The Gendered Perspective: Neglecting Women in Terrorism Research
Despite the clear involvement of women in terrorism and terror-related activities, international law response to terrorism has refused to consider the fact. Therefore, existing studies explore the issue from a gendered perspective where the perpetrator is male. The result is the experiences of women are excluded, which leads to an unclear picture of what really happens to women in theaters of war or where there are terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the exclusion of women has led to a situation where counter-terrorism efforts produce impacts that are specific to women but are unknown to policymakers. If the impact is negative, efforts meant to address violence lead to adverse outcomes for women and girls and are different from the original intention of the policymakers.
Empowering Women: An Underutilized Strategy against Radicalization
Despite the exclusion of women, governments are implementing measures to address the issue. One of the ways they are doing that is to explore the impact of terrorism on women. Secondly, governments fighting insurgents are using women for strategic communication purposes to blunt the messages from jihadists and other terror groups. Women play a critical role in society, such as mentoring young people and sharing messages that counter those of terrorists, making it harder for groups to recruit young men and women. Their role in fighting insurgents is underappreciated, but that is changing with the emerging appreciation that women do not operate on the fringe but play a critical role in insurgent movements even if they are not taking up arms.
The United Nations has recognized the important role of women in recognizing early signs of radicalization and dealing with it. In international terrorism discourse, there is a growing appreciation that involving women in countering terror and radicalization is the most potent weapon against the problem that is getting worse with time. Although the role of women in preventing radicalization is not well studied, emerging evidence from Pakistan suggests that with the right training, women can make children reach adulthood and question some assumptions and beliefs that lead to radicalization.
Women are closer to children; they can use that closeness to force their children to question some of the beliefs they take for granted, and they are the basis for terrorism. Women can act as preventers of terrorism. However, researchers have documented that women do act as perpetrators of violence. Therefore, engaging with them directly reduces their chances of engaging in acts of terror.
Children in the Crosshairs: Targets and Tools in Terrorism
According to Horgan, Taylor, Bloom & Winter, while researchers have studied the impact of large-scale violence on children, they have not studied some aspects. One of the less understood areas is the motivation to use children as targets of terror and as perpetrators. Evidence suggests that terror groups and even government soldiers target children to create an environment of fear. In Pakistan, the Taliban targeted children so that they could cause fear and terror in families.
They hoped to kill children of government officers or soldiers involved in violence so that they could feel the pain of losing loved ones. The objective is not just to kill but to inflict pain by targeting the innocent and helpless ones. The killing of children also provokes a massive amount of revulsion mixed with fear, which is the objective of any terror group. Without causing fear, terror groups cannot be effective or force the government to negotiate.
The extent of the violence against children is massive. Estimates suggest that the number of children affected by violence is in the range of 15 million in 70 countries. Even in developed countries such as the United States, violent groups have not spared children from violence. Episodic violence, such as the Sandy Hook attack, leaves scores of children dead or injured. Children are also easy targets for recruitment by groups because they are vulnerable. Terror groups recruit them to serve as fighters or as sex slaves if they are girls.
Some groups, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda, used children exclusively as fighters. During the American War of Independence, the revolutionaries used children extensively. Children as young as seven years old played important roles in the war as scouts or in supportive functions. Boko Haram, a terror group operating in northern Nigeria, uses children as suicide bombers. The groups find children easier to handle and indoctrinate so that they can cause mass causalities in the war on terror.
The Unique Vulnerability of Children in Terrorist Conflicts
Children experience terror differently compared to men and women. On one hand, they are victims when attackers kill them. When they survive death, terror groups use them as cannon fodder when fighting government-backed soldiers. They fight in the frontline, taking much of the fire while the older fighters remain in the background. Once they have blunted the attack of the fire, the mature attacks now join the frontline. During its war with Iraq, Iran extensively used children as cannon fodder by encouraging them to walk on mined fields to define them.
Also, non-state actors such as Boko Haram victimize children when they kidnap them to act as sex slaves and suicide bombers. Some groups, particularly in Africa, exclusively use children as soldiers. On those dimensions, the experiences of children are different. Women might suffer violence and sex slavery, but rarely do fighters force them to join the war. For men, terrorist groups might force them to take arms, but they do not suffer from sexual exploitation.
Distinct Experiences: How Men, Women, and Children Face Terrorism
In conclusion, it is evident that women and men can be victims of terrorism and perpetrators. In the case of women, they are often likely to be victims, judging from the latest incidents of terrorism in the Middle East and Africa. In the Darfur region of Sudan, terror groups rape women as part of ethnic cleansing and erasing the identity of undesirable groups. In the Middle East, groups such as the ISIS use women as sex slaves. Men not allied to the terror groups are killed or forced to join the violence as perpetrators. In some cases, women have been fighting for terrorists.
Therefore, the experiences of women and men differ to some extent. However, in international law and studies on terrorism, the focus has been on men to the exclusion of children and women. The gendered view has led to some misunderstanding, but it is now clear that including women in every aspect of counter-terrorism has benefits. One of the benefits is fighting the propaganda messages from terror groups. Other than women, another group whose experiences in dealing with terror the international law has relegated to the periphery is children.
References
Ahmed, S. (2017). Women in Terrorism: A Gendered Study. Oxford University Press.
Jackson, R., & Sinclair, A. (2019). Terrorism and Gender: The Unnoticed Impact. Cambridge University Press.
UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (2020). The Role of Women in Countering Terrorism. United Nations Publications.
Horgan, J., Taylor, M., Bloom, M., & Winter, C. (2021). Children and Terrorism: A Comprehensive Analysis. Wiley Blackwell.
Mustafa, H. (2022). Terror Tactics in Pakistan: The Taliban’s Strategy. Lahore University Press.
Global Terrorism Database (2023). Children as Targets and Tools in Terrorism. GTD Publications.
These days, terrorism is the most serious problem in a harmonious society. It can be attacks on air travel, bio-terrorism, or assaults on symbolic sites. About these attacks from terrorism, I think bioterrorism is the most significant threat.
Understanding Bioterrorism: Silent, Deadly, and Underestimated
What is bio-terrorism? It is a planned release of infectious viruses and bacteria with the intention of causing disability or death. Comparing this kind of attack with others, we can see it is more dangerous. Other kinds of terrorism can be seen, so it is possible to avoid the attack, but the virus is different; which is an invisible attack. Once people realize they are attacked, it is already too late.
By the way, it seems that terrorists can easily get the virus to release. The anthrax letter case in the United States shows that a few grams of anthrax pathogens will have a serious impact on a large country. The terrible thing is that a person can easily produce 5g of anthrax pathogens with college-level basic knowledge of biology, a small room, and some necessary equipment. However, there are few effective measures to avoid bioterrorism attacks. Generally, there are only two methods, namely, timely and efficient intelligence reconnaissance and better biological protection systems.
From Farms to Cities: The Wide-Reaching Impacts of Biological Attacks
Biological attacks can paralyze any country, even the most developed. In addition to the huge casualties and economic losses, it will also cause panic among residents. This kind of attack not only has strong concealment but also takes a long time and often lasts for quite a long time. If every day there is a situation of new diseases and new infections that continues for a few weeks, society will begin to feel uneasy about it, with many people no longer going out to work and not daring to open envelopes, companies closing, fewer visitors, and fewer social and political activities.
Terrorists may use chemical weapons or biological weapons to attack agricultural enterprises or the food industry. Attacking fields and farms is much easier than attacking military bases or government buildings, but the resulting losses and impacts are immeasurable. The farmers and workers will get sick, and nobody can produce food and goods. After the attack happens, it is difficult to identify people or institutions engaged in these activities; terrorist organizations or individuals may not be known for a considerable period of time after carrying out biological attacks.
It is said Al Qaeda has shown a strong interest in biological attacks. Methods of making biological weapons have been published on the Internet. According to Interpol, bio-terrorism has become the biggest security threat in the world, not only because of the huge destructive power of biological attacks but also because the police of all countries in the world are unprepared for such attacks.
Bio-terrorism is so serious that people’s attention to national security can not be limited to normal weapons. The bioterrorism attack can hurt more people and is easier to do. I consider it the most significant threat.
References
Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press.
Christopher, G. W., Cieslak, T. J., Pavlin, J. A., & Eitzen, E. M. (1997). Biological warfare. A historical perspective.
This is one of the social questions that are troubling security authorities in many nations countywide. To answer this question accurately, we must clarify the meanings of the three keywords: suspect, torture, and terrorist.
Torture is the practice of inflicting severe pain on a person as a means of punishment or to force the person to provide the required information or do something. A terrorist is an individual who makes use of unlawful intimidation or violence over the civilian in the pursuit of attaining the anticipated objectives. Suspect, on the other hand, will refer to the person who is accused of something, but there is no truth or definite proof that will justify the accusation.
Advantages of Using Torture in Counterterrorism
To fight terrorism in any country, having facts and information serves as the appropriate and the only weapon. Terrorism is a threat by a fraction of individuals to a multitude of people. Using any means to save many innocent people will be justified in the end.
Since the suspects may not be willing to provide the required information and will try all the possible means to protect their group, using intimidation and cruel punishment may serve the most. However, good torture can be used to force the terror suspects to give the required information. According to international law, this method is quite inhumane, and it is a wrong way that should be followed whenever information about terrorist attacks is required. This is the major explanation. It is outlawed and supported by the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The use of torture against terror suspects is harmful based on the following.
