The Role of Lawyers in the Global War on Terrorism - Essay Example

?Terrorism Introduction: ‘Terrorism’ is a very complex term that has various meanings since the beginning of history. It can be viewed as an extraordinary violence which is planned for a specific purpose and creates massive fear. In today’s world, most of the people refer to terrorism as the attacks on the World trade center and Pentagon. Of course, these horrific attacks cannot be overlooked but these are not the only terrorist attacks in the history. It has existed in the world for a very long time. It is a criminal activity which is meant to bring a change in the world and is usually not committed by the official governments. One thing which is common in all the terrorist attacks is the involvement of the political motive. It is the action on behalf of a political cause. Sometimes the cause was on national grounds such as the separation of Russia from Chechnya or the separation of North Island from Great Britain. Sometimes the cause was the grievances against the American government which led to the World Trade Center attacks or Oklahoma City bombing. There is no private motivation of the attackers of all these incidents. There is always a political agenda which is accomplished by means of these attacks. The two many factors of terrorism are publicity and the game of psychology. The aim is to capture the attention of all the people around the globe by making the attack more dramatic i.e. killing a large number of people to politically motivate violence. According to Peter Kropotkin, a ninth century anarchist, terrorism is ‘propaganda by deed’ by which groups particularly small in number receive the attention for a cause. In this paper, the quote of Noam Chomsky which says ‘Terrorism is simply what our leaders declare it to be is discussed with its implication for law/ lawyers. Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and political activist. He has been writing on politics and language for the past forty years and is one of the most prominent and original social critics of his times. He is the eight most cited authors and is known as the ‘most cited living author’. The first question that must be answered is that whether an event is declared as terrorism just because the most powerful leaders declare it as terrorism or there are other factors that lead to this conclusion. 1 There have been many instances where the politicians make clear predictions about an event just because they are some hidden goals in such goals and simple declare an events as a form of terrorism. If nothing happens as such they say that it is because of the tight security conditions that made it unsuccessful whereas if a leader is on a shaky ground then all types of events are expected to be blamed as terrorism attacks. It is also the responsibility of the media that provide such inadequate and wrong assumptions regarding an event. All the happenings are a repetition of the same tasks and different reasons are given to make the people fool about it. These protocols are backed by honourable leaders who just condemn such acts by their strong words of cowardice. The usage of queen’s language in public speaking is just a method to gain trust of the people to make them sure that the nation is in the safe hands. Who are the real terrorists? Is it the leaders or the terrorists who should be called as the real terrorists in the interest of the common man? When a leader declares war on terrorism, we don’t look beyond the terrors that are systematically placed upon the humanity. When hundreds of people are just killed for the sake to counter the issue of terrorism then it is considered as enforcement efforts. The leaders claim that they are in a position to combat these evil acts. My question is same as Noam Chomsky that when a leader doesn’t promote terrorism then why one should participate to make it worse. This means that leaders are not less culpable. Here are a few examples to support my argument: In 1980’s, a former leader of the CIA in Central America informed on record about his activities of being part of the subcommittee of the National Security Council. He said that it was their function to bribe people, corrupt the people against all such illegal acts and don’t make any visible actions to protect the country from such situations. Now this is a powerful statement which shows that our leaders use us for the fulfillment of their own motives. There is a saying in the French ‘Them that don’t do politics will be done. This shows that we as citizens should fill not fill our minds with the truth or the path directed to us by our leaders. It is these leaders who arm the terrorist people with direction, leadership, monetary support, medical supplies etc to destabilize a particular region to get the underlying benefits of such chaotic situations. Chomsky on terrorism: The main argument of Chomsky is that major sources or means of terrorism are these powerful leaders. He defines terrorism as “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain different forms of goals such as political, ideological or religious in nature is termed as terrorism.” For the US invasion in Afghanistan he stated: Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." (9-11, p. 76) This is a very harsh argument from the point of leaders who are fighting day and night in the name of war against terrorism. In his opinion, terrorism works to counter the issues and create a chaos in the society. It is a very conception that terrorism is the weapon of weak. Primarily it is the weapon of the strongest people to control the doctrinal systems and then claim all such actions as a means of spreading terror among the civilians by small group of people. In his view, terrorism is generally a bad thing and should be avoided in all situations except