Terrorism poses a unique threat to the national security of the United States, in which there are few legal precedents. With the advancement of technological warfare and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the targeted killing of enemy combatants, establishing the legal framework for such actions has been very controversial. The United States government has declared us as being in a state of non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Al-Qaeda in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As outlined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the President is “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided …show more content…
The President, with the authorization of Congress has stated that the U.S. is in a state of NIAC with Al-Qaeda overseas. As such, the President has the inherent right and the duty to use lethal force against members of Al-Qaeda posing an imminent threat in self-defense under international law. In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld3, lethal force against enemy forces is an “important incident of war.” In determining whether an enemy combatant poses an imminent threat, the United State government does not need clear evidence that a specific attack will take place in the immediate future. If they did, our ability to prevent and respond to threats would be greatly diminished. Imminence, by definition, requires the government to refrain from action until preparations for an attack have been made, which in the case of 09/11, would not have allowed sufficient time for us to defend ourselves. The feasibility of preparing our response to an attack of this nature while keeping in mind due process, is oftentimes not possible. Al-Qaeda is continually planning attacks and the window of opportunity for defensive action that balances the likelihood of success and also reduces …show more content…
Military action involves the exercise of discretion by the President and the executive branch and if a court were to intervene in the decision-making process, the time and resources necessary to go through the legal framework could cause us to miss the window of opportunity to prevent a possible attack. Judicial involvement in these decisions would defy the tactical judgement of the President and his advisors of national security who have been made responsible for making these difficult calls. Judicial oversight for how and when lethal force can be used against enemy combatants is not only impractical, but could inhibit our military from taking the necessary steps to prevent and defend our country from the very real threats we are facing. Our government has laws in place, as outlined above, that safeguard the legal process for targeted killing and ensuring that our Constitution is upheld. Targeted killing is assessed on a case-by-case basis and is subject to judicial review if a policy violation is suspected. With those checks and balances in place, we as Americans should feel confident in trusting our military to make the most informed decision in these matters and if a problem is found, we have the legal framework to dispute those
“As a result of this speech, and the position of President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, it is now impossible for the accused to receive a fair trial. All participants in the process will be inevitably influenced by the assertions made in this speech, many of which are inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. Even assuming the unlawful command influence was not intentional, it nonetheless deprives my client of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.
The 9/11 attacks in Washington, Pennsylvania and New York brought to attention the threat of international terrorism and the devastation that it could cause for the major powers. These attacks provided the motivation that the Bush administration needed to authorise the invasion of Iraq. With the attacks brought the realisation that non-state groups had the capacity and willingness to strike against the USA and that the US no longer had a monopoly over war therefore validating the use of force against terrorist organizations (Amin, 2006). In light of 9/11 and other attacks aimed at the USA, the US embarked on a highly militarised anti-terrorist campaign (Bassil, 2012). In his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush confirmed
I do believe that domestic terrorism is still a treat within the United States because of the current violence against civilian population like black lives matter, the KKK or those that randomly attack our police officers. There attentions are to intimidate the everyday law bidding citizens in an attempt to their way of thinking our beliefs. “Homegrown terrorists are produced a number of ways. The first involves individuals who become radicalized by personal experiences. The second might involve a similar pat to radicalization, but it also involves some type of foreign connections.” (White 2014 p. 323) These are the ones that may have parents or other family members from another country and attempt to attack U.S. citizens. I believe that
Much of the past decade of the american foreign policy debate has been dominated by the discussion over the merits of counterterrorism. Prior to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, counterterrorism was a theoretical measure at most (Cronin). After America threw its weight behind the ‘war against terror,’ however, the coordinated international campaign quickly overwhelmed multiple militant extremist groups. The main target of the ‘war against terror’ was al-Qaeda, an organization that subscribed to the ideas of Islamic thinker Sayyid Qutb and claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in 2004. The attacks were a double-edged sword for al-Qaeda because the ensuing media storm increased their influence like no other while also drawing a target a mile wide on their back. The ‘war against terror culminated in bin Laden 's assassination in May of 2011 by Navy SEALs (Katulis and Juul). Al-Qaeda has since experienced a steady and significant decline of power and influence after bin Laden’s demise. No matter its past status as the dominant extremist group in the Middle East, al-Qaeda has crumbled after American intervention in killing various key figures.
In 1999 there was said to be a huge increase that focused on the terrorism in the United States (fbi.gov). Even though this focus was on terrorism in general, it was mainly focused on the domestic terrorist. Eight of the ten terrorist incidents were those domestic terrorisms that year in the United States. There were seven plots that were prevented by law enforcers this year and in 1998 there were twelve. The seven that occurred in 1999 were because of the Animal Liberation Front also known as ALF. All of these led to financial damages that ended up being more than three million dollars (fbi.gov).