The Humanitarian and Practical Drawbacks of Torture
Operations that surround torture are painful and inhuman. Those who are relevant to inflict such pain have only one object: to accept all the accusations. In normal cases, under severe inflicted pain, a person (suspect) can accept whatever is being said as one of the means that will reduce the punishment. Provided that the person under torture will accept the accused wrongly, the method used (torture) will not be of any help to the nation in protecting the civilians against insecurity but will pave the way for unidentified terrorists to keep increasing the insecurity instances within the very nation.
Information is the only weapon that will help in coming up with the solutions that will help in tackling any insecurity problems in the nation. During the infliction of pain on the terror suspect, the required information may be provided, but this may also cause other later problems for the suspect. There is no proof that the accused suspect is the one connected to the erupting terror, but the person ought to be.
When torture is being conducted, the suspect may turn out to be innocent of the accusation, but there are possibilities that the person has lost social-economic values and may have gone through health degradation such as severe beating, waterboarding, going without sleep, excruciating stressful position, mockery and much more. Even if the so-called suspect is compensated, health problems that the person may have contracted will be a problem for the entire life of the person, thus causing economic problems to society as the person will heavily depend on relatives and friends to support all the social needs required by the person and his or her dependents such as children.
Historical Perspective: US Practices and Policy Shifts
Protection of the suspects has been a problem because there is no grey area between the moderate pressure and the torture that suspects are subjected to. For instance, Mr. Bush and his team argued that America neither authorizes nor condones the use of torture against terror suspects. Later, when the terrorism suspects were sent to Guantanamo in January 2002, his statement test was mixed up. He said that the terrorist suspects would be treated humanely but to the extent appropriate and consistent with the military necessity. This statement clearly shows that, at some point, detainees may be subject to cruelty and inhuman punishment.
Not until 2006, in the United States of America, all detained terrorism suspects were subjected to torture and other inhuman punishment. After the ruling which was done in Hamadan in the year 2006, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was enacted to ban all sorts of inhuman cruelty and degrading treatment, including torture, as this practice seemed to be ineffective in extracting the required information which could be used to stabilize the national harmony and to instill security among the citizens.
Reevaluating the Ethics and Effectiveness of Torture
However good the method can be used to extract information, torture against suspects is ineffective and quite repugnant as suspects will say anything to attract lesser pain from the inflictor. Knowledge gained may not be useful and, therefore, will not be sufficient to help the country in protecting itself against any future terrorist activities.
Some countries require the relevant authority to inflict reasonable pain for the information extraction, but many of those who are interrogating the suspect may go the extra mile to cause more harm than good. Others cause severe problems for the innocent person that will create a lot of societal issues, such as increasing dependency, among others. Based on this, therefore, the use of torture against terrorist suspects is unjustified. Other alternative measures should be put into practice other than continuing the use of torture against terror suspects.
References
Amnesty International. (2017). The Global Campaign Against Torture. Amnesty International Publications.
Conroy, J. (2000). Unspeakable acts, ordinary people: The dynamics of torture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dershowitz, A. M. (2002). Why terrorism works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Evans, C., & Morgan, S. (2009). Torture: A sociology of violence and human rights. London: Routledge.
Geneva Conventions. (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention). International Committee of the Red Cross.
Although terrorism existed on a smaller scale before, the events of September 11, 2001 involving attacks against the U.S. resulted in highlighting terrorism on the international stage like never before. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the FBI unanimously define terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (Payne, 2007).
The world has witnessed three deadly terrorist attacks in recent years against the U.S. and Europe. The first was the unprecedented 9/11 attack against the U.S. that resulted in the death of 2972 people (September11victims.com, 2004) besides leaving many more maimed for life. The second was the ferocious bombings of Madrid’s train network on March 11, 2004 that killed 191 and wounded 1,824 people (Cnn.com, 2004). The third was the vicious bombs detonated on London’s tube trains and buses on July 7, 2005 that killed 56 people and maimed 700 more (Frost, 2005).
These terrorist attacks jolted the U.S. and EU into undertaking counter-terrorism measures in close cooperation with each other, to , “form a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamic terrorism, exchange terrorist information with trusted allies, and strengthen border security by fostering global cooperation.” Since 9/11, the U.S. and EU officials hold regular meetings to discuss strategies against terrorism. The U.S. Secretary of State, Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security hold high profile annual meetings with their opposite numbers in the EU, while senior members of a joint U.S.-EU group hold half-yearly meetings. Liaison officers have been posted on both sides – two officers from Europol are stationed in Washington, while one FBI officer is posted in The Hague. A U.S. Secret Service representative is also stationed in the same Dutch city to interact with Europol on counterfeiting matters. The close cooperation has enabled officials on both sides to update their terrorist information and create an ongoing formal discussion on terrorist financing and border/transport security matters such as sharing passenger information, statistical study of biological data, cargo safety and sky marshals (Archick, 2006).
Another achievement has been the signing of two Police and Judicial cooperation agreements , authorizing U.S. law enforcement agencies and Europol to make common use of ‘strategic’ data , and ‘personal’ data . Both sides also concluded two agreements in 2003 on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance to enhance the process of extradition and prosecution. Due to the EU opposition to the death penalty in the U.S., it was agreed that anyone extradited from the EU to the U.S. would not be given the death sentence there. Two Border Control and Transport Security agreements were concluded in 2004 that, among other things, allowed U.S. Container Security Initiative officers to be posted in EU ports to assist initial scanning of cargo containers destined for the U.S. to prevent smuggling of dangerous substances including weapons of mass destruction (Archick, 2006).
The U.S. and EU extended their cooperation in many other areas. They agreed to exchange data on lost or pilfered passports, statistical identifiers of biological data, and aviation safety technology (Archick, 2006).
However, although thankfully not major in nature, some areas of dissent and difference have arisen. First of all, while the U.S. insists on having armed air marshals on flights to Europe, only the U.K and France have agreed to it. Secondly, the U.S. looks upon Europol as not adequately capable of proper law enforcement. Thirdly, both sides protest that the process of sharing data leaves much to be desired. Fourthly, terrorist lists of both sides do not always complement each other, for instance, in spite of pressure from the U.S., some EU countries prefer not to add charities linked to Hama’s or Hezbollah to the EU common terrorist list. Fifthly, the EU does not approve of new U.S. pressure to receive PNR lists ‘before’ rather than ‘after’ airplanes have left EU soil bound for the U.S. Lastly, the EU is pressurized by its nationals’ skeptical view of U.S. policies considered increasing distance from the ‘hearts and minds’ of Muslims, such as continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, past atrocities against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, and continued internment of persons believed guilty of terrorist crimes at Guantanamo Bay prison (Archick, 2006).
In spite of these minor differences, both the U.S. and EU continue their cooperation against terrorism. Their cooperation has resulted in the very commendable foiling of several terrorist attacks. First, two West and East Airliner Plots were uncovered in 2002 and 2003 that intended to employ hijacked planes to attack the West and East Coasts of the U.S. (Whitehouse.gov, 2005). Second, the Millennium Bomb Plot in August 2005 spearheaded by Algerian Ahmed Ressam to set off bombs in Los Angeles airport (Cbsnews.com, 2005); Third, the U.K Plane Bombing Plot in August 2006 plan to simultaneously detonate explosives aboard 10 airplanes flying from the U.K to the U.S. (Cnn.com, 2006). Fourth, the Germany Bombing Plot in September 2007 to bomb U.S. bases in Germany (Whitlock, 2007). Fifth, the Copenhagen Conspiracy hatched by 8 young Muslims, also in September 2007, to perpetrate acts of terrorism in the Danish city (Economist.com, 2007).
The continued cooperation between the U.S. and EU is very crucial in the fight against terrorism because the ‘mother of all terrorists,’ Al Qaeda has, according to latest U.S. military intelligence reports, regrouped to its pre-September 11, 2001 strength . The continued potent threat posed by Al Qaeda is evident from its ominous announcement in September this year that it intends to enhance attacks especially against those countries that are supporting security forces in Iraq (Hegseth, 2007).
References
Anon. (2005). 22 Years for Millennium Bomb Plot. 2007. Web.
The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world. It is a country that is admired by many. It has been seen by most as the land of the free, a place to fulfill dreams. It is one country that everyone, almost, would like to come and live in. They say that America is a country full of hope and fulfillment. America has been the center of envy for most countries as it prospers economically. It also has been the center of a lot of controversy as per its security measures and military forces. Everyone thought that the United States of America is an untouchable country. The world thought it was the safest and most beautiful place to live in. This was the truth before the tragic September 11, 2001 incident happened.
Figure 1. The world trade center during the 9/11 incident.
The 9/11 incident had changed the way the world sees America. it also did change the way the American government sees the issue of terrorism. For the last couple of years, the war against terrorism was heightened. It can be said that the pursuit against heads of terrorist group has been taken into a higher level after the American government saw what these groups are ready to do to spread terror around the globe. Each has their own opinion on what is right and wrong regarding the war against terrorism. Sides are being taken as the impact of the war against terrorism is evaluated. It has been six long years of fight and struggles to amend the wrongs done in the past. it has been six years when America started to really be more serious about containing terrorism.
