Use Of Military Force Against Terrorism

The reason biggest reason that this is so controversial is the ability of our intelligence agencies acquire wire taps and search people personal correspondents without a warrant signed by a judge. However, I do not find this to be so troubling and the reason for that is, if you aren't doing anything in the way of terrorist activities you have nothing to worry about. People complain about their fourth amendment

At the beginning of the war on terror, President Bush’s handling of the situation was very popular. He insured everyone in the country that justice would be carried out and that the groups and individuals that helped with the attacks against the United States. In her paper, (Fisher) cited President Bush’s order as “any individual ‘not a United States citizen’ who the president determines that there is ‘reason to believe’ (1) ‘is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida,’ (2) ‘has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy,’ or (3) has ‘knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraph (1) and (2)’" (pg 504).

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States.

To conclude, the National Defense Administration Act is a bill that has a controversial side to it. Since 2011 it was tweaked a bit implying that the president has the right to take anybody’s constitutional rights by detaining them without the Corpus habeas protection or fair trial. It also has many functions for example it funds our protection which are the Army, Navy, etc. It ensures our safety as well as it breaks our constitutional rights. Although, it protects us because it funds the military, it takes away our rights by simply taking a person to jail without fair trial, which goes against the

Under the provisions within the September 18th, 2001 " Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the United States was able to grant the:

This has led to problems for many harmless people in the US. After the 9/11 incident, many innocent people have been denied entry inside the United States of America only because they had been suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. Taking the United States as an example, INA should have been Canada's primary source for comparison to ensure the same problems that the United state government faced, should not occur in Canada. Numerous people faced repercussions after this amendment was made. Another similarity between the two is that under the INA, the police has similar authority to the police officer under the Bill C-51, and can not only arrest an individual based on suspicion but can also prohibit him from entering the country if it is believed that the individual was a part of any terrorist activity.

On January 7, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law; the indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects, even for U.S. citizens seized on American soil. Justin Amash said, "The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial.” (House Passes Defense Bill). No one should be aloud to have the power to say a person should be indefinitely detained without charge or trial because they could cause danger to other people. Conservatives are worried that this bill will liberate power for the federal government, to have American citizens detained indefinitely if they are connected to terrorism even if they only contributed once to the group.

By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to

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

The National Defense Authorization Act, also known as NDAA, is a federal law established in the United States that manages and specifies the budgets and expenses of the United States Department of Defense. On December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill will address the United States’ national security programs, combat terrorism, it will increase the pay and health care to our service men and women. The dark side of this bill lies in the sections 1021-1022. This section of the bill states that any individual, including American citizen that is suspected of terrorism will be incarcerated in an undisclosed location without any trial or court hearing by the U.S. military. This bill caused the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit in 2013. This lawsuit, which was filed by Christopher Hedges, a New York Times reporter, challenged

The hastiness of its inception caused the USA PATRIOT Act to be deemed unconstitutional by the public court of opinion. Many citizens feared it was a knee jerk reaction to an attack that came without warning. However, the USA PATRIOT Act is constitutional and an effective counter-terrorism

You are the Secretary of Defense and the President has asked you to advise him on the use of military force.What are the costs and benefits of resorting to force? The Secretary of Defense’s job entails of many main responsibilities. One of the many being that it exercises authority, direction and control over the department. The Department of Defense is directly under the president, who is the Commander in Chief. The main objective of the Department of Defense is to provide the military the necessary resources, means and power to deter war and protect the citizens of the country. The main headquarters of the Department of Defense is at the Pentagon, which is located in Arlington County, Virginia.

Along with Article II of the Constitution, the president has too much influence and can essentially do whatever they want. Johnsen brings up a great point about what is actually “out of bounds” in the AUMF? When waging a war on an ideology, the war on terror, this vague authorization allows an increase in violence, U.S military involvement, and overall U.S control over other states. No one seems to know what success looks like and with this authorization the U.S has corned itself with its military injustice and involvement in foreign countries. Removing the troops and saying he will close Guantanamo Bay are great steps forward that Obama has pledged, however, create immense consequences that the U.S will face it changes their policies. The AUMF has furthered a cycle of military security issues and military involvement leaving other nations ridden with

Centuries of tyrants have taught humanity one thing, the world is a cruel and terrible place. It is full of people who will do anything in their power to be at the top, which exactly what the terrorist organization ISIS are doing right now. They are relatively new on the stage of wreaking havoc on the globe starting only in 2014. They have had the quickest rise to power going viral and fighting to gain ground ground physically, all while the US has used its best efforts to use counterterrorism to combat them. It has been a long two years since their grand opening and they are far from over.

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