You are a senior counterterrorism official for the federal government in a large American city. Your city has a significant Arab population–including both Arab American citizens and immigrants. To what degree are you going to focus your efforts on infiltrating that community within your city? Are you going to send agents to attend Mosques? Are you going to develop informants among those already living in that population? Are you bounded by any ethical considerations other than the need to prevent needless deaths through terrorism? They say a terrorist in the bush is worth two in the hand.
Hypothetically, terrorism is actually separatism, domestic opposition, or just plain old run of the mill crime. Forming ethnic separatist movements could be convincingly linked to international terrorism once an opportunity arises. I would enact laws that call for reorganization of the penal system, and ensure that outright violence is an integral part of the legal system. These actions would be geared towards affecting the foreign nationals accused of terrorism. This act would sanction unlimited detention of foreign nationals suspected of taking part in terrorism.
Conducting investigations in secret, by actually developing informants among those living in that population, would ensure that no dirty deal goes through unannounced. This would call for tight security. However, I would advocate for sympathy towards the innocent victims and massacre towards the terrorists. Some of the possible considerations associated with terrorist attacks would be enactment of laws that support curfew. My focus on infiltrating the foreign community into my city is based on the fact that the immigrants should be kept out, since most of them are associated with terrorism.
There are certain ethical considerations other than death, that are geared towards combating terrorism, and they include a peaceful coexistence, right to life and equal human dignity among others. An anti-terrorism bill is equally vital, to allow secret detention of even children, in order to combat the terrorist threat. I would enact laws that call for reorganization of the penal system, and ensure that outright violence is an integral part of the legal system. These actions would be geared towards affecting the foreign nationals accused of terrorism.
This act would sanction unlimited detention of foreign nationals suspected of taking part in terrorism. I wouldn’t send agents to attend mosques because I wouldn’t advocate for the religion. This is because it is associated with holy war and that is why many terrorism attacks are associated with Muslims according to my opinion. Based on the reading assignments, what status, rights and protections would you afford someone who was an American citizen captured in the United States in the act of terrorist violence?
How about someone who was a foreign national engage in terrorism in the United States? An American citizen fights American forces abroad? A foreign national, but not a member of a nation’s military, fighting American forces abroad? Would torture of any of these subjects ever be justified if it could save lives? It is apparent that people have been arrested and detained without charge, on grounds that they are Arabic, Muslim or Asian in origin. The alleged have been deprived of the right to challenge their detention.
They undergo maltreatments, torture and many other inhuman punishments by the United States. I would afford the prisoners of war status and rights by forming a convention that would guarantee them detention after trial and charge. I highly advocate for the jurisdiction in courts, to consider challenges to the legality of detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities. This would call for applications by persons claiming to be held in violation with the laws of the United States or the country the alleged are held hostage.
Questions have been raised about indefinite detention of American citizens seized abroad, detained in the United States and declared as enemy combatants. I suppose that the fundamental nature of a citizen’s right be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law. However, citizens held as enemy combatants should be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the basis of their detention before a neutral desicionmaker. The prisoners should not only have the right to appeal to the federal judge, but also formal access to a lawyer.
For the sake of military fighting abroad, there is the need of military created status tribunals to determine whether the prisoner’s detention is justified. Supreme courts should afford the prisoners captured abroad the right to show before a civil court of law that the enemy charges brought by the executive do not factually apply to them. A foreign national but not a member of the nation’s military, fighting American forces abroad, in my opinion, should have access to their own military court that addresses the dangers faced and rights to equal opportunity to them, despite the fact that they are foreign.
Culprits with an American origin, captured in the US in the act of terrorist violence need to undergo torture in order to save innocent lives. However, it is justified that American citizens fighting American forces abroad undergo thorough torture. What are the different perspectives concerning Just War? Can the war on terror be properly characterized as a just war? Under what circumstances would fighting terrorism cease to be just? Why? Just war could be regarded as realism. There is a believe that it is just a matter of power, self interest and necessity.
This has ended up making the moral analysis largely irrelevant. Secondly, it could be called holy war, due to the belief that God or some secular ideology authorizes the killing of unbelievers. Thirdly, this could also be referred to as pacifism. This is based on the belief that all war is intrinsically immoral. The final perspective of just war is the fact that universal moral reasoning should be applied to the activity of war, thereby helping us determine whether a particular use of force is justified or not. Questions have been raised on whether the war on terror can be properly characterized as a just war.
It is clear that everyone has the right to life and equal human dignity as well. It is argued that the use of war is not only morally justified but necessary, but I suppose that force be administered to killers involved in war or terrorism. It is not clear whether just war can be characterized as truly just or the act of fighting terrorism can be justified. According to my stipulation, the terrorist country should be disarmed by the more powerful and innocent party or country, to protect innocent people against them, since they lead to mass destruction.