Context
Terrorism is as old as human conflict and is often see as a political struggle that can be done by any player. It has been an old problem that has been made even worst by the employment of ever more dangerous and lethal forms of attack. It is a great equalizer of power (Baudrillard, 2003). The picture shows how killing and bomb attacks became a common scene in countries with the issue of terrorism.
The September 11 bombing had made a great impact on the lives of those living in the States and around the globe as well. Some could still recall the vivid scenario at that time the plane collided with the building. Nobody was prepared for that. It had shown how a great country like America could be the target of a heinous crime. Since this incident, the US government had modified its rules and laws to make sure that it will never be repeated. They have even resorted to going out on war with some countries when they deem necessary. Some of the actions that Congress has done are passing the Anti-terrorism Bill, Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and freezing the account of Al Barakat and Al Taqwa that are suspected to give financial aid to terrorists.
The Anti-terrorism Bill was passed last September 19, 2001 and October of the same year the Congress has passed the bill and it was signed by the President. This bill defines how they would handle terrorists and if ever, the attacks that would be made by the enemies. In the Anti-terrorism bill, they detailed how they plan to intercept and obstruct terrorism in the United States of America (York, 2001).
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act was passed by the Congress last November 16, 2001. Since the 9/11 tragedy was brought upon by an airplane crashing in the World Trade Center, they have tightened the security and provided rules in this act on how airport security personnel and air marshalls must do their work (York, 2001).
The freezing of asset of Al Barakat and Al Taqwa was done through the decree of EO 13224. This executive order authorizes aggressive actions against the bankers of international terrorism. The assets were not frozen only in America but in other countries as well that believe terrorism should be stopped (York, 2001).
Figure 3. Picture of President Bush and Bin laden, the key actors in the war on terrorism.
These are just some of the bills that were passed to make sure that the American citizens are safe and that there will be no repeat of the tragedy. After five years, the effectiveness of these bills and actions of the government is still left to be seen for five years is still a very young age to gauge how safe America is after the tragedy and after all the measures that were made. One thing is for sure though.
America has proven its enemy that knocking them is never that easy because their revenge is more harsh and cruel. This was especially seen on what the United States of America has done to the assets of Al Barakat and Al Taqwa. These two have already made their millions through their businesses but since they are known to finance terrorist group like Al-Qaida’s group, suddenly all that they have worked hard work and all their riches come to a halt.
Argument
There are a lot of issues about human rights and budget used for the war against terrorism. A lot of people around the world see the Bush administration as incompetent when it comes to handling terrorism matters. Many believe that going out on war in the Middle East was unnecessary. Humanitarians believe that it is a serious issue and that what is needed is to think a hundred times before someone holds a gun and aim it at another person. When you are given the chance to hold a weapon for destruction like the gun, it comes with a great responsibility that you might have not foreseen. Make sure that you are fully aware of what you are against at and what you are fighting for before you commit yourself into doing such a chivalrous act for your society and for mankind.
When the United States declared against war on Iraq, Russia was one of those who oppose this moved. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was one of those who blocked its way through the United Nations Security Council for the war to be a legal one (Bryan, 2003). The Russians believe that what America had done will not help the situation but instead create a catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. The United States on the other hand accuses Russia of supplying Iraq with military equipment to Iraq which means the country has bypass the sanction given by United Nations against Iraq. Russia denied this allegation and asked the United States to act more responsibly.
In a realistic point of view, the state is taken as a unitary actor and Military power takes primacy. In realism, policies are made according to who needs to gain power and what countries need not just a negotiation but for a more forceful action. Power domination and military power are the names of the game. Countries opted to make use of their power to solve a recurring problem and to make things easier. This is what the Bush Administration had opted to use when they try to solve the problem of terrorism by attacking Iraq. Most Americans have lost their confidence in the foreign policies made by the administration. They saw it as something that does not support an American ideology (William,1982).
The search for a vision by international intervention as most Western leaders do has painted a picture of destabilization and destruction for some countries, even if it is in favor of ethical relativism (William, 1982).
Winning the war on terrorism
Figure 4. Graphical representation of terrorist attacks through the years.
Answers sought by the American government against terrorism might be seen by some as a loss but if one looks at the bigger picture, America is winning the war on terrorism. Prolonging the problem may cause bigger issue to arise. It can become a battle of wills and create bad feelings (Kelman, 2005). The time frame of the alternative solution must be set and strictly followed since if it is loose, justice is delayed. The American government made sure that justice was not delayed for what the tragic accident that befall them.
Since the US government started the war against terrorism, important progress has been made. The method of identifying individuals as terrorist, their modus operandi, and their mechanisms of travel and funding has improved. These might not completely eradicate terrorism but it is one way of showing how serious the US government is in winning the war against terrorism.
Winning the war on terrorism does not necessarily mean more of the enemies were killed, it also means being able to strengthen the security against terrorism in the national front. The United States of America is a vast country that is made up of fifty states. With the wide area of responsibility and with a numerous airports and airlines going in and out of the territory, providing transportation security is a very tedious job.
A lot of well-trained officials need to be put in command to make sure that these ports are taken care of against terrorism (Coughlin, Cohen, and Khan. 2002). The transportation and Security Administration department was made as a response to the 9/11 tragedy. TSA was made with the aim of solidifying the transportation safety procedures. Intelligence sharing, vulnerability analysis, technology sharing, and VIPER teams are the answers of TSA in bringing on a more strict safety procedures.
The Iraq war is not the first time that the American government started a war against a suspected terrorist in the Middle East. This is certainly not the last as issues on Iran nuclear weapons are also casting doubts in the news. This issue might have put America in a negative light because of some humanitarian issues but if we look at it in the bigger picture, there are positive outputs that are just not being sensationalized. In the first quarter of 2007, there is a lot of news about more and more Al Qaeda members captured. Important military allies of Osama bin Laden has also been reported to have been killed in crossfire between the military groups and the terrorist.
There is even news of an Iraqi believed to be a crucial link between al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, and his cadres in Iraq (Economist.com / Global Agenda, 2007). Punishments and discipline should be effective and American government had been effective in spreading terror to terrorists, making them feel that the US government would stop at nothing to make sure that justice is served.
Military force was used carefully and selectively. But like other tools, it was available to the President in responding to the real-world problems our nation confronted. Government officials’ credibility with his people is decreasing because of the warfare and political power is done not in a traditional way. After the Cold War, Western security has been an important political and ideological defense sought after. However, some Western leaders have forgotten that humanitarian intervention as part of their foreign policy cannot be abused. A thing that most political leaders have forgotten as foreign policy became an important source of authority and credibility for them. Drastic measures were taken with the good of the majority in mind (Schmid and Jongman, 2005).
The US government was able to maintain a global coalition of more or less seventy countries that supports their advocate against terrorism. Bringing terrorists to justice will take a combined, determined, and sustained effort by countries around the world and The United States and key partners have stepped up to this challenge. International treaties and policies are agreed on to counter the different threats posed by the terrorist.
Afghanistan was not abandoned by the US government after the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The US government helped Afghanistan stabilize their country after the war by helping set up the Afghan parliament. In 2005, U.S. terrorism and foreign policy analysts visited Afghanistan to assess the political and security situation, as well as the role of outside forces. The US government provided the political help that the country needed to rebuild itself. As of date, US military troops have not yet left the country as terrorists are still determined to destabilize the government and drive out international peacekeeping forces. The US government and its allies on the other hand have foreseen what might happen and are preparing all the necessary actions to stop terrorism.
Figure 5. Map of US military deployment.
The picture above shows how serious America is in fighting the war against terrorism. Different emergency groups and task forces are deployed to ensure the security of its citizens.
If political groups around the world are doing their best to seize terrorism, terrorists have also enhanced as the threat of biological warfare agents are in the news and reports. The history of terrorism shows us that despite the combined efforts of policies, security measures, and intelligence gathering the threat still lingers.
The American government had prepared not only their policies and military but also by making sure that the medical and emergency service communities are trained on what should be done in case of symptoms caused by biological warfare agents. The Us government also have what they call the “Critical Incident Stress Debriefing” team that handles the emotional condition of exposed survivors.This denies terrorists their goal of creating panic and crisis throughout the country and the world (Schmid and Jongman, 2005).
Conclusion
Countries in the Middle East need a new perspective. An idealist point of view might be something that is hard to implement but it does not mean that it is unachievable. Nothing is impossible and the hope for peace and stability will never be abandoned. It is high time that the approach handled to these countries be modified (Goldstein and Freeman, 1990).
Battles are not being fought because of hatred. it is more on because of ideologies, of what one perceives to be right wherein the other think of it as negative. No war waged is ever futile if the end will justify the means. Culture set the behavior that surrounds an institution’s code of conduct. Factors that are included are the way we comprehend the environment, how we use time and power, how we perceive space and structures. Also included is our perception of collective and individual tasks or relationships. (McNamara, 1999).
It is not about who is right and who is wrong but a need to be aware that questioning conventional wisdom is healthy to increase understanding and awareness on certain international issues. Options to resolve difficulties and conflicts together should be attained by logical reasoning and unbiased decisions within. Resolving conflicts requires decision-making skills and steps that should be followed. Problems do not arise overnight. There are always underlying factors that need to be investigated to know the rot cause of the problem.