Terrorism is a form of communication because it gets the attention of major countries, it widens a terrorist group’s publicity, and it exposes a goal that a group of people want to achieve to the general public. A good analogy for terrorism would be to think of it as the younger sibling in a family of four. You have the mom, the dad, the older sibling and the younger sibling. Then say the older sibling is getting all the praise and attention from the parents and the younger sibling sees that and wants attention too and it starts doing nice things for attention such as cleaning up, and being nice but that’s not working so it starts to act up. The younger sibling starts throwing fits and making a mess just to get attention and it starts to work. That’s what terrorism is. Most times terrorism comes from groups and political organizations (ISIS, Al-Qaeda Taliban, IRA) whose original intentions we good and started off doing good things for the people but they weren’t getting the attention of major countries and their governments. So
Overall, our society has been impacted greatly since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The growth of terrorism and its groups continues to increase globally. Furthermore, attacks are becoming more sporadic and smaller, making them more difficult to prevent. The United States government continually responds to terrorism which has affected many aspects of society. For example, new requirements are affecting state law enforcement as they have new responsibilities regarding terrorism-related investigations. Additionally, political participation continues to increase, while reenlistment in the military decreases. There is a sense of paranoia in education systems, and Americans persistently discriminate against Muslims. Ultimately, terrorism is
Notwithstanding, the Obama Administration’s most pressing reason for using military measures against ISIS is the “imminent threats to national security” that ISIS posed to the United States (Mulrine 2014). To justify the immediate threat to national security, President Obama evoked two legal precedents as grounds for military involvement; the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) of 2001 and the War Powers Act. The AUMF was passed by the Bush Administration in the wake of
These include studies by Morland, Butler and Leskin into the effects of terrorism in the United States; Vazquez, Perez-Sales and Hervas covering the social and individual effects of terrorism in Madrid; Frazier and Berman covering post-traumatic growth in female sexual assault victims; and Joseph, Williams and Yule on psychosocial perspectives on PTSD and treatment (TRG pg 19). These studies show the importance of reprogramming PTSD clients towards normalizing and coping methods and re-integration into their social worlds using tools that bring about positive attitudes in mind, body, and spirituality.
Preventing Terrorism in the United States is a hard thing to overcome, but the government is trying their best to control and prevent terrorist attacks from happening. “The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, were a turning point in American history and demonstrated that the government must have the authority necessary to defend against future attacks, including the right to use the best technology to intercept potentially conspiratorial communications (Jacobs and Newton 1). Having advanced technologies in the United States can prevent Terrorism from happening.
History is made every day. Some may be good and some may be bad, some may be ground breaking discoveries and some may be heart shattering tragedies. History will never stop being made and it is our job as united citizens, politicians, and leaders to make sure that a great America will go down in history books forever. I want America to seem like the great place that it is to generations and generations to come.In my opinion America is headed down a bad path. Terrorism is a horrible thing yet there is no doubting that rates of terrorism have raised within the last ten years. One of the worst parts of terrorism after September eleventh is that most terrorist attacks in America were caused by of American citizens. Although terrorism is a heinous
The idea of banning immigrants or tourists, that pertain to certain requirements (such as religion or nationality), from entering our country has been tossed around lately. The threat of terrorism has spawn this idea and has convinced many Americans that action must be taken to stop terrorism. This idea has always floated in the air, until Donald Trump decided to sign an executive order that banned people from entering the country from pertained countries. Millions of people argue against the order, but others love it, thinking it will protect them from terrorism. Everyone has their own opinion in the matter, but we need to put those opinions aside and listen to boths sides with open minds.
On September 18th, 2001, Congress enacted the “AUMF”, Authorization for the use of Military Force. The AUMF was at the request of President Bush, in response to the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York City. The AUMF granted the President the authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those… he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or harbored [those who did].” (www.acslaw.org) Al Qaeda was identified as the terrorist group that was responsible for the attack and thus was targeted by the United States Military for the next fourteen years. The AUMF has been referred to as the global war on terror, but that would be an untrue nickname, as the AUMF only authorizes force against those responsible for the September 11th attacks. Osama Bin Laden was identified as the leader of Al Qaeda and subsequently was killed in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2nd, 2011. So far, conflict in the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Djibouti
Terrorism is something that has affected the lives of the American population in the United States at least once in their lifetimes. It is something that Americans have read about in history books and have seen on national television. The United States defines terrorism under Title 22 of the U.S. Code (USC) Section 2656f (d) as a, “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” The U.S. Code breaks terrorism down into two subsections under 18 USC 2331 as “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism”. International terrorism is defined as: