied as either utilizing or threatingthe brutality in order to supplement a political cause, which can be confusing as there isn’t a universally approved definition towards terrorism. For instance, the Global Terrorism Index hasanalysed that 64,000 people were killed by specific enactments of terrorism throughout 2002 and 2011. This is an interpretation of how terrorism has become one of the exceedingly political problems throughout the previous half century. There are a variety of law enforcement, researchers and policy makers who have so far been unsuccessful to institute of defining terrorism this is why I will examine the difficulties that come towards defining terrorism.