Figure 6. American soldier and Middle Eastern people during a quiet time.
The US citizens are not far more important than those living in the Middle East or those third-world countries. However, the battle started by the US government was not something that is aimed at people living in third world countries. it was a war against terrorism. There are a lot of people who are against the move of Bush administration as they opted to start an all out war in Iraq and other terrorists’ country. People thought it is just a waste and is just a way of killing people who weren’t supposed to be part of it. However, what others had failed to see was what the Americans were doing for those innocent people who were just truly victims.
Aside from the shipment of weaponry and military men, the US government also sends help in the Middle East, help that includes food, medicine, education, and in some cases even political help. It was not just an exchange of bullets but the US government also sees the need to take care of those caught in the cross fire. This shows how America is truly winning the war. Nationalism is not measured by the mere existence of loyalty but also in measuring the obligations and the existence to which it is owed (Riasanovsky and Riznik, 1963).
Media played a great role in publicizing it and instilling in the minds of the many that it was somewhat a feasible truth shading its reality of discrimination and maltreatment of some less fortunate human beings. The War on Terrorism will be a very long war. It can and will not be won unless true liberty wins. It might still be a long way but actions are being done and currently, America is winning the war.
The war on terrorism isn’t just about a political war on whether a Democrat or a Communist is elected President. It is about America’s freedom and liberty. The terrorist will not change their purpose when a new president steps in. Osama bin Laden remains at large and the quest for him will not stop. Even the most powerful state in the world was not left behind in the problem with terrorism. It is a problem articulating a national interest in international or domestic politics.
Reference
Baudrillard, Jean. (2003). The Spirit of Terrorism: And Other Essays. London: Verso Bracken, Paul and Jon Alterman. (2003, Feb 21). Is the United States winning the war on terror? New York Times Upfront: Scholastic, Inc.
Bryan, Rebecca.( 2003). Ivanov Warns US Against Unleashing ‘Information War. Russia Journal Daily
Schmid, Alex Peter and A. J. Jongman. (2005). Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
The Economist Newspaper Ltd. (2007). Who is winning? Fighting terror. London: Economist.com / Global Agenda.
Wessely, Simon and Valeriĭ Krasnov. (2005). Psychological Responses to the New Terrorism: A NATO-Russia Dialogue. Brussels: IOS Press.
William. (1982). Values, Ethics, and the Practice of Policy Analysis. Lexington: Lexington
York, Grace. (2001). America’s War against Terrorism. Michigan: The University of Michigan Library.
Terrorism is the exact opposite of human rights, and tackling terrorism successfully, over the long term, requires more than security measures. The United Kingdom faces a continuing threat from extremists who believe they can advance their aims by committing acts of terrorism. Consequent to the attempted terrorism related car bomb attacks in June 2007, in central London and at Glasgow Airport, there is significant changes to counter terrorism control structure in the UK. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s 25 July ‘Statement on Security’ is within the wider context of the response of multi-faceted Counter Terrorism challenges. It is proposed to bring structural changes in the permitted period of pre-charge detention, under judicial supervision, and amend Terrorism Act 2006, and introduce a new counterterrorism bill by the end of 2007. Experience suggest that human right abuses committed in the name of counterterrorism serve to fuel terrorism, and not to reduce it, and any fresh attempt made should not violate human rights.
Background
Terrorist threat is ever changing, it is innovative and ingenious, and over the last decade the world has witnessed brutal attacks by terrorists who seek to disrupt our way of life, and to harm the public. The June 2007 bombing attempts and the background evidence on those recently brought before the courts on terrorism related charges show that the UK faces potential terrorist threats from suspects or perpetrators with a broad spectrum of individual backgrounds. Terrorist attacks in the UK are a real and serious danger, and crowded places feature in the attack plans of terrorist organisations, because these locations have limited protective security measures. It is recognized that UK’s counter-terrorism (CT) need more central drive, cohesion, integration and accountability and, hence a move to create a Government departmental structure more akin to that found in other EU states has been initiated by new Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The UK counter-terrorism strategies and associated programmes include “Preventing Violent Extremism: Winning Hearts and Minds” and the “Security Counter-Terrorism Science Innovation Strategy 2007” (Home Office, 2006)
Major points brought out in the Statement on Security by Prime Minister
Since 1997, the government has given the police new resources and Parliament has provided new legal powers to arrest and try terrorists.
Overall investment to strengthen the counter terrorist capability of the police and security service have doubled since September 11.
In 2007 alone in nine cases a total of 30 individuals have been convicted. Overall 4000 foreign prisoners are likely to be deported this year
The forthcoming Counter Terrorism Bill will propose additional penalties for terrorists charged with other criminal offences.
Counter terrorism issue and strategy
Since early 2003, the United Kingdom has had a long-term strategy for countering international terrorism, and the strategy is divided into four principal strands: Prevent, Pursue, Protect, and Prepare. ‘Prevent’ stress on tackling radicalisation of individuals, both in the UK and elsewhere, which sustains the international terrorist threat. To ‘Pursue’ aims to reduce the terrorist threat to the UK and UK interests overseas by disrupting terrorist and their operations. ‘Protect’ is concerned with reducing the vulnerability and ‘Prepare’ signals that the UK is ready to address the consequences of terrorist attack. With the July 2005 attacks in London, several measures that do not raise excessive human rights concerns are being explored by the government. The strategic element of preventing radicalization is ‘Engaging in the battle of ideas—challenging the ideologies that extremists believe can justify the use of violence, primarily by helping Muslims who wish to dispute these ideas to do so” (Home Office, 2006). It is also observed that money underpins all Terrorist activity—without it there can be no attacks and, more fundamentally, no training, recruitment, facilitation or welfare support for terrorist groups. In the fight against terrorist activity disrupting flow of funds is crucial and the main UK strategy is:
to decrease the amount of funds raised in the UK for terrorist purposes by creating as hostile environment as possible
to identify and disrupt terrorist facilitators, and stop the flow of funds overseas where they impact on UK interest
to encourage and assist other countries in enhancing their own capabilities against terrorist finance.
UK Home Secretary may deport foreign nationals, who present a threat to national security, after satisfying that the proposed deportation is consistent with its international human rights obligations.
A memorandum of understating exists between UK and Jordan, Lebanon and Libya and separate arrangements made with Algeria on this basis.
Terrorism Act and criticism of Human Rights Watch
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Terrorism is defined as “the use or threat designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause” (Terrorism Act, 2000). This definition forms the basis for many criminal offences, including the encouragement of terrorism, and activates wide ranging powers to the police. They could stop and search or arrest a suspect without warrant, and detain terrorism suspects without charge for 28 days. The Terrorist Act 2000 introduced a seven-day period of pre-charge detention, which was renewed to Criminal Justice Act 2003 following extensive parliamentary debate, with the provision of maximum 14-day detention. In 2006, against the proposed 90-day pre-charge detention a 28-day limit was brought after contentious debate in Parliament that established Terrorism Act 2006. It is interesting to note the transformation of Terrorism Act since its inception in 2000, and the initiative in 2007 is the fourth move in six years reveals the key interest of the government in its struggle against terrorism. However, this move to bring amendment to the provision of extended detention attracts much criticism from the public as well as International organisations.
It is viewed that the definition is exceedingly broad and lack legal precision. The definition of terrorism attracts criticism, because the International human rights law requires that ‘any law creating a criminal offence must be clear and precise enough for people’ to understand what conduct is prohibited and to regulate their behaviour accordingly (ECHR, article 7). However, the assessment of Lord Carlile supporting the amendment proposed for 2007 conclude that UK definition is “consistent with international comparators and treaties, and is useful and broadly fit for the purpose” (Lord Carlile)
Most important aspects of Human Rights Protection
In terms of the British Counter Terrorism system, three very important issues are highlighted in the Prime Minister’s Statement for wider public consultation, of which extending the current pre-charge detention period beyond the 28 days attracts more public attention. Human Rights Watch express their concern about the intention of the government to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days under the Terrorism Act 2006, on the ground that it violates human rights law. It is a violation of right to liberty for those not charged with any crime, because the UK government is responsible under the European Convention on Human rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political rights to safeguard individual rights.
Human Rights Watch is untiringly opposed to further extension of pre-charge custody time limits, as they view that current 28-day limit is notably longer as compared to legal systems of the United States and Canada as well as other European Union nations. Detention for longer period without charge violates the fundamental rights to liberty and security of the person and the allied protections against arbitrary state detention preserved in international law. Both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, in article 5) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, in article 9) require that an individual arrested or detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence must be ‘informed promptly’ of the charges against him or her and ‘brought promptly’ before a judge or other office authorized by law to exercise judicial power. Article 5 (4) of the European Convention guarantees the right to challenge the legality of detention, whereas it challenges that the current scope of judicial inquiry in terrorism cases in the UK does not meet this requirement.
Human Rights Watch recommendations
Make no further extension of pre-charge detention
Improve safeguards for current 28-day pre-charge detention including:
Broadening judicial scrutiny to include whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the detainee has committed a terrorist offence;
Requiring the Director of Public Prosecution to approve all applications for detention beyond seven days
Reject a model of judge-managed investigation that would allow for unlimited pre-charge detention.
