Investigating Terrorism: Political Surveillance - Essay Example

? Investigating Terrorism: Political Surveillance of Terrorism is among the effects of globalization that has been the focus of the entire world. The world is in an enduring quest to stop and eradicate terrorism. Challenges faced in bid to winning anti-terrorism war relates to the lobby for protection and respect of human rights. This paper following paper will discuss political surveillance as a way of investigating planned terrorism activities. The paper will also discuss the challenges encountered by security intelligence organizations in their attempt to use the concept of political surveillance in detecting and preventing terrorism as well as indentifying potential terrorists. Investigating Terrorism: Political Surveillance Investigation is one sure way of eradicating, preventing and detecting any planned criminal activities as well as identifying criminals and crime suspects. Terrorism is one of the heinous phenomena that embody the increasing negative effects of globalization. Freedom of people moving from their countries to other countries for purposes of trade and other sorts of businesses raise the risk of spread of terrorism across the world. Terrorists seek travel documents to allow them transpire across borders with disguised trade and work intentions, when their actual plans is to bomb and terrorize particular countries. Terrorism has seen immense and painful loss of lives of innocent citizens who are usually caught unaware. In addition, terrorism has seen drastic lose and destruction of national infrastructures and people’s properties in the affected countries. It is critical to underscore that terrorism has close links with politics played in a given region or between and among countries. Terrorism do not just happen or occur as other natural calamities, but emanates from differences in the political policies and ideologies of conflicting parties. For instance, the infamous 9/11 bombing of the Twins Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, the United States of America was due to policy differences between USA and Al-Qaida. In addition, terrorism activities committed against Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 were due to political competitions and policy differences between United States of America and its allies on one side and Al-Qaida and its sectarian state sponsors on the other (ADL.ORG, 1999). The two attacks targeted buildings that housed American Embassies in the in Kenya and Tanzania. Given the close link between terrorism and global geopolitics, it is justifiable that terrorism investigations have to be in line with the political surveillance, to help determine any existing points of policy differences between any given parties. Terrorism investigations done alongside political surveillance has the potential of quickly unveiling the potential terrorists, and helps prevent and eradicate any terrorism plans. Bodies defining security intelligence across the world have relied on the political surveillance in their attempt to conduct investigations regarding any potential threats of terrorism. This has been so because of the existing close links between political movements, religious groups, and terrorism. Even though political surveillance provides the best and reliable avenue for terrorism investigations, intelligence bodies have faced numerous accusations as human rights organizations raise alarms that the exercise amounts to breach of the basic human rights and civil liberties (IRS.GOV, 2012). One such human rights organization is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This organization together with its affiliates have launched many cases against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and police, accusing the bodies for engaging in illegal spying of the political movements, environmental activists and faith-based groups (ACLU, 2004). While filing complaints against the government, human rights organizations claim that the intelligence bodies break the spirit of the constitution that assures every individual of their Freedom of Information (ACLU, 2004). With reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA), human rights organizations demand that FBI inform any groups or individuals about the day of scrutiny and the purposes of scrutiny. ACLU (2004) further advocates that the FBI should inform individuals of the reasons for use of Joint Terrorism Task Forces as they engage in political surveillance. The insistence of the human rights demanding FBI to respect the Freedom of Information Act is against the spirit of intelligence and secret mission activities. Pursuance of these demands placed by human rights organizations will only work to scuttle antiterrorism mission and instead increase terrorism (Glaser, 2011). These is because informing suspect groups of when and why to investigate them can enable them evade their plans till another un-expecting times. ACLU (2004) also accuses the American intelligence bodies and government in general for suppressing execution of the First Amendment rights that permit citizens to criticize the government. As an approval to the accusations, ACLU (2004) points at the event during the 2004 National Conventions of Democrats and Republicans, when FBI commissioned police officers to investigate civilian groups that protested over war waged against Iraq. ACLU (2004) indicates that instead of police investigating the protesting group, it could have protected the innocent citizens. Compliance to this call can escalate and encourage terrorism activities as most terrorist like mutinying with other non criminal groups to execute their plans. Involvement of intelligence officers during such protests is just good as it can help in indentify the potential terrorist taking advantage of the quagmire. EPIC, Electronic Privacy Information Center (2009) points out that as one way of strengthening the operations of the intelligence bodies in countering terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft produced guidelines overturning the amendments of 1985 that required intelligence personnel to have abstract evidence as to suspecting particular group of being a security threat. In the guidelines released in 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft permitted FBI officials to investigate any political organization or group of people without necessarily producing evidence validating the suspicion. As an additional amendment released in 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft overturned the provision of 1989 that prohibited FBIs from searching and investigating internet connections belonging to private sectors. The amendment now allowed FBI to investigate internet and get into private database when detecting terrorism plans (EPIC, 2009). In conclusion, terrorism is a global tragedy yet to be resolved and eradicated. The entire world is in waging relentless war to stop and eradicate terrorism. Terrorism has retarded the speed of global development and led to the death of many innocent people. The biggest obstruction towards achieving this mission of ending terrorism is increasing lobby from human rights bodies that reprimand intelligence bodies. Political competition and policy differences are the main factors that lead to the development of rebellious terrorist groups. While political surveillance provides the best way of investigating terrorism, it has also been the center of criticism against the efforts of the anti-terror security apparatus. Human rights activists have translated political surveillance used by bodies like the FBI in investigating terrorism as ways of suppressing fundamental rights that include freedom of association, speech, assembly and information. However, it is imperative for any individual to understand the link between differences in political policies and terrorism, and thus allow political surveillance to be used as the basis of investigating terrorism. References ACLU. (2004). ACLU Launches Nationwide Effort to Expose Illegal FBI Spying on Political and Religious Groups. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-launches-nationwide-effort-expose-illegal-fbi-spying-political-and-religious- EPIC.ORG. (2009). The Attorney General's Guidelines. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from: http://epic.org/privacy/fbi/ Glaser, J. (2011). Domestic Surveillance Targets Political Activists. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from: http://antiwar.com/blog/2011/06/15/domestic-surveillance-targets-political-activists/ IRS.GOV. (2012). Criminal Investigation Responds to Terrorism. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from: http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=107510,00.html ADL.ORG. (1999). The U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya & Tanzania. Retrieved August 19, 2012 from: http://www.adl.org/terror/focus/15_focus.asp Read More