Perspectives of Terrorism - Essay Example

 Perspectives of Terrorism Acts of terrorism have far reaching affects, well beyond the human costs of the singular acts themselves. The ‘War on Terrorism’ as it is commonly referred to, is a phrase coined by United States government officials and is primarily used to justify the military initiative de jour. It is generally defined as the current conflict between the U.S. and radical Islamic factions (Gallington, 2004). The U.S. has, in the space of five years, become a nation that ignores the very precepts of its founding and international law as well. Terrorism is responsible for the invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation. The U.S. has lost respect worldwide because of the ill-conceived and illegal invasion of Iraq. The PATRIOT Act, enacted in response to the 9/11 attacks and as a tool against terrorism, breaches five of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights). Terrorism was the main reason that Bush won the 2004 election and for widespread civil rights violations of Arab Americans and suspected terrorist detainees. This discussion will examine terrorism from these perspectives. War in Iraq Immediately following and as a reactionary response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., President George W. Bush stated the county’s intent to initiate a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he characterised as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them. In addition, the U.S. Congress gave formal authorization to the President on September 18, 2001 to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S. Code 2002). Following this proclamation, Bush made his infamous ‘dead or alive’ speech on October 10, 2001, and offered a list of America’s 22 most-wanted terrorists (White House, 2001). During his State of the Union Address on September 20, 2001, Bush presented his position to the American people and the assembled body of Congress. “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (White House, 2001). On November 13, 2001, in the first such occasion since World War II, Bush signed into law an executive order that allows military tribunals to use any actions they deem necessary. The U.S. military could now imprison for an indefinite period of time and without representation, any person of foreign nationality who are simply alleged to have associations with terrorist activities. For example, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, legal advisors tied closely to the ideology of the Bush administration within the Justice Department’s Office advised Bush that the U.S. was not legally bound by the U.N. Charter or international laws with regard to rules of engaging a perceived enemy. These views were echoed by Alberto Gonzales, then White House legal advisor for the President and now Attorney General of the U.S. He also advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in the handling of prisoners, or ‘detainees’ in this war on terror (Calame, 2006). This opinion, shared by legal counsels to the President, applied to not only those directly affiliated with al Qa’ida but to the entire ruling party in Afghanistan, the Taliban, because, as they argued, Afghanistan was a ‘failed state’ (Mayer, 2005, p. 32). The Bush administration chose to follow the advice of this jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations (Mayer, 2005, p. 34). The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. Bush has constantly maintained that these actions against sovereign countries were legal. First, he argues, because of existing language within the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq and secondly, the invasions are an act of self-defence which international law permits. However, according to Richard Perle, a top official of the U.S. Defence Policy Board and advisor to former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). Yet, this would have been “morally unacceptable” according to the Bush administration. The war is unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst, his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. Contrary to these assertions of terrorist ties, then Secretary of State Powell stated in January of 2004, “I have not seen a smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the (terrorist) connection” (“Iraq After Saddam”, 2004). According to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Eight, only Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war. Presidents do not have this authority (United States Constitution). However, the War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to deploy troops to a country for 60-90 days without the consent of Congress (War Powers Resolution, 1973). As the war has progressed since 2003, the Bush administration has lost much confidence among the American public who are more and more of the understanding to what the rest of the world has known since Iraq was first invaded. Though United Nations Resolution 1441 was not authored or passed as an intention to authorize war, the U.S. asserted that another interpretation of the resolution was possible. However, Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan, who spoke with regard to the UN charter, declared “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal” (“Iraq War Illegal”, 2004). The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, has condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, “should be put on trial for his war crimes” (Glantz, 2006). Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world has also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“US Threatens”, 2002). Patriot Act The given purpose of the PATRIOT Act was “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (Robinson, 2005). The PATRIOT Act became federal law in October of 2001. It was quickly accepted by Congress just a month and a half following the September 11 attacks. Pressure to pass anti-terrorism legislation prevailed over the need to understand what the 342 page Act entailed. Most Congressmen admit to not have reading the Act before voting to pass it. The PATRIOT Act, as many citizens and legal experts alike have argued, violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Savage, 2006).  