Relax the ban on using phone tap and other intercept evidence in criminal trials.
Narrow the current definition of terrorism to ensure acts aimed at influencing the government are criminalized only where their purpose is to coerce or unduly compel it.
Conclusion
The proposal for judicially supervised pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects, without time-limits or months together, would acutely damage the government’s effort to win “hearts and minds” and alienate communities who are willing to cooperate with the police and security service. It is, therefore, suggested that government should discard its efforts to extend pre-charge detention and make other proposals to make them friendly with human rights law, rather than flexing the rules, for winning hearts and minds.
It is argued that counterterrorism measures that violate human rights undermine UK’s moral legitimacy and home and abroad, erode public trust in law enforcement and security services, and alienate communities whose cooperation is critical in the fight against terrorism. In the words of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, confronting terrorism depends upon winning the “battle of hearts and minds” implying that more than security measures a humanitarian approach is central to counterterrorism strategy. It should be kept in mind that any deliberate attack on civilians flouts the most fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law, and will be counterproductive.
Reference
ECHR. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms entered into force on September 3, 1953, ratified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain on September 3, 1953; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted December 16, 1966, entered into force march 23, 1976, ratified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain on may 20, 1976.]
Lord Carlile. (2007). The Definitions of Terrorism. Web.
Home Office: Security. “Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy” (2006). Web.
The events of September 11, 2001, sharply brought into focus the dangers posed by terrorism to the U.S. Homeland. The inadequacies of the response measures in the aftermath of the incident galvanized the U.S. government to set up an umbrella organization called the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 to holistically deal with all hazards, including terrorist attacks. Prior to this legislation, almost every State had its own emergency response plan, which supposedly meshed with the Presidential Directive 39 of 1995 but actually caused more confusion.
The fact that terrorists could carry out successful Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) attack was proved when as Lawson (2000) states that “On the morning of March 20 1995, several members of the Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve agent on five different subway trains in Tokyo by puncturing plastic bags containing the agent”(1). Terrorists may be motivated by religious fundamentalism, political ideologies, or sheer adherence to anarchist or nihilistic ideologies. “Some men just want to watch the world burn” (Dark Knight, 2008) may therefore be not just a great one-liner by Michael Caine, but an apt summarization of the socio-psychopathological disconnect of our times.
The fate of over 100 Russian nuclear bombs so small “that terrorists or extortionists could conceal them in their luggage” (Stern, 1997) is still a mystery and the chances of even one being detonated by a terrorist group in a heavily populated city is a possibility. Even if this was not possible, there is enough unaccounted radioactive waste available in the world, which could be used to devise a radiological bomb or a ‘dirty bomb’. This essay aims to cover the incident response plan in the event of a ‘dirty bomb’ explosion as outlined in the new U.S. National Response Plan with focus on the Incident Command System (ICS).
Overview
According to Tom Ridge, the National Response Plan (NRP) very clearly states that:
“It provides the structure and mechanisms for the coordination of Federal support to State, local, and tribal incident managers and for exercising direct Federal authorities and responsibilities. The NRP assists in the important homeland security mission of preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing the vulnerability to all-natural and manmade hazards; and minimizing the damage and assisting in the recovery from any type of incident that occurs”(Ridge, 2004, p.iii).
The entire framework consists of a base plan, appendices which amplify the base plan and annexure that layout the emergency support functions. The governing principle of the plan states that the management of the incident should be done at the lowest possible local level, with higher organizations and authorities coming into action commensurate with the complexity of the incident. The severity of the incident determines whether the incident should be termed as an ‘incident of national significance or not. The methodology governing the procedure to declare an incident to be of ‘national significance’ or not is governed by the Stafford Act, which mandates the degree of federal involvement required.
Organizational Structure of the Incident Command System
At the grass roots level, the Incident Command Post (ICP) is the tactical level unit which consists of local government and county officials as well as federal officers when required. When multiple agencies are involved, the ICP is upgraded to a unified command with jurisdictional authority remaining with the local government. Usually one ICP is set up for one incident. In case multiple incidents take place in a defined geographical spread, then an Area Command may be set up.
The physical location where coordination of information and resources take place is called as an Emergency Operations Centre (EOC). This could be a temporary facility or a permanent one such as a Fire Station. A local Chief Executive Officer such as a city mayor is named as a Jurisdiction Chief Executive. These local ICPs and EOCs are supported by the State Emergency Operations Center, which, if the complexity of the incident demands, would feed information to a Joint Field Office (JFO). The Joint Field Office is the nodal office responsible for coordinating federal support required with the local authorities. As the level of incident complexity rises, the circumstances may demand the setting up of a Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC) and finally the Homeland Security Operations Center(HSOC) at the national level.
Methodology of NRP in case of a Dirty Bomb Scenario
In case of a ‘dirty bomb’ scenario, the incident would most probably warrant upgrading to an incident of ‘national significance. Thus, as per the stipulations of the Stafford Act, a chain of actions would be set into motion. Firstly, the local responders would arrive on scene and alert the Mayor or county head who in turn would activate the local EOC. As per Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement Annex (2004), “The FBI is the lead agency for criminal investigations of terrorist acts or terrorist threats and intelligence collection activities within the United States”(TER-1). Therefore, the FBI would be involved right from the start.
An ICP would be set up, which would direct all on-scene activities. The local jurisdictional officer on assessment of the situation would then raise the level and request help from the Governor of the State. On receiving such a request, the Governor, in turn, would be required to activate the State EOC. The State EOC would then carry out a preliminary damage assessment. The Governor, being the Commander-in-Chief of the State National Guard can invoke their use if the situation so demands. After an assessment of the incident, the Governor can, if he so deems it fit, request a President’s declaration of ‘incident of national significance which would entail activation of the HSOC.
The HSOC is required to evaluate the request and to do so, may convene an Interagency Incident Management Group to chart future actions. The findings of the HSOC would be presented to the Secretary, Homeland Defense, who is empowered to recommend the declaration of ‘incident of national significance to the President. On the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Defense, with due deliberation, the President may then declare the ‘dirty bomb’ incident as an ‘incident of national significance.
“For Incidents of National Significance that are Presidentially declared disasters or emergencies, Federal support to States is delivered in accordance with relevant provisions of the Stafford Act”(Ridge, 2007, p.7). Such a declaration would signal the activation of the entire National Response Plan. Emergency Response Teams would then be deployed and a Joint Field Office would be activated to coordinate Federal assistance.
In case the dirty bomb incident is a small one, which does not warrant declaration of incident of ‘national significance, then the FBI involvement would continue as in the former case; however, the steps of the Governor requesting the President would be obviated. The HSOC yet again would swing into action, and the JFO would be activated, with it the associated federal assistance commensurate to the emergent situation.
In either case, the immediate actions would be to preserve life, property and the environment. It must be recognized that in an incident of radiological fallout, panic amongst the population would be natural. Therefore, an orderly evacuation and availability of transportation and unfettered access out of the contaminated area would be the first priorities of the authorities. To prevent theft and larceny in the areas evacuated, mobile patrols by the Law enforcement agencies would have to be requisitioned.
Emergency Response Teams specializing in medical help, speedy evacuation, urban search and rescue would all be activated to reduce the deleterious impact of the fallout. The Nuclear Incident Response Teams and the Radiological Emergency Response Teams would be amongst the first response teams which would swing into action to physically monitor the extent and damage of the fall out. After the initial actions are completed and the fallout has been countered, the Community Recovery and Mitigation Branches would be required to carry out an assessment of the long term recovery plan and its execution.
Conclusion
The success of the NRP and the actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security can be measured by the fact that since the 9/11 attacks, not a single terrorist incident has taken place in Continental Unites States. The U.S. has not yet faced an incident of WMD terrorism but must remain prepared at all times because the nature of terrorist threats continues to evolve. The NRP itself is not a static plan, and the Department of Homeland Security periodically reviews its capabilities through un-alerted drills, exercises and carries out refinements where required. Eternal vigilance and resolute action is therefore the answer to counter the threats posed by International Terrorism.
References
Dark Knight. (2008). Film. Directed by Christopher Nolan. USA: Warner Bros..
Lawson, Sea. (2000). “Aum Shinrikyo and the 1995 Tokyo Subway Attack in Historical Perspective”. Web.
Ridge, Tom. (2004). “National Response Plan”. The U.S. Department of Home Land Defense. Web.
Stern, Jessica. (1997). “U.S. Backs Wrong Nuke-deterrence Efforts”. USA Today. Final Edition Section: News; Pg. 15A. Web.
Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement Annex. (2004). “Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement Annex, National Response Plan”. Department of Homeland Security. Web.
“…If anyone kills a person – unless it is for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people” (Qur’an 5:32).
The world we live in is full of good and evil, and very often, people can not define what is good and what is not. Should we murder people who had done the same before? Should we be the same? How can we punish them?
In my opinion, the aim to punish is not the most important in this, but we should try to avoid the same crimes in the future, and that is the aim of Mankind.
Of course, nowadays, many people associate terrorists with Muslims. In some way, there is a reason for this because the most laud terroristic events helped with the help of Muslims. But we should remember that every criminal has no nationality, gender, and age.
