Terrorism has never been in the States; only in third world countries. Since 9/11-2001 is has been a reality and ongoing nightmare and hit close to home. The attack on the World Trade Centers in New York was a wakeup call. United States has been on high alert ever since, waiting for the next possible Terrorists attack. This paper will explain why terrorism is a law enforcement concern as well as how terrorism is considered a crime. At last the paper will state some recommendations that the American Criminal Justice should do, to better prepare for future crimes.
Law enforcement response to counter-terrorism fundamentally changed as a result of the unprecedented events of September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington (Kaldas, 2002, p61-62). This essay will examine how law enforcement has evolved in response to the changing nature of terrorism, with an emphasis on how this has impacted Australia. An analysis of arrests and subsequent
In coordination with the growing outcomes of terrorism, both international and domestic, we can examine the effectiveness of Australian Law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state. Throughout the course of time we see the changing face of international terrorism and how it has implications that are far reaching and affect our day to day rights and freedoms. I will be referring to the following cases in my response; Mohamed Haneef, David Hicks, Peter Greste and also Australian citizens involved in ISIL.
The word terrorism is derived from the French word “terrorisme” which derived from the Latin word “terrere” that means “to frighten.” This was used in France during the Reign of Terror, it was state terrorism (Crime Museum). During 2004, a secretary general of the United States defined terrorism as an act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from
“Things will never be the same.” (Miller, Stone & Mitchell, 2002, p. 3) Law enforcement has undergone dramatic changes as a result of the devastating events in the United States on 11 September 2001 (9/11). This essay will examine how law enforcement, specifically within Australia, has shifted its policies and strategies to fight the post-9/11 terrorist threat. An analysis of police actions towards terrorist related incidents since 9/11, displays how law enforcement agencies have demonstrated their
Dictionary.com defines terrorism as, “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for
Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines terrorism as, “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal” (Terrorism, n.d.). The various definitions of terrorism are typically close in comparison but can carry a slightly different tone when used by a government for purposes of the law.
Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.
The United Nations (U.N.). The best reference I could fine as a reconized “definition” of terrorism by the United Nations came from reviewing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 that was adopted by the Security Council on 8 October 2004. In the document it states “s that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions
The terrorism act of 2006 bases its definition from the terrorism act of 2000 that indicated terrorism to be the usage of threat of action that fulfils three circumstances; (1) an action that includes severe violence against another person or causes severe harm to belongings, jeopardizes a person’s life (apart from the person that is committing the action), generates a severe menace to the well-being or security of the public or a section of the public, or is considered earnestly to interfere with or seriously to disorder an electronic system; (2) the use or threat of action is designed to impact the government or an intergovernmental organisation or to frighten the public or a segment of the public; and (3) the usage or menace is made for
In recent decades, society has been victim to one of the worst scourges ever known: terrorism, which is an expressive act of violence seen throughout history (conquests, wars) with varied forms of expression and cruelty. If a general definition of terrorism could be given it would be, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1269, a terrorist act is any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or other person not directly involved in armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by nature or context, is to intimidate a population or compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from any act.
The word ‘terrorism’ comes from the French Revolution ‘terrorisme’, ‘terrur’ which comes from a Latin verb that means ‘I frighten’. Terrorism is an act that is committed by people who work with the government – usually by killing people, threatening them, the use of illegal force and making them afraid for their own political purposes (Furze et al., 2015).
Hancock, N. (2002). Terrorism and the Law in Australia: Legislation, Commentary and Constraints – Parliament of Australia. [online] Aph.gov.au. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02rp12 [Accessed 16 May