in some great terrorism circumstances. Chomsky has a vision to makes meaning -less details a way of supporting its evidence. Leaders’ contribution to terrorism: In December 2001, the Palestinians were condemned by George Bush for enhancing terror but he himself contributed in conventional ways to gave rise to terrorism. On 15th December, the UN Security Council tried to resolve the issue to reduce violence but there was no interpretation by the Press. This was due to the fact that the incident was barely reported. The same case was also discussed in the General Assembly where it was not reported at all and the same resolution was supported. USA abstained and refused to vote against this at all times. This shows that US doesn’t want to take a stand in the violation of the international law.2 Similarly, think of the Geneva Convictions which was established after the Second World War in order to criminalize the acts of the Nazis. The whole world agreed to it governed by the International Red Cross, the agency which is responsible for the application and interpretation. Although the implications of the Geneva conviction states that the activities of US and Israel are all illegal still they are practiced by the both the states. Saudi Arabia has been funding a network international terrorist network. The US who is regarded as the state who takes proactive actions to prevent terrorism hires terrorist groups and surpasses all these crimes. The outcome of all these activities is I truly believe is the leaders. This shows that state terror is far worse than individual terror because the state has the resources where as the individuals don’t have such access to all these dealings. Like most of the other weapons, terrorism is also the weapon of the strong people. The history is full of unconventional cases that have escalated the war on terrorism. The implications for lawyers on the Chomsky’s Statement: There are countless questions that revolve around the term terrorism and are a threat to the civilization treasure. These implications are complex and consequential that are faced by the law i.e. the lawyers. This requires a critical analysis of the text such as the constitution, judicial decision etc. The role of the lawyer is to advice all the correspondents regarding such issues to read the law in the best possible manner. It is not permissible to the lawyer that he/she expresses his point of view without the disguise of the language of law. There is no room for policy opinion in terms of the rules and obligations set by the law. The duty is to define the act in a more sophisticated manner to legally act about the matter. The right thing in this regard is to understand what the law prohibits in doing such criticism. The commitment of the nation towards the rule of law shapes its reputation in the global world. This means that a nation will persist if the law is in accordance with their actions and attitudes. When the pressure is tremendous, even then the people especially the people linked with the profession of law have to show some sort of decency regarding their political opinions. Otherwise there are many things at stake such as the life, economic values and the way of life. This means that there are no clear answers from the lawyers in general terms. This is due to the involvement of few judicial speakers in the lawyer’s career. Scenario in this regard: The aftermath of the attacks on the World trade center is the best incident to make the situation clearer. The executive duty of the lawyers is to protect the country from all such implications of imposing terrorism even if it is not true in the case. The narratives produced regarding this act have been misleading opportunities. At times the risk is so much that it can grave high cost to the lawyers. The commission report on this attack were contemplated but not executed. The question is why the report was not presented in front of the general public. This is because the government leaders are immune to such scrutiny and the latent information found in such investigations. Complains of such lawyers were filled in the first three years of this horrible attack. Here is a statement of a very prominent senator in this regard: [W]e are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe. We need excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an otherwise legal operation just because it is easier to put on the brakes.7 This show the efforts are hampered by the risk-aversion lawyers who are the legal impediments who are proactive in hiding the real truth. The former Attorney General of the Justice Department wrote in his indispensable book ‘The Terror Presidency’ that after so many years of terrorist attacks in United States of America there is a deferent refrain from the government lawyers who provide legal advice on the nation’s counterterrorism policies. This is due to the subjected public critics as lawyers are responsible for the criminal liability attached with the advices or opinions given by them. Another aspect of their implication in this statement of terrorism is that there are many scarce incidents when the lawyers are questioned regarding their legal actions. Most of the critics are held by the serious legal analysis. It is rarely acknowledged that these lawyers work in unimaginable pressures and still have so much time to debate over the 3issues. Evidence which is equally ignored is the lawyers come to conclusion based upon their best judgements relevant to the case.4 Cycles of abuse: Another important question is what the leader usually does to reduce the catastrophic terrorism. Do they respond in a disconnected manner and unchecked powers of surveillance, investigation and detention with a new attack? The answer will be a very unpredictable factor i.e. it depends on the success of the terrorist