It is very difficult to speak about punishment for people who are not afraid of anything. Fanatic beliefs make them blind, and they seem not to feel pain, and they do not have fear. Is it really so? Do we have the weapons against the terrorist? Speaking about this, I mean the weapons of moral character. It is very hard to kill a person in order to punish them when they want to be killed for being happy. So, there is a question if we should give such a generous gift to a person who killed or even tried to kill innocent people?
Of course, there is one kind of weapon – religion. Muslims will never stand if they are made to violate the laws of Islam. But then there is a question – we are people who live in the civilized world, and how can we insult religion? We are humans, and we should understand and recognize all the forms of religion, nationalities, and languages.
In my opinion, to define the ways of punishment, we should research the inner mechanisms of the terrorist apparatus.
Terrorism in all its forms has become one of the dangerous things nowadays, according to its unpredictability and the effects on socio-political and moral problems of the XXI century. Terrorism and extremism in all their manifestations are increasingly threatening for the security of many countries and their citizens, entail enormous political, economic, and moral losses, have a strong psychological pressure on large numbers of people (Bedau, 2005).
Terrorism has already acquired an international, global character. Even relatively recently, it was possible to speak about terrorism as about local phenomenon. In the 80-90-ies it has become a universal phenomenon. Globalization and the increasing internationalization of terrorism – it is an indisputable fact that is now facing humanity. This phenomenon is due to the expansion and globalization of international relations and cooperation in various fields.
It is interesting that today the main material support to terrorist organizations comes from Arab oil-producing and developed Western nations. On the territory of developed countries, there are many religious and ethnic communities whose dissatisfaction with their situation is alien to their socio-cultural atmosphere also transform into the various forms of support to their “brothers” in other countries around the world. Thus the financial base for international terrorism is formed.
The concern of the international community with the growth of terrorist activity is determined by the great number of victims of terrorists and huge material damage, and that, thanks to the development of advanced technologies with dual-media and global computer networks (the Internet), extreme commercialization in the sphere of so-called mass culture, where there is a cultivation of violence and brutality, more people can get and then use the information how to create the most sophisticated means of destruction and the means of their application (Elsner, 2008).
Only recently, human and material losses in connection with terrorist acts were recorded in the USA, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Albania, Iran, and in several other countries. The international nature of human life, new communications, and information, new types of weapons dramatically reduce the significance of state borders and other means of protection against terrorism. The diversity of terrorist activity is increasing and is increasingly linked with national, religious, ethnic conflicts, separatist and liberation movements (Simonsen, 2006).
Terrorist activities in the current situation are characterized by a broad scope, the lack of explicit state borders, the existence of communication and interaction with international terrorist centers and organizations; rigid organizational structure, consisting of leadership and operational management, intelligence and counterintelligence units, logistics, military groups, and cover; tight secrecy and careful selection of personnel, availability of agents in law enforcement and government agencies; good technical equipment, competing, if not superior equipment units of government troops, the existence of a vast network of secret shelters, training bases, and ranges. It is significant that getting into their own hand’s modern means of information war, international terrorism imposed on the peoples of their ideas and their assessment of the situation, widespread and success decides mobilization targets to attract young people into their ranks, not to mention the professional mercenaries.
Terrorist organizations have established a close relationship on the ideology-confessional, military, commercial, and other basis. Terrorist groups, particularly their leaders, often work closely on matters of arms purchases, cover each other, the division of roles and tasks in their scale of operations (such as in Afghanistan or Lebanon). It may be noted that the international community has learned to maneuver the terrorist forces and the means to move large numbers of channels for illegal weapons and militants (Elsner, 2008).
An important feature of modern terrorism is that it is well-structured and organized. Terrorist organizations pose unified governing bodies, management, planning unit.
Generally, the question of why the world of Islam today is an important generator of ideas of terror as a tool and an instrument of political struggle and a strong base of terrorism is still not researched completely. It is a separate important topic for in-depth study and subsequent use of that study, in the interest of finding a basis of understanding with the world of Islam, and curb of terrorism, as well as interest and a majority of Muslim countries, also bearing big moral, political and material losses from this infection of humanity.
Many of the causes and driving forces of this phenomenon have been obvious for a long time. The modern global human situation of our planet is exacerbated by the growth in the world socio-economic and inter-civilizational controversy, the confrontation between the developed North, and lagging behind in the development of the South (Simonsen, 2006). These contradictions and this opposition are unable to soften, even more so – fully remove, and they may achieve a balance between scientific and technological revolution, nor the processes of globalization of the economy or global advocacy. Even if the countries of the “golden billion” are trying to impose their views on the rest of the world community and are forced to follow their example, the effect is often produced as the opposite of desire. There is still disengagement, the growth of the gap between rich and poor countries, segments of the population, nations. It is possible to observe the marginalization of the world, and the inevitable answer to all this is a marginal strengthening of extremism and international terrorism, combating with “wrong.” Incidentally, these processes occur on the territory of the «golden billion,» in the so-called cradle of Western democracy, in the house that teaches others how to live! Often it is in Western countries (the USA, Britain, France, Germany, and others) which are sometimes the most radical in terms of their ideology, global vision, and capabilities of extremist and terrorist organizations and groups, including Muslims.
Terrorist acts committed in recent decades, growing quantitatively and becoming more widespread and dramatic. If in the early ’70s, the target of terrorists was mainly property; in the ’80s., according to U.S. government statistics, half of all terrorist acts were aimed against the people. The goals of terrorists are continuing to expand and vary depending on several circumstances, including the strength and effectiveness of response and safety measures. Modern terrorism has all the signs of organized crime. This allows putting forward a proposal for recognition of the terrorist criminal organizations with all its attendant legal consequences for the organizations themselves and their members. Taking into account the existing criminal law and international practice, it is advisable to apply to the terrorists the rules on liability of accomplices which were used against Nazi war criminals. This means that every terrorist organization or group should be responsible for all the criminal activities of the organization. If the actions of terrorists did not go beyond their own country, the responsibility is on the provisions of national law. In cases of terrorism, the issues concerning the mastermind, organizers should be taken into account, and also the creation of a terrorist organization, which may be particularly important to coordinate the fight against terrorism at the international level in terms of the possible use of political, economic and diplomatic sanctions against the state that condones terrorism (Filger, 2005).
In terms of subjective characteristics of terrorism, it is considered to be always an intentional crime committed with direct intent. A terrorist intent differs from the intent to kill. In the case of murder, there are two parties – the offender and victim; there is a third party in the act of terrorism – the authorities or the public, which appeals to a terrorist organization or terrorist. Terrorists may not be interested in victims; it is not a goal but a means. Their actions are aimed at achieving their objectives (political, selfish, etc.) through the initiation of public attention, intimidating the population and the authorities, promoting their political, religious, or other beliefs. It is apparent indifference to victims, which leads to extreme cruelty, massive nature of the innocent victims, accidental deaths of people (Simonsen, 2006).
They were speaking about the motives of terrorism. It should be mentioned that it is not just about violence, money, revenge, etc. Now, terrorism is largely turned into a political phenomenon, and the reasons for committing the terrorist acts also are largely political or combined. Of course, among the terrorists, there are criminals whose political demands are only the blind, and they are weapons in the hands of politicians, religious extremist organizations, etc. In some cases, to reduce the responsibility of the terrorists and withdraw from the category of international crime, political terrorism is turning into a normal political crime.
There is an example of how the Muslim way of life, including polygamy, supports terrorism in the case of a Palestinian father of the family, which has a dozen of children; several of them are adults. The family lived poor: no work, the life is poor, but it is impossible to find the match at least for one son because there is no money for the bride price. Accordingly, there will be no grandchildren and no respect from the neighbors. Suddenly, one son was persuaded to become a terrorist – a suicide bomber. He acquired the skills in training camp and was killed during a terrorist attack. What does the father feel? Of course, he is sorry about the son, but there are some advantages:
the son immediately goes to heaven;
the father immediately becomes a respected man – a father of Shahid;
the father gets a lot of money; he can find a match for another son, or even two, he will have grandchildren.
Therefore, he endorses the feat of his son and announces it to the media. Moreover, often parents – Muslims are raising their children, teaching them the desire to become terrorists – suicide bombers (Brewer, 2005).
Thus, Islam is not a totalitarian religion, which should outlaw and eradicate (otherwise, it would not be able to last for more than 1300 years), contains certain features of a totalitarian religion, dangerous both for its own and for other people.
And in the fight against terrorism, it is highly desirable to upgrade the way of life of Muslims to conform to the peaceful life and modern standards of civilized countries.
To understand the cruelty of Muslim terrorists, we should analyze the conflict of civilizations, which, in fact, can be the answer to the question of terrorism. I think that researching the roots of the conflicts of civilization will help to find the best punishment for Muslim terrorists, to define their fears and values.
The conflict of civilizations is a real danger. So, there are the preconditions for a conflict of civilizations. Moreover, it can be argued that the opposition of Muslims and civilized nations of America and Europe, including Russia, and Israel has already begun, and the primary means of Muslim expansion today is terrorism, including terrorism suicide bombers. These weapons are now worked out in Israel with moral and financial support from Muslim countries and the acquiescence of the Great Powers, and this method of warfare can always be applied anywhere in the world (Simonsen, 2006).
