In chapter 3, titled “Congress and the Agencies”, we learn of a few of the many laws, processes and agencies that have been created to better prepare the United States for a national emergency. Since the origins of the United States, the President has always been the lead on emergencies that required attention by the federal government, but the legislative and judicial branches of the government have become more and more involved in making sure that it is done constitutionally. One of the main reasons for this is because of the statutes that have been created because of the response to emergencies. These statutes have been separated into three separate categories.
On September 11 2001, an attack was made on United States. Four systematic terrorist attacks were pulled off by the group al-Qaeda simultaneously bringing down the World Trade Centre in New York and damaging the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As extensive and in depth as the cause for the attack may have been, September 11 is an event that has undoubtedly left its mark in American history. A turning point, as some would call it, of the political, social, and economic systems of the United States. Quickly following the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George W. Bush called for a “war against terrorism.” Instead, what truly occurred was an act of counter terrorism. After 9/11, the political system of America took a turn for the worst;
Through the second section Agamben studies the “Paradox of Sovereignty” which describes the nature of sovereignty to be both inside and outside of juridical law. Furthermore, Agamben relies on Schmitt’s
On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush made a speech on the terrorist attack, which took place on September 11, 2001. The people of America needed support and direction on how to handle what just happen. The American people demanded that the President addresses the Nation after the attacks and guide them. Nine days later, President Bush did just that. Over the next few days, emotions ran high in the country. “Will this happen again?” “Is it safe to leave in my home?” many wondered. Everywhere throughout the Nation, airlines had stopped service, the New York Stock Exchange was temporarily suspended, and every tv channel around the country played the latest news about the attack. The American people understandably asked and asked “What’s next?” from their leaders, so when President Bush gave his
September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.
The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons, that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police
On September 11, 2001, there was a terrorist attack against the United States. Hijackers flew a jetliner into each of New York’s World Trade Center towers. Simultaneously, a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. Due to these horrific events, thousands of people were killed. In response to the attacks, the United States declared a “War on Terror.” However, the actions of the U.S. did not come without criticisms from the people of the nation.
The United States has been in a national state of emergency fighting a war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. The intelligence communities have pursued and tracked down terrorist suspects who pose a direct threat to this country, yet one of the greatest threat to this country is the astronomical number of mass shootings and hate crimes that have occurred in this country post 9/11.
Along with increased security within the United States the NATO council declared that this attack was not only an attack on the U.S., but on all NATO nations. The United States declared a War on Terror to prevent an attack like these from happening again. The United States planned on achieving this by economic and military sanctions on states that are perceived to be involved in terrorist activities. The Taliban government was removed for supporting al-Qaeda. Many countries, such as the United Kingdom, India, Austria, and Pakistan, enforced anti-terrorist legislation after 9/11. The United States Department of Homeland Security was formed. The primary function is to help prevent, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism on the U.S.(York 2001) This is also an important case because it shows counter terrorism methods of not only the United States, but of the country’s allies as well. This is a prime example of allies coming to a nation’s aid in time of need. This case also showed how a country (the U.S.) with strong economic and military power is going to react and how this reaction is going to transform international relations. This case shows strong enforcement of demands on an attack that had many casualties.
There were many other examples of the declining of the federal exclusionary rule before the Mapp v. Ohio case. For example, Wolf v. Colorado, when the Fourth Amendment came in contact with the Fourteeneeth Amendment because the Supreme Court decided not to pass the federal exclusionary rule. Justice Frankfurter relied on the ruling of the People v. Defore case by Judge Cardozo(Black).
The issues raised by September 11 are less about constitutional war powers than about war wisdom. Under national and international law the President has legal authority to react in self-defense against this invasion of our territory. Even the most vigorous critics of executive power concede that under the Constitution the President is empowered, in Madison's words, to "repel sudden attacks." One might quibble over whether "repelling" an attack, which in the eighteenth century would have been a land or naval invasion by a foreign state, extends in this era to a military response outside the United States to an attack by unknown forces, but the principle
“Fellow citizens, we’ll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.” These were the words spoken by President George W. Bush the evening of the attacks on the World Trade Centers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the plane that was forced down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. After the attacks on September eleventh, the U.S. Government responded swiftly and decisively with actions through Federal Administrations, Congress, and the military that would have both short and long term effects on both the United States and the Middle East. Shortly after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Federal Aviation Administration, or the FAA, took the
Because like Walzer said “it’s only if millions of people are getting killed such as in Germany”, but before even looking into what it really was about. The Syria conflict came to my mind and I thought that would be considered the United States intervention was to protect innocent human lives. President Obama’s only problem in justifying a strike against Syria is one that involves jus ad bellum because his choice is not about “how” to fight, but “whether” or “on what authority” to do so. The problem lies in what actually justification will be on what kind of force will be used by the United States in Syria. So, I guess I’m just a little undecided on what could really be considered an emergency within the United States because the shootings of colored people and like the Charleston Church massacre in North Caroline. Many more things, happening internationally that involved the United States may be considered that; so let me know if I got the concept or not. It’s a very interesting one but also hard to understand on what can be, what in some
The Bush administration expanded power in matters of national security to define the threat and attack the enemy after September 1, 2001 terror attacks. The attacks of 911 were coordinated carefully which lead to the President signing into legislation the Transportation Security Administration in November 2001, which federalized all security screeners for airports to safeguard national security. During this period the President made it clear what his goals were succeeding the attacks: not permitting terrorist to restrike, the U.S. embarked a new kind of war, and the need to help recover areas affected by terrorist and ensure the economies did not shut down or split society. The focus was to protect the American population at home and deflate
September 11, 2001 marked the most horrific day in history for United States of America. The events of this day changed the lives of those residing in America forever. United States was considered somewhat safe, in regards to terrorists’ attacks. However, this all came to a screeching halt when 19 militants known to be a part of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group hijacked four planes for the purpose of destroying targeted areas in the United States. As a result of the deadly attack on the United States, security measures drastically changed. Although, security measures throughout the United States have been in place, extreme caution came into effect. All departments looked at different measures to improve preventing terrorists’ attacks.