attacks in the coming year. If we manage to avoid major homeland terrorist attacks in different countries then there is likelihood that there will be economic and political conditions globally. But if these dramatic terror attacks continue at the same pace then the immediate response is the changes in the laws to give more power. This trend has been followed for a quite long time. During the World War, the US laws were criminalized even opposite to the constitutional draft. In 1917, Supreme Court which is famous for the line that there is no constitutional cry fire in the crowded theatre witnessed the argument from the Oliver Wendell Holmes regarding the jail of a person for distributing leaflets as opposed to the draft of the ‘Great War’. Similarly, in the case 9/11 and Oklahoma bombings the government has evolved new tactics that have no freedom in the true sense and don’t criminalize the speech. All these happenings show the US policy to reduce the catastrophic terrorism are genuinely lower which increase the risk of more attacks and then the leaders easily blame the attacks as a part of terrorism. Termination terrorism: Image and Reality: There are two ways to study terrorism. One is the literal approach where as the other is propagandistic approach. In the propagandistic approach, terrorism is used as a weapon to service in the system of power. In the literal approach, what constitutes terrorism is included. The approach which is adopted by all the governments is propagandistic approach. It has a different course in which the officially designated enemies are the causes of terrorism. There are many terrorist states such as Iran, which has contributed during the Iran-Contra inquires. Same is with US which has forged new paths of terrorism. It has went further from employing individuals to perform terrorist attacks to an array of client i.e. mercenary states such as South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia etc. The major motive is to finance their terrorist operations. The message is clear from these findings that he argument from international law lacks credibility. US must not intervene just because of being the great power in the domestic affairs of a smaller nation both in the military and the civilian spheres. However, if we notice this is not true when it comes to reality. Conclusion: There is a lesson in all the above findings and arguments regarding its implication for the lawyers and even for the common people. Firstly, the definition of terrorism is the terror that is carried against us the people by the leaders. It is not terrorism that leads to such worst situations but it is the strong and hostile people including the leaders who do inhuman things to one another. It is done in such a way that it plausible denial to our own conscious. It is the political people who create organizations such as CIA, a secret police and ask them to carry all these activities on their behalf to cover their own personal and national benefits. The mistake of the common people is that they pretend as if they don’t know anything what is going on. It is thought as a process of fighting against some communist terrorists. It is our duty to realize the terrible acts happening in the world in the name of terrorism. Tears, blood and death are the only consequences of all these wars of terrorism. As far as leaders are concerned they are the terrorists themselves who take advantage of an opportunity and take the hold of their powers in different regions of the world. They habitually practice the same things and even censure and denounce the same things in the name of terrorism. If we look closely there is no such justification or excuse to defend all such actions. We must realize the fact that the most criminal politicians talks about constitution in the whole world. Then how can their words be true when an honest citizen is prevented from doing his/her constitutional duties in the right sense by the lawmakers. Our mistake is that we don’t protest against these activities and time and again we become a part to encourage the political parties. All of us have heard the fact that dictators have been bombing and killing their own people. We just don’t think of the damages and tragedies of the people unless and until we get affected by them. All these leaders are maintaining a political class although they are dead mentally, intellectually and emotionally. This is just a waste of time by thinking these acts as ways of nation building. In my view, there are two colors of a terrorist. One is of the political leader and one is of the terrorist. It depends upon the eyes of the people to decide which color they want to see. Therefore, the terrorist tag is not just permanent for the people who are called as terrorist. In order to solve the wars and insurgencies in the today’s world, the balance power sharing approach would be more effective.5 References Neilson Voyne Smith, Chomsky: ideas and ideals. ( 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2004). Rodney Stich, Lawyers & Judges: American Trojan Horses. (Silverpeak Enterprises 2005). Leonard Weinberg and William Lee Eubank, What is Terrorism? (Infobase Publishing 2006). Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response. (2nd edn, Routledge 2006). Christopher C. Harmon, Terrorism Today. (Frank Cass Publisher 2000). Bruce Schneier, Beyond fear: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world(Springer-Verlag 2003). Michael B. Mukasey, The Role of Lawyers in the Global War on Terrorism , 32 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 179 (2009), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol32/iss2/2 Noam Chomsky, ‘Distorted Morality: America's War on Terror?’ (Harvard University 2002) http://www.chomsky.info/talks/200202--02.htm accessed 20th April 2011     Read More