The war of civilizations is not yet understood; many believe it is multiple local conflicts affecting other countries and hope that their country will not be touched by war. Moreover, time is not on the side of civilized countries, but at the terrorists’, and until the terrorists have weapons of mass destruction is a matter of a few years. And victory is needed before this happens.
To do this, people need to understand the situation, and it is that civilized countries have so far overwhelming superiority in technology, and terrorists have mastered techniques of terror that are much more efficient than the techniques of counterterrorism of civilized countries. They have sufficient funding, they provide rich Muslim countries in accordance with the dogmas of their religion, the rapidly increasing number of potential terrorists, suicide bombers, and dream to die for the cause of Allah, are free to educate and train Muslim ideology. With regard to means of terror, terrorists have successfully used tools made in the civilized world (Brewer, 2005).
On the contrary, civilized countries, which have not yet been major terrorist attacks, did not realize the seriousness of the problem and did not use their potential to win this war, do not understand how dangerous delay is.
But there is still a solution to this problem and the ways of overcoming the conflict of civilizations.
First and foremost, we should understand that to use against the terrorists their weapons is not productive. The destruction of terrorists and their leaders meets the understandable feeling of revenge for the killing of the citizens, but can not be the only or even the main means of combating the terror, as performers and the leaders of the terrorist attacks are appearing with sufficient speed for continuing the terror. Much more important to destroy the entire infrastructure of terror that includes moral, financial, and material support to terror. To destroy the infrastructure of terror, there should be actions that would make the terrorist activities unprofitable and even dangerous, including support of terror (Morse, 2003).
But still, here is a question if it is possible to separate Islam from terrorism, but in reality, everything is much more difficult.
There is a fundamental question: whether Islam can find the justification for terrorism? The answer depends on who and what to take for the interpretation of the tenets of faith. The fact is that for centuries the Islamic political and legal thought has accumulated a huge range of seemingly contradictory ideas and perceptions of direct relevance to modern terrorism: the foundations of power and law, the relationship of States, and the individual’s status of ‘wrong,’ permissible methods of political struggle (Connors, 2007).
The mixed approach of Islam to these issues illustrates his remarkable feature – plurality opinion that is especially true for politics, because the basic provisions are to regulate it, have been formulated on the basis of ijtihad (independent decision – Arabic). Under ijtihad, Islamic thought understands rational search for solutions on matters not clearly settled in the Koran and preaching of Prophet Muhammad. To this, it must be added that few of these sources of rules of war or of ‘wrong’ exist in the early period of Islam, its acute political rivalry, and ideological opponents. Some of them, out-of-the historical context, nowadays often used to justify political extremism.
However, a notable place in the heritage of Islam there is the ideas opposite to specified rules. Hence the thesis of radical Islam must be supplemented by an indication of the inherent religious moderation, tolerance, and capacity for positive interaction with other cultures (Hoffman, 2006).
So the thesis “Islam against terrorism” is acceptably rephrased as “Islam against Islam.” And this is not a game of words, a figurative expression of the problem. After all, just a wave away from Islamic extremism reasoning leaders, calling them non-Muslims – Islam means surrender to terrorists.
So, in my opinion, the main and the most important thing while fighting against terrorists is to choose the right punishment for people who were engaged in terrible crimes. Which choosing the appropriate punishment, we should not forget about the values we have, about the respect to religious views of every person. Everything should be based on humanity. But of course, we should support the most important aim – to avoid terroristic attacks in the future and to save people from death and injuries. Innocent people should not suffer.
To my mind, the best punishment for Muslim terrorists is imprisonment for life. It will allow learning information about the organizations and structures of the terrorist world. In addition, such people can be researched by a psychologist in order to define the mechanisms of their psychology.
Of course, everybody is appalling with the actions of Islamic terrorists, but nobody is talking much about the similarity of action of civilized nations against other nations. Over the past few years, we have seen a lot of what success can be attributed to the level of legalized terrorism. In both cases, killed people, only blame for their loss and anger is always turned on the amorphous substance of “terrorism,” visible personalities remain in “white dress.” If order everything, it must be done fairly and universally, a bad example is contagious, and it brings real visible results.
References
Brewer Paul, Downing David , September 11 And Radical Islamic Terrorism: September Eleven And Radical Islamic Terrorism (Terrorism in Today’s World), Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2005
Bedau Hugo Adam, Cassell Paul G., Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case, Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.
Banner Stuart ,The Death Penalty: An American History, Harvard University Press, 2003.
Connors Paul G., Capital Punishment (Current Controversies), Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Elsner Wolfram, Arms, War, and Terrorism in the Global Economy Today: Economic Analyses and Civilian Alternatives, Lit Verlag, 2008.
Filger Sheldon, King of Bombs: A Novel About Nuclear Terrorism, AuthorHouse, 2005.
Hoffman Bruce, Inside Terrorism, Columbia University Press; Revised & enlarged edition, 2006.
Hanks Gardner C., Against the Death Penalty: Christian and Secular Arguments Against Capital Punishment, Herald Press, 1997.
Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Creation House, 2002.
Keyzer Amy Marcaccio , Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime?, Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Morse Chuck, The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini, iUniverse, Inc., 2003.
Raman B, TERRORISM: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Lancer Publishers, 2008.
Simonsen Clifford E., Spindlove Jeremy R., Terrorism Today: The Past, The Players, The Future (3rd Edition), Prentice Hall; 3 edition, 2006.
Weisburd Mark A., Comparative Human Rights Law: Detention, Prosecution, Capital Punishment, Carolina Academic Press, 2008.
After the events of September 11, 2001, the entire world was horrified at the new precedent set for terror against states making every country vulnerable. The United States was gripped with fear of further attacks, while Russia was concerned about remaining marginalized on the global stage (Buckley & Fawn 2003, p. 3). Africa worried about how terrorism might reduce funds allotted for alleviating poverty and AIDS. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi’s right-wing coalition government was confused regarding whether or not to commit troops to America’s war on terror.
Germany, while pledging to fight terrorism as part of its security policy, called for European multilateralism in the face of US unilateralism. In the Middle East, countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Israel expressed condemnation of terrorism to differing degrees and for varying reasons. The reactions of different countries to the terror attacks have also been impacted by the presence of Muslim populations within states, history of a given state, size of its Muslim population, constellation, and nature of religious beliefs, type of government, presence of terrorist groups and region.
Thesis: In the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, China and the USA have come together on a common platform to combat terrorism reshaping Sino-American relations and redefining Asia–Pacific security concerns.
Immediate Response
China’s immediate response to the terror attacks was both swift and cautious. President Jiang Zemin was among the first world leaders to send condolences to President George W. Bush (Lam 2001, p.1). Chinese leaders decided to condemn the terrorist attacks and express sympathy for the victims but they would not express their solidarity with America in its conflict with terrorists. China had its terrorism concerns especially in the western province of Xinjiang where Muslim separatists supported by Afghan-based groups existed. Chinese officials felt that the USA must not take independent action against the terrorists but must proceed through the United Nations Security Council.
Moreover, they demanded that the US should produce ‘concrete evidence’ before launching any action against suspected terrorist groups. Though China did not approve of US operations in Afghanistan, it responded positively to Washington’s call for international cooperation in fighting terrorism. Jiang was keen to maintain an image of China as a peaceful and constructive member of the international community.
According to Western media, Chinese citizens were shocked by the scale of the terror attacks and tended to blame the tragedy on the USA’s ‘hegemonic policy’ (Yunzhong 2002, p.5). The anti-American sentiment was widely expressed on Chinese websites and chat rooms across the internet exposing the fact that while China admired the wealth and power of the US, it resented its status as a great power (Florcruz 2001, p.1. On the political side, Chinese analysts did not doubt that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist acts, and their security specialists disapproved of such acts. China’s view was that international terrorism is the product of an unjust international political and economic order dominated by a hegemonic power, namely, the USA.
Sino-American Relationship Before September 11, 2001
During the Clinton era, China was seen more as a strategic partner of the United States whereas, during the Bush campaign, China is seen more as a strategic competitor (Rice 2000, p. 55). Immediately after taking office, Bush took steps to strengthen America’s security relations with friends across the Asia-Pacific. This step was perceived as a threat to Chinese security by China. The mid-air collision of an EP-3E spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea and the unauthorized emergency landing of the American plane on China’s Hainan Island in April 2001, led to a major diplomatic crisis between the two states (Buckley & Fawn 2003, p. 213). Thus the relation between China and the United States was on precarious territory before the terror attacks on the WTC.
Sino-American Relationship after September 11, 2001
Sino-American relations were expected to improve after 9/11 as it was imperative to have China’s support for America’s battle on terrorism to be effective. China’s willingness to cooperate with the USA in fighting international terrorism has been welcomed by Bush. In Shanghai, in October 2001 Bush referred to the USA and China as ‘two great nations.’ In December, the US government granted China permanent status as a normal trading partner which, according to the White House, marked ‘the final stage in normalizing the US-China trade relations’ (BBC News 2001, p. 1).
Though the two countries have been brought together on the common platform of fighting the ‘war against terrorism’ there are also many obstacles to developing a closer relationship. Both countries have different perceptions on issues such as the origins of terrorism, the best way to fight it, and the expected outcomes of anti-terrorist cooperation. China views with suspicion and alarms the expansion of America’s anti-terrorist networks. There are also differences between the two countries on many strategic, political, and economic issues such as Taiwan, WMD proliferation, missile defense, human rights, and religious freedom.