This includes the freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment); the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment); the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment); the right to a speedy, public and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser (Sixth Amendment), the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and freedom from punishment without conviction (13th Amendment). A close examination of the Act confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claim that the Bush administration has a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act is has reproved its agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” (Etzioni, 2004 p. 9). Conservatives are alarmed as well including Republican Representative Bob Barr, who is best known for leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton. Barr had led a group named “Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances” which focused solely on challenging the renewal of the Patriot Act in 2004 (Lakely, 2005) As an illustration of the scope and magnitude of this problem, a Wall Street Journal story reported that seven congressional Democrats filed a request from the U.S. Attorney General so as to ascertain the status of more than a thousand detainees in federal facilities. The request was granted after the congressmen cited the Freedom of Information Act. According to the report obtained by the lawmakers, “some detainees have been denied access to their attorneys, proper food, or protection from physical assault” (Levy, 2001). Some of these detainees had been kept confined to solitary confinement though they had not been formerly charged with a crime. Numerous detainees of Arab decent were allowed one phone call attempt to an attorney per week. However, if they could not reach their counsel, they could not call back until another week had passed. This treatment is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Though these detainees were not U.S. citizens and not entitled to such constitutional protections, many wonder how the country will be perceived by those it hopes to convert to American style democracy if it doesn’t apply its own rules to all persons. Young persons that do not fully understand what freedoms they are losing and what this country originally stood for will believe that this type of activity by the government is considered acceptable. In addition, young persons in the U.S. will never have the pride in their country as did their fore-bearers because the country has lost its respect throughout the world and rightfully so. Election Pandering to fundamentalist Christians, women and minorities’ along with having plenty of funds and voter fraud were major factors in the most recent presidential election cycle but the main reason Bush won was his ability to instill fear within the populous and that the country needed him for protection. This tactic, implemented at curiously convenient times when Republicans needed a political boost, worked very well. Americans, with their need for guns, gated communities and alarm systems in their homes are pre-disposed to be taken in by fear mongering tactics (Oberg, 2004). Ironically, the events of September 11 were responsible at least as much as any other factor for Bush’s victory. His stance more closely reflected the average American’s view on terrorism. The public believed that this war must not only be waged but won. Voters believed that Bush had more credibility in this area because of the constant fear-based rhetoric during his first term and the campaign (Luntz, 2004). The far-right conservative wing of the Republican Party was successful in misleading millions of terrified Americans following September 11. At the time of the election, the majority of Americans believed that Iraq, somehow, was to blame for those attacks and that Saddam Hussein was hiding large quantities weapons of mass destruction despite information from the U.N.’s weapons inspectors. “The ignorance and stupidity of Americans cannot be overestimated. Most Americans don’t even know where Iraq is, let alone the real reasons for the war” (Coleman, 2004). Leaders of countries that are involved in a war are generally re-elected which has a basis in sound reasoning. Though it was mostly Saudi Arabians involved in the attacks that were financed by a man who lived in Afghanistan and were helped with immigration paperwork in Iran, Bush was successful in convincing half of America that Iraq was responsible. “Fifty-five percent of voters said that the Iraq war was part of the war on terrorism and 51 percent approved of Bush’s decision to go to war” (Nobel, 2005). This was the basis for his reasoning for a military invasion and occupation of the sovereign country. Those voters who blindly bought in to this reckoning were certain to cast their vote for Bush and many condemned Kerry for questioning this faulty reasoning. Most, about six in ten Americans, indicated that they did not trust Democrats as much as Republicans to effectively deal with terrorists. “Despite daily disclosures of duplicity, blundering, and callousness among the President’s top military and security advisers, even after the Duelfer Report’s widely publicized conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, millions of people thought that Bush, not Kerry, would be a better custodian of national security” (Nobel, 2005). Bush’s primary goal to become re-elected was to convince voters through fear tactics that he, not Kerry, possessed the strength and conviction to fight a more effective was on terrorism. In the time period from the attacks up until the election, the Bush administration inundated the public with supposed threats to their safety from foreign sources, many proved later to be bogus, and emphasized the President’s concern and actions being taken on behalf of the public’s safety (Jones, 2004). Karl Rove, who orchestrated the public’s perception of Bush and headed both of his Presidential campaigns was successful in altering the public discourse regarding the Iraq debacle into the championing of Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 attacks. When the Democrats tried to put Bush on the defensive regarding any of his failed policies either foreign or domestic, Rove turned the Republican dialogue back on the offensive. Using words such as attack, terrorism, savagery, etc., Rove induced into the mindset of many Americans why war was the suitable reaction. Bush was made to seem as though he was acting in a heroic manner and that to be liberal was synonymous with being a coward or a wimp. This strategy was and is also used to defend Bush’s reasoning for demanding absolute authority to usurp the laws defined in the Constitution such as illegal wiretaps and detaining prisoners for years without benefit of counsel or charges brought against them. Rove convinced the majority of Americans that to be against the use of military actions and to deny Bush total power without impunity was to be unpatriotic (Lakoff, 2005). Profiling The national feeling of security was obliterated along with the twin towers in New York. Since that day, the continuing threat of attacks by terrorists has brought about unfair and blatantly inappropriate actions including racial profiling techniques by many civil and private agencies as well as ordinary citizens toward those persons who are perceived to be a threat. Nonetheless, selecting Arabs, Muslims or Middle Eastern ‘looking’ persons to specifically target as an increased risk for criminal behavior over and above other types of people is a flawed methodology. The racial profiling of this group is established on similar types of myths regarding particular classifications of people and their increased tendency to commit crimes that have been erroneously used to justify profiling minorities for many years. Much the same as what is regarded as more traditional examples, the profiling of suspected terrorists in addition to selectively enforcing immigration regulations that is tied in with this ideology is patently contradictory with fundamental constitutional doctrines. “The assumption that terrorism is only an Arab or Muslim problem fosters the false impression that the problem can simply be eradicated if the government has free rein to deal with ‘those people’ and leaves the rest of us alone” (“Hindsight and Foresight”, 2001). In addition, in an ethical and moral context, offering a group of people as the scapegoats via profiling is an inherent and obvious injustice. There is no conclusive evidence that proves either way if the profiling of suspected terrorists which includes the factor of ethnicity or race is effective in safeguarding U.S. citizens. What is known is that the majority of U.S. residents, legal or not, of every racial group is not involved in terrorist activities and were alarmed by the September 11 attacks. Consequently, harassing, detaining or intruding on the liberty and privacy of individuals who are of a certain ethnic group will undoubtedly cause a certain amount of personal detriment to countless numbers of people who haven’t caused any reason to justify such an intrusion. The reality of the situation will not totally convince those persons who argue that profiling is effective and helps keep the public safe. Unlike illegal drug trafficking which involves large numbers of U.S. citizens of all ethnicities, there is every reason to assume that very few people in the U.S. are not engaged in terrorist activities or are planning attacks. Hence, “any criteria police use to identify or ‘profile’ terrorists, whether or not those criteria rely on suspect classifications such as race, ethnicity, or national origin, will yield many more false positives than they will disclose true conspiring murderers” (Colb, 2001). Simply put, the overwhelming majority of ‘suspected terrorists,’ as determined by the parameters set by the standards of racial profiling, are innocent, law-abiding citizens by whatever the criteria used. Conclusion There are many perspectives on terrorism that reach well past the terrorist act itself. The illegal war in Iraq has caused terrorist attacks to increase as well as the loss of many thousands of Iraqi and American lives and as a consequence has cost the U.S. dearly as far as international respect. The Patriot Act has stripped away constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that stood for more than 225 years. The fear of terrorism ultimately caused a president to be re-elected and is the justification for the rights of many innocent people to be disregarded. These unconscionable actions were justified by the ‘War on Terror.’ The nation as a whole would be wise to remember the words of one its wisest men, Benjamin Franklin, paraphrasing, ‘those that give up liberties for safety deserve neither.’ Hopefully the nation will learn from past statesmen as well as past mistakes unlike those presently in power. Works Cited Burkeman, Oliver & Borger, Julian. “War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.” Manchester Guardian. (November 20, 2003). Calame, Byron. “Rewriting the Geneva Convention.” New York Times. (August 14, 2006). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Colb, Sherry F. “The New Face of Racial Profiling: How Terrorism Affects the Debate.” Find Law. (October 10, 2001). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Coleman, Vernon. “How George W. Bush Won the 2004 USA Presidential Election.” (2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act? Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York, Routledge, (2004). Gallington, Daniel J. “The U.N. and the War on Terror.” The Washington Times. (2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Glantz, Aaron. “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” One World USA. (August 25, 2006). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from “Hindsight and Foresight.” (Editorial). Fort Worth Star Telegram. (September 20, 2001). “Iraq After Saddam: GIs Swoop Down On Tikrit Suspects Iraq.” CBS News. (January 9, 2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from “Iraq War Illegal, Says Annan.” BBC News. (September 16, 2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Jones, David R. “Why Bush Won.” CBS News. (November 3, 2004). Lakely, James G. “Conservatives, Liberals Align Against Patriot Act.” The Washington Times. (June 14, 2005). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Lakoff, George. “How Rove Won.” Suburban Guerrilla. (30 June 2005). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Levy, Robert A. “The USA PATRIOT Act: We Deserve Better.” (October 9, 2001). The Cato Institute. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Luntz, Frank. “Why Bush Won.” The Washington Times. (2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Mayer, Jane. “Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s ‘Extraordinary Rendition.’” The New Yorker Magazine. (February 14, 2005). Nobel, Charles. “How Bush Won.” Logos Journal. (Winter 2005). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Oberg, Jan. “Why Bush Won? Fear-ology and the Lack of Alternatives.” The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. (4 November 2004). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Robinson, Dr. Matthew. “Civil Liberties and the War on Terror: An Eight Part Series.” Paper originally presented to the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 15-19, 2005, Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Savage, Charlie. “Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws.” The Boston Globe. (April 30, 2006). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from U.S. Code Collection. “Title 50 Chapter 33 § 1541: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002.” (2002). Cornell Law School. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from United States Constitution. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” BBC News. (September 11, 2002). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 (November 7, 1973). Retrieved from The Avalon Project Yale Law School February 14, 2007 from (The) White House. “President Issues Military Order Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism.” (November 13, 2001). White House Press Release: Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Read More