The War On Terror : Do The Rules Need For Change?

“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key

Terrorism is defined as an act of violence that is committed by an organization or a single person in order to be heard. Terrorist acts are usually based on a couple factors such as, historical grievances, foreign policy decision, poverty, and religion. Terrorism is not a new act amongst the world but something that has been around since the beginning. To understand a criminal you must think like a criminal, and understand why they committed a crime or a violent act, then you can prevent and conquer.

The term terrorism is used widely in present day especially in the United States. Terrorism is a double standard, the people who commit those terrorist acts, commit the acts out of beliefs and in their eyes ok. Terrorism can be described as the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people (Laqueur, 1987). To me the definition mention above is a great definition to describe terrorism as a crime. To aim for innocent people to prove a point which lead major injuries or death in most cases is to most people would be a crime, no questions asked. According to Martha Crenshaw (1995), “Terrorism cannot be defined unless the act, target and possibility of success are analyzed”. So to think, terrorist are people who commit these acts as a way to get their political or religious point across. If we look at the some of the most famous terrorist acts they are automatically labeled crimes. 9/11 was a crime because the persons affiliated with the act, targeted the

The U.S. continues to implement effective initiatives and provide adequate resources for the War on international terrorism; whereas the threat magnitude of international terrorism is miniscule in comparison to the number of mass shootings and hate crimes which take place in this country on a daily basis.

The U.S. continues to implement effective initiatives and provide adequate resources for the War on international terrorism; whereas the threat magnitude of international terrorism is miniscule in comparison to the number of mass shootings and hate crimes taking place on a daily basis in this country.

In this paper, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be defined and discussed in relation to the event of 9/11. As well as, the legal constraints that are associated with the conduct of hostilities under the new conditions imposed. The term “terrorism” and “terrorist” were included following the events of 9/11, identifying a new type of enemy. Narratives of who the enemy was changed towards individuals who were or seemed like a Muslim. Muslims were perceived as the new enemy. This subsequently led to major legal constraints such as

Today if you ask anybody about the term “terrorism” everyone would say that 9/11, and the attacks on the United States homeland were the most quintessential attacks ever performed by a terrorist organization. Those attacks brought war upon the United States and ultimately lost multiple lives that gained us nothing but the brokenness of families of fallen soldiers. The term “terrorism” is made to cause a change in the system that will give the opposing forces recognition not to be tampered with. That goal was met when the 9/11 attacks commenced, but there was another attack that was about 20 years earlier that had the same impact and caused a mass withdrawal of U.S. forces and caused the most aggressive president in history to give into the terrorists demand. I introduce Beirut 1983, in Lebanon, in the midst of a civil war; a new form of extremist terrorism began on a fateful day that killed 241 servicemen.

On September 11, 2011, the United States was rocked with a terrorist attack unlike any other to its date or since. As a nation we grieved and mourned the loss of those that died that day and in the following days from the event. While terrorism was nothing new on this date, terrorism has been around in some form or another since the time man began inhabiting the earth. Terrorism has never been something that the US has been free from, but it is something that the US viewed very differently from that date on.

Throughout history, America has been confronted by opponents who wish to challenge its sovereignty. Over time, these challenges have been coined terrorism, and those that engage in terrorism have been known as terrorists. While allowing terrorism to thrive is an option that the leader of the free world rejects, the effects of combatting terrorism can appear to be just as damaging. As times have evolved, so has this threat of terrorism; with the evolution of terror comes the evolution of methodology in combating terror. Since its development, the nation’s rivals have campaigned to disrupt the American way of life, and though written in the Constitution, it is understandable to reason that these liberties American citizens hold so dearly must be suspended in order to successfully combat the nature of today’s threat from terror. Prevention of terror is vital in today’s age. Terrorism has plagued the nation and in an effort to prevent such acts, the nation has embraced the belief of infringing upon civil liberties in an effort to safeguard its borders from terrorism in America in the name of national security.

In order to understand the policies adopted in the War on Terror, we must first look to the origins of the conflict as well as the practices involved. Whilst the term itself was initially introduced during the Reagan administration, it was given renewed vigour under George Bush following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon on 9/11. The consequences of these attacks saw the Bush administration undertake a new policy against terrorism which included: defeating terrorists and abolishing their organisations, denying sponsorship and support to terrorists and defending US citizen’s interests at home and abroad (Whitehouse Archives, 2003). In this way, the War on Terror can be considered more than just an armed conflict

The attacks of September 11, 2001 had a large impact on the United States, and marked the beginning of the Global War on Terror (Dyson). However, with international terrorism

The War on Terror began on October 7, 2001. In the words of former president George W. Bush, “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." President Bush outlined the following as objectives for the War on Terror:

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

Think of the word terrorism. What is the first thing that comes to mind? One might think of kidnapping, assassination, bombing, or even genocide and guerrilla warfare. Because it is such a broad and complex issue, an all-encompassing definition is hard to formulate. The United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as…

The United Nations has condemned all forms of terrorism, but what exactly that means is still up for debate. Most states would probably be willing to extradite a “terrorist,” but not quite as willing to extradite a “freedom fighter.” The first step that is necessary to close this loophole is defining the concept of terrorism itself. The current usage of the term “terrorism” is politically contrived. The former U.S. Judge to the International Court of Justice, Richard Baxter, has shown the problem with the definition of terrorism: “[W]e have cause to regret that a legal concept of terrorism was ever inflicted upon us. The term is imprecise; it is ambiguous; and above all, it serves no operative legal purpose”