The US views China as a non-status quo power that, despite its tremendous economic achievements over the past two decades, is still under self-appointed communist rule. Many US politicians and analysts fear that as long as China continues to be under communist rule, its increasing power and growing military strength cannot be used to deal peacefully with conflicts among its neighboring countries. This is a challenge confronting the USA and allies in the Asia-Pacific.
The United States is concerned over the increasing military strength of China. A CIA report of 2002 estimated that China’s ballistic missiles will increase several-fold by 2015 and that they would be deployed primarily against the USA (NIC 2002). A Pentagon report published in July 2002 also echoed concerns about China’s growing military power and the probable threat it poses towards Asia-Pacific security and US interests.
Taiwan is a very contentious issue between the two countries – the US and China. Bush has expressed his open support for Taiwan and has approved the sale of a massive arms package to Taipei to defend itself (Sanger 2001, p. A1). Washington is holding on to its commitment to Taiwan by having close military ties with the Taiwanese and allowing senior Taiwanese leaders and officials to visit the USA (Li 2002, p. 157).
According to a leaked Pentagon report, it is reported that the United States may unleash its nuclear weapons on China, should it choose to enter into conflict with Taiwan. China of course resents these activities of the United States who feel that the Bush administration is trying to exploit the Taiwan issue to stall the development of a strong and united China (Buckley & Fawn 2003, p. 214). Chinese leaders desire to see China as the rising world’s superpower, challenging US domination.
After September 11, 2001, China’s foreign policy is undergoing important changes, allowing China to actively participate in the international security system along with other permanent members of the Security Council (Weiner 2006, p. 415). In contrast to its foreign policy ten years ago, China has accepted international rules and regulations and supports the role of the Security Council in tackling global security concerns (Medeiros & Fravel 2003, p. 22).
China perceives itself as a possible victim to terror attacks in the future and hence recognizes its responsibilities in seeking to combat it. A Chinese government “White Paper” entitled “China’s National Defense in 2002″ reveals that China fears the growth of a domestic Islamic terrorist movement in the western Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region and the forces of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (Davis & Azizian 2007, p. 47). After September 11, 2001, clashes between Muslim and non-Muslim civilizations have spilled over into China from Afghanistan partly because of the U.S presence in the region (Davis & Azizian 2007, p. 47).
The agitation has overflowed into Xinjiang with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cracking down what they call Uyghur terrorists. But Beijing is accused by Western human rights groups of trapping innocent Uyghurs in addition to the Uyghur militants. China expected the international community to accept its post-September 11 crackdowns in Xinjiang as part of the global war on terrorism (Davis & Azizian 2007, p. 47).
Though China had opposed vehemently the U.S.-led intervention in Kosovo in 1999, it chose to endorse the Afghanistan campaign – “the first such action that China had endorsed since the ending of the Cold War” (Malik 2002, p. 152). Counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and China has opened a “new era of bilateral relations” between the two countries (Wu 2005, p.35). China offered the United States important forms of political support for its war on terror by supporting resolutions passed by the Security Council and General Assembly (Taylor 2005, p. 181) as well as the U.S. assertion that states may use force in self-defense against terrorist actors abroad (Oudraat 2003, p. 168).
More significantly China played an instrumental role in encouraging its close ally Pakistan to support American efforts in Afghanistan (Taylor 2005, p. 181). China also pledged $150 million towards reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and participation in the Container Security Initiative to prescreen cargo shipped from China to the United States (Kelly JA 2003, p. 2-3). China has also reportedly engaged in intelligence sharing with the United States on the Al Qaeda network and has expanded cooperation with American law enforcement officials on anti-terrorist financing efforts.
Beijing sent a team of counter-terrorism experts to Washington to explore ways to counter the al-Qaeda network by sharing information. China even allowed United States to station Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials in Beijing that allowed sharing of intelligence, financial transactions, and law enforcement between China and the US. More surprisingly, international cooperation on combating terrorism is one of only four topics discussed in China’s 2002 National Defense document (Weiner 2003, p. 415).
Sino-American relations have come a long way since the days of the Korean War, during which China’s strategic commitment to North Korea brought the United States and Chinese forces into a dangerous direct military confrontation. After September 11, 2001, the two countries today “share a common goal in preventing North Korea’s further development of weapons of mass destruction” (Wu 2005, p. 39).
Conclusion
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have redefined global security concerns and created new alliances between global powers. The present superpowers of the world – the U.S. and China – find themselves as partners in the global war on terrorism. China has lined up along with the rest of the international community to condemn terrorism in the strongest possible terms and to declare solidarity with the United States in its hour of need.
Bibliography
BBC News 2001, US Normalizes Trade with China. Web.
Buckley, M & Fawn, R 2003, Global Responses to Terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan and beyond, Routledge Publishers, New York.
Davis, EVW & Azizian, R 2007, Islam, Oil, and Geopolitics: Central Asia after September 11, Rowman & Littlefield.
FlorCruz, J 2001, China’s Dilemma in the Fight Against Terrorism. Web.
Jiang, L 2002, Sino-US Relations and World Politics Since 9.11, Beijing Review, Vol. 45, No. 1. p.7.
Kelly, JA 2003, U.S.-China Relations: Hearing before the S. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 108th Cong, p. 2-3.
Lam, WW 2001, China Sends Condolences to U.S. Web.
Malik, MJ 2002, Dragon on Terrorism: Assessing China’s Tactical Gains and Strategic Losses after 11 September, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Volume: 24, Issue: 2, p. 252+.
Medeiros, ES & Fravel, MT 2003, China’s New Diplomacy, FOREIGN AFF., p. 22.
National Intelligence Council 2002, Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat through. Web.
Audra, CJ 2003, Combating Terrorism, WASH. Q. p. 168.
Rice, C 2000, Promoting the National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 55–7.
Taylor, B 2005, US-China Relations after 11 September: A Long Engagement or Marriage of Convenience, 59 AUSTL. J. INT’L AFF. Volume 179, Issue 191, p. 181.
Weiner, AS 2006, The Use of Force and Contemporary Security Threats: Old Medicine for New Ills, Stanford Law Review, Volume: 59, Issue: 2, p. 415+.
Wu, 2005, What China Whispers to North Korea, WASH. Q., p. 39.
Yunzhong, Y 2002, The Profound Impact of the Events of September 11 on the International Strategic Situation, Dangdai yatai (Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies), Beijing, No. 3, p. 5.
There is no agreed definition of terrorism, but it can be said to be an act that involves violence and threat of violence. This is not a precise definition because violence and the act of violence can also be experienced in war, coercive diplomacy, and any other violent situations. Terrorism is regarded as a violation of the criminal laws of a country or a state. The goals/reasons that should compel the terrorist to result to such acts may include:
When they want to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and applying excessive force.
When they want to coerce the civilian population to act in the manner they want.
When they decide to distort the conduct of the government by mass destruction, killing of prominent people, as well as kidnapping them.
Though it is believed that improvement in democracy will stop generating terrorism, this is mere fiction because there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Terrorism can affect democracy by forcing the government to change its policies and governing strategies. It has also hindered the wave of democracy in the states. In the United States after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, “Washington overlooked the important need for stability and protection of humanity in the region that is more vital than the need of democracy.” (David A. 1994). Another example is the Marriot Hotel terrorist operation in Pakistan, whereby the victims that have fallen for the sake of democracy were not considered. This shows that democracy has been defeated because, as a state, it was awakened by the terrorist though no one can be able to predict the future happenings. It is quite unfortunate that research shows that Americans are prepared to renounce some of their valued democratic civil rights in order to ensure greater security.
The undemocratic Patriot Act was approved and was aimed at frightening and intimidating the innocent general public into supporting the government way, notwithstanding the undemocratic actions. (Heymann, 2003) Due to the effects of terrorism, democracies should make sure there is more peaceful interaction between different countries. However, it cannot be clearly stated that promoting democracy will reduce or completely eradicate the act of violence or threats. It has been noted that some foreign policy decisions made to create stable democracies sometimes result in to increase in terrorism. Therefore the state needs to scrutinize how democracy promotion will affect terrorism in the long run. Security of the state should not come at the price of liberties. The state should not compromise the security of the individuals by promoting democracy with the aim of curbing terrorist attacks. Citizens need to be protected as much as possible regardless of the occurrence of terrorist attacks. United States government has come up with restrictions that impose obligations to the individuals involved in the terrorist attacks and prevent or restrict their further involvement in such activities. The United States should impose a ban or restrict movements to, from, or within its territories at a specified time and in specific areas. An individual involved in terrorism should be required to surrender his passport or anything that is in his possession for a period not exceeding the time in which the order remains. An individual should be arrested and detained in a place where the constable considers most appropriate. In conclusion, terrorism is an act that has brought negative consequences to the state, and any control measures need to be put in place to prevent the occurrence of such activities.
References
David A. Charters (1994), The Deadly Sin of Terrorism New York: Harvard University Press.
Phillip B. Heymann (2003), Terrorism, Freedom and Security: Winning without war. Cambridge: MIT press.