The Legality Of Intervention During The Middle East

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.

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

The United States is fronting the conflict against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; therefore, we feel strongly inclined to support the inhibition of online recruiting tactics used by ISIL. Previous attempts to thwart the online presence of ISIL have been misguided and incomprehensive - and have thus faltered against high expectations. Our reasoning for this stance is because in the past year alone, an estimated hundreds of recruits have joined ISIL through online mediums - additionally, ISIL has encouraged and coaxed recruits into committing domestic

This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.

How can we justify the war on terrorism abroad when the war was brought to our door steps with very little remaining abroad but some small resistances? This may be a difficult question to answer but it is one that can be easily found through understanding of the criminal mind and the way the terrorists work. The main objective here is to show how the war is going and how the terrorists were classified as such. I will also be providing information on Habeas Corpus both past and present as well as what it means both in English and American traditions. Furthermore the way everything will be written will answer very specific questions asked and I shall answer them.

The United States, with its coalition partners, has committed to degrade and destroy the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This group poses a threat to the people of the Middle East, as well as to the United States, our allies, and interests in the region. If this terrorist organization is left uninterrupted, ISIL will grow, threatening the surrounding areas of the Middle East, our allies abroad, and the United States.

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be examined to understand whether the legal actions of the United States were appropriate and legal. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to jus in bello (also known as “the laws of war”). These three principles are closely interconnected with one another and are necessary to determine whether a war can be perceived as being legitimate.

Likewise, there are several instances in which the Unites States has stepped in to alleviate foreign crises. Mullaney expresses that in 2014, air strikes were launched to help the Yazidi people, and other countries have agreed to help with combat, but they are waiting on America to make the move towards war; while President Obama has been submitting requests to send out troops, nothing has been approved yet (125, 128). The United States needs to have approval to launch troops to help the Yazidi people. Mullaney is insistent that the U.S. must provide more than just air strikes in order to help the Yazidis. While some feel that it is not the United States’ responsibility, ISIS cannot be stopped alone. On the contrary, the author includes

Terrorism, in a modern day perspective, has been molded as a Middle Eastern threat to Western Civilization; although the whole idea of terrorism itself has existed for ages. Undoubtedly, “The War on Terror,” is a western form of saying to depict the general aspect of terrorism. Through all aspects of the world, terrorism, is defined as an act of unruly and warlike tactics that mainly creates harm to civilians. Usually, these acts of violence are not simply for the use of harming citizens, but to voice specific mutinous organizations that do not comprehend with the standard civilization. This analysis will numerically discuss the main aspects of the United States intervention with terrorism, past terrorist acts, and a modern day

Recently a military group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been causing controversy between the group and the United States. However, what many might not know is that ISIS has been around for more than a decade. When the United States sent troops in to overthrow Hussein’s government in 2003, it started a tension that would have never been expected. ISIS has conquered many places and gained much land. ISIS is believed to have contributors from the 9/11 attack (infobaselearning.com) and they have been known to go to the extreme to enforce their law. From the beheading of Christians, to the cruel treatment of women, the punishment is very brutal.

Since the brutalizing attacks that occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001, terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, and its subdivision turned adversary - the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - which we affectionately refer to as ISIS, have metastasized into a worldwide threat that has shaken our way of life, our culture, and our approach to our opponents (Kohlmann). From 2013 to 2014 there was a whopping 35% increase in terrorism with attacks in 95 countries, proving that despite the valiant counterattacks, terrorism will not go down without a fight (Williams). Of course, the United States did declare a “war on terror” that despite many cons did result in the ultimate pro - the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda and mastermind behind many terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (Shah). All casualties aside, the death of bin Laden, and more specifically the means by which his

In this essay I will prove why America must intervene and eliminate ISIS because ISIS is inhumane. ISIS consistently and systematically defies international law. ISIS controls governmental operations and oil land in iraq. Imagine a group of men walking into a concert and firing upon everyone in their sight for no apparent reason. ISIS has spread like a wildfire all over the world, doing whatever it takes for them to prove that they can't be stopped. In this essay it will be explained why ISIS needs to be eliminated and taken control of. Three key points will be talked about and discussed.

In President Barack Obama’s speech addressing the action taken in Libya, he said that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to "our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests" (Morici). To save the collapsing rebellion, air attacks had to target Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, motorized columns, and government installations (Hanson). The problem that Congress faces is the question of whether unilateral action is constitutional. Unilateral action

Many in the international community are against American military intervention on Iraqi soil. They suggest that we either send in United Nations investigators to find out more about the weapons of mass destruction or work with other countries to establish some sort of sanctions. But I know there is no time to waste and I must immediately deploy three hundred thousand troops to be able to declare “Mission Accomplish” as soon as possible and with “limited” American and “Iraqi” casualties. Others say that we should do nothing on the basis that invading another country is destructive of human life, costs substantial amounts of money, undermines our moral authority, could ruin our international reputation, and violates the sovereignty of Iraq. We the United States and me myself, George W. Bush, lead this so called “Free World” and have the duty to intervene and the right to protect the American peoples interest for global issues.

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.