Response To Terrorism

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

Procedural fairness is an extremely important factor in achieving justice in the legal system. The importance of procedural fairness can be displayed through the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) as there was a lack of procedural fairness applied, resulting in a lack of justice. Dr Haneef was suspected of terror related offences and subsequently held without charge for an excess of 12 days due to evidence linking him to a terrorist attack in Glasgow. This evidence was later proven incorrect. The links between Haneef and the suspected offences were not enough to go to trial. Dr Haneef was incarcerated for three weeks, two of which he was held in 23 hours isolation, after being wrongly convicted of a 'reckless association with terrorist groups.' His reputation was tainted and his VISA revoked, as well as his wife's without any reason for the cancellation. All of these actions during the investigation of Haneef show a lack of procedural fairness resulting in his unjust treatment. Justice was not achieved in the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007). This case reinforces the importance procedural fairness has in the legal system as it reflects the legal system not achieving justice when an individual is not treated with equal rights, opportunities and awareness of what is occurring. Therefore, the doctrine of procedural fairness is essential to achieving

In December 2005 ‘Control Orders’ became part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorism threats (The Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p 57). Issued by a court, at the request of the AFP, an individual could be prohibited or restricted in movement, for the express purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act. Such restrictions may comprise of curfews, electronic monitoring devices, restrictions of telecommunications, specified reporting to police and other measures. Jack Thomas (August 2006) and David Hicks (December 2007) are the only two individuals who have been issued control orders in Australia by law enforcement. (Jaggers, B. April 2008). para 1).

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

This paper will discuss religious terrorism in particular. Religious terrorism can be defined as “the terrorism [is] carried out based on motivations and goals that have a predominantly religious character or influences.” (“Religious Terrorism”) An example of this will be the 9/11 attacks. It was “a series of four coordinated terrorist attack launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.”(“September 11 attacks”) This attack had led to a serious causality, “almost 3000 people dies in the attacks.” (“September 11 attacks”) Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, declared a “holy war against the United States” (“September 11 attacks”) In his “letter to America”, he stated the motives as follows: In opposition to western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia; supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir; the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon; the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; U.S support of Israel and the sanction against Iraq. (“September 11 attacks”) The disastrous attack leads to a serious attention of re-constructing the old version of counter terrorism strategy, which had failed to protect the citizens against terrorism. However, ‘terrorism is far to complex for one solution to be effective in dealing with all the possible threats.” (Lygutas 146) Therefore, some of the measures have difficulties in balancing the rights of

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the immigration policy measures to respond to future threats of terrorism. Ever since 9/11 the immigration policy needed to be changed with the Enhance Border Security, the Homeland Security Act, and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. These three new policies helped and made driving difficult. For example, many college students would like to study abroad but getting approval for a Visas takes time. Reports say that because the hijackers were all Muslims, a small proportion in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was focused on Muslims or those who were perceived to be Muslims, with broader use of nationality-based screening and enforcement programs.

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.

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

I feel that the government didn’t believe that the United States would ever see the act of terrorism happen here on US soil. I feel that they believed that Al Qaeda or Bin Laden was not a big threat because it was not a major topic and no one was even talking about the issue of terrorism before the year of 2001.

The most common and frequently the most serious problem in legal definitions of terrorism under national laws is that they are overbroad and vague. As a basic legal principle, such laws fail to give reasonable notice of what actions are covered. Many are so broad that they cover common crimes that should not reasonably be deemed terrorist or acts that should not be considered crimes at all. “Their scope leaves them susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the authorities” (In the Name of Security). Few terrorism definitions are so narrowly drawn. In general, definitions of terrorism tend to cover acts carried out for a wide variety of purposes, often with no requirement that they cause or intend to cause death or serious injury, and without specifying the level of physical property damage required to render an act terrorist. “Legal definitions of terrorism generally specify two or three basic elements: the act and purpose, or the act, intent, and purpose” (In the Name of Security). The crime of terrorism is typically characterized as an act carried out with a particular intent—for example, the intent to kill—and for a specific purpose, such as coercing or intimidating a government or population into performing or abstaining from an action. The American Civil Liberties Union

A huge wake up call for the whole world was the 9/11 attacks. So many people’s lives were changed or taken away when this disaster struck in the United States. Many people are scared for life because of what happened that day and it got them to thinking more seriously about how to prevent terrorism and how to treat terrorists or suspected terrorists.

1.This week's Discussion will focus on the response of state and local agencies to terrorist attacks. According to your readings this week, what specific state and local police functions are among the most important to develop within the "era of homeland security"? Explain why you believe this is so.

On September 11, 2001, a devastating attack took place. In just a few hours lives

There were each steps that was taken during the September 11 attacks. Each President has taken steps in response to these terrorist threats. President George W. Bush gave the people hope after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 attacks. During the attack, President Bush insisted that he want to return to the White House instead of being held up in the bunker to give the American people confidence to know that he is charge. President Bush did really wonderful job in speaking for and to the American people. According to George W. Bush’s essay on Impact and Legacy, President Bush signed this Act into law called the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave the government vast new powers in the effort to combat future acts of terror. It also sparked

America should respond to threats of terrorism by collaborating with other countries to fight terrorism. There are two reasons why America should respond to threats of terrorism by collaborating with other countries to fight terrorism. One reason is that it could bring countries together to make a strong international community and have more military, finance, diplomatic, and intelligence tools necessary to address terrorism. The second reason is that it could get the U.S. more allies to help them with their problems. Some people think America should respond to threats of terrorism by defending their homeland because taking sides in other international conflicts could only increase the United States’ vulnerability. The less the U.S. is involved