Destroying the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would help a great deal. Morally acceptable military action justifies undertaking the just war, other than chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that would massacre the innocent. In my own opinion, under no one circumstance would fighting terrorism cease to be just. This is because, people have a right to life and there is no need to attack innocent people in the name of ‘Holy War’. People should be given equal opportunities.
How serious is the problem of anti-Americanism here at home? Should people be accountable for inciting violence when they glorify violent acts against America but they do not engage in it? What remedies are available to the government, if any, to deal with schools, mosques, and charities that indirectly support terrorism while not actually engaging in it? What should the remedies be? The severity of the Anti-Americanism here at home can hardly be predicted since state sponsors were thought to pose the greatest threat to the US interests.
Despite the pose, the independent terrorist groups who have no state sponsors are still remaining to be a primary threat to US. There is also a represented threat to the US by the State Sponsors of terrorism who were has recently focused widely to include the associates and extremist including, Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda and also other State Department groups. The obvious exemption of the state terrorism from the purview of the counterterrorism strategy is not incidental. There has been support from the U.
S organizations to the regimes which are involved in the intentional and systematic attacks on the inhabitants out of resistance to superseding strategic ideological concerns (U. S Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism, 2003). I believe that there should be accountability of people for the incitation of violence when they do the glorification of violent acts against America though they do not engage in it. With respect to diplomacy and foreign policy, there has been increasing trend towards independent ness which has key partners and has hence diminished the American credibility internationally.
Further the reliability has been damaged by the awareness that the U. S is prepared abide by the human rights abuses so long as they are necessary in the name of fighting terrorism. Therefore for this problem to be fought, the U. S needs to bind the respect for the human rights to its financial and diplomatic relations specifically in the area of foreign aid. This way, their will be enhancement of Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world by understanding the frustrations and concerns of the Arabs and Muslims.
I also believe that the efforts of counterterrorism will require combined effort of both the American Muslim community as well as its organizations (U. S Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism, 2003). The available remedy remaining for the government is drying up the terrorist sources of funding. This financial war can only be enforced once there is an enactment of the law, diplomatic initiatives and intellectual resources which include, the sanctions of international trade, denying them access to the U. S capital markets, blocking the U. S based assets together with economic and financial tools.
The remedies should be for the unilateral ability of the government to assign and block the possessions of the suspects or accused of having links to the terrorists including there charities which allow it too close businesses and accuse the individuals of their wrong doing as without having to go to court to prove the terrorism connection (U. S Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism, 2003). Give your overall assessment of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Do you think it has contributed to the lack of terror attacks in the United States since 9/11? If you were in Congress, would you vote to renew the act as is?
Would you change anything? Why or why not? My overall assessment of the Section 326 of the USA PATRIOTIC ACT requires that a financial institution customer should follow the regulations in the act which state that, there must be a verification of the identity of any person who whishes to open an account of an individual who whishes to open an account. The same records of verifying the identity of an individual should be kept. After that, the government should then be consulted to check on the list of known, suspects of terror and also the organizers of terror.
Also this section 326 of the ACT, necessitates that the treasury by consulting the Federal function controllers and other organizations of the Government in order for the study to be conducted as well as issuance of the report which will provide the proposal in accordance to the application of the identification of the customer according to the requirements when a customer is in a foreign nation. Presently there has been renewal of the practices in the current financial institutions in regard to the verification of the identities of the customer (USA PATRIOTIC ACT, 2001).
According to my opinion, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, there have been more improved security which has led to reduction in the terror attacks. Observing from the financial institutions, there is improvement in identifying the suspects due to the identification procedures which an individual undergoes during the opening of an account. I could have voted for the ACT if I was in congress since the renewals indicate that there are more improved ways of identifying the terrorist.
This change could have taken place in the Act on the basis of verifying the identification of an individual since the in the ACT, the U. S does not distinguish between the US citizens and those from the foreign nations. I believe that there should be distinguishing (USA PATRIOTIC ACT, 2001) Conclusion Due to the threats and attacks in the U. S by the Arabs, the US government wants to find a way of eradicating this kind of attacks. Therefore I opted for enacting the USA PATRIOTIC ACT which will make sure that there is a distinguishment between the citizens and foreigners in order for proper identification of the suspects.
Also there is another option of getting hold of the terrorists this will apply when an individual will open an account hence the process of identification will also help to get the attacker. References USA Patriotic Act (2001) Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to interception and obstruct terrorism act of 2001 accessed on 21-October 2008, retrieved from http://www. treas. gov/press/releases/reports/sec326breport. final. pdf