Importance of Counter-Terrorism - Essay Example

Counter-Terrorism If I were developing a network to gain counter terrorism intelligence it would be a necessity to go into the Arabic neighborhoods. This would be no different than the undercover police that go into the neighborhoods where drugs are sold. The statistics indicate that a preponderance of the terrorism that targets the US comes from the Middle East, and it is a logical step to establish contacts among that population. The 1968 Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio found that it was allowable for law enforcement to detain and search suspects "when officers are acting upon reasonable suspicion that criminality is afoot" (Siggins, 2002). This has been further interpreted to mean that an officer can use their best and reasonable judgement when solving or preventing crime. I would simply develop friendly contacts with the moderate population with the understanding that anti-terrorism is in everybody's best interest. Critics of this policy may point to Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh, as terrorists that do not fit this profile. However, these cases were also vigorously pursued, and right wing extremists are regularly infiltrated and investigated. The war on terror does not have a single front. I would not, however, use a place of religious worship as an intelligence target. For example, I would not, nor would I advise anyone else, to go pretend to be Islamic as a means to get inside a Mosque. If there were a contact that gained information through their attendance at a Mosque, then that would be useful. We have a time honored freedom of religion and that should remain a personal and private experience. 2.) The determination of a terrorist's legal status is based on the place the action takes place, citizenship status, military affiliation, and group membership. An American citizen that commits a terrorist act in the US would normally be afforded all the rights and protections of the constitution, under the provisions of the Patriot Act. This generally applies to domestic terrorism that does not involve a foreign component. However, if the citizen was a member of a foreign terrorist group, in a foreign country, or working for a foreign government, they could be considered an unlawful enemy combatant. An example is Jose Padilla, a US citizen charged in Chicago with aiding terrorists in the construction of a 'dirty bomb'. Unlawful enemy combatant status can also be given to anyone attacking the US in a war, such as insurgents, that do not belong to an organized military. They can be detained without charges for the duration of the conflict. Lawful combatants, members of a military, are treated as POWs. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that "the President has unquestioned authority to detain unlawful enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime (Haynes, 2002). Without regards to the suspect's status or charges, torture should never be a matter of policy. Torture is an ethical decision, not a matter of procedure. If an agent is faced with a situation in which they believe torture would be productive, then they should take whatever action is necessary, report it, be prepared to justify it, and be prepared to suffer the consequences. When torture becomes policy, the government ends up debating the legalities of their actions, rather than their effectiveness. Our laws, traditions, and sense of justice can never make torture, even perceived torture, acceptable. 3.) The doctrine of a 'Just War' places limitations and restrictions on the motivations for initiating war, the goals of war, and the engagement of war. Advocates of the just war theory contend that a war is justified if it is formally declared, has a just and defensive cause, has the limited objective of peace, uses proportionate force, is a last resort, and targets only military targets (Anderson, 2003). These guidelines are rather straightforward in a traditional border war or against an aggressive occupation. However, the globalization of terrorism adds a new level of complexity to the meaning of a 'just war'. The war on terror and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action were justified using the just war standards. It was a declared war, and pre-emption was considered a defensive action against future aggression. Its objective is peace, and has no goal of territory or wealth. In addition, it is a last resort without the alternatives of negotiation or diplomacy. However, the definition of military target has changed in the modern world. Through one lens, the terrorists are radicalized civilians with a political and social agenda. However, their funding, organization, training, and commitment can be defined as pari-military. The current war on terror has already exceeded the standard of the 'just war'. The international war has escalated from eliminating terrorism to a fight against Islam. Our interest in Iraq has more to do with the threat of a hard line Iran than it does eliminating terrorism or gaining peace. Detainees that are held as enemy combatants have little, if anything to do with terrorism. Domestically, the Patriot Act has been used to imprison people as terrorists that are guilty of little more than civil disobedience. In many areas the war has become disproportionate to the threat. 4.) For the last two centuries the United States has been accused throughout the world of economic imperialism, military aggression, racism, and religious intolerance. Domestically, the government has come under fire for oppressing individual liberty and a failure to live up to the ideals of the constitution. According to Rubin and Rubin (2004), "the ultimate basis for anti-Americanism is the belief that what underlies all US actions is a desire to take over or remake the world, and that it will use the power of its military, economy, culture, and success towards a negative end" (p.18). Anti-American groups, both domestic and foreign, regularly call for the overthrow of the government or advocate action against it. Recently US Congressperson Michele Bachmann has arguably been added to this domain when she stated "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing" (Bachmann, 2009). This is an area where it is difficult to measure the true intent and the danger of the speech. There are legal remedies for individuals and groups that incite violence against the government. Internationally, it is often difficult to seek legal remedies across borders. Domestically, the courts have tended to rule in favor of freedom of speech and association over inflammatory language and guilt by association (Werhan, 2004, p.61). However, there are laws that prohibit calling for the overthrow of the government or inciting violent or riotous activity. The Smith Act of 1940, though considered overly broad and vague, outlaws almost any action taken to threaten or discredit the government. Ms. Bachman has certainly violated the technical letter of the law. In these times of a heightened terrorist threat, there may be a greater will on the part of the courts to clamp down on this activity. The recent years have seen an increased amount of attention paid to hate groups that are believed to be anti-government. Charities that support terrorist groups should be viewed as an arm of the terrorist organization. There are currently laws that adequately provide for the confiscation of assets and the prosecution for racketeering conspiracy by operating a fraudulent charity and supporting enemy combatants (Gartenstein-Ross and Dabruzzi, 2007, p.10). Since 9/11 there has also been an appropriate increased scrutiny of these groups. 5.) The Patriot Act has almost certainly been responsible for the disruption of foreign terrorist act planned for the United States. It has increased the public's awareness of terrorism, and the enhanced surveillance and intelligence gathering provisions have, at the least, served to discourage terrorism. In addition, the ability for the US government to more closely monitor the communications and transactions of foreign nationals has made it possible to identify potential terrorists based on their association with known terrorists. This information can be shared and used in conjunction with local law enforcement databases to intercept and disrupt the criminal aspects that support terrorism. The law has been credited with breaking down "the legal and bureaucratic "wall" that used to separate the intelligence and criminal sides of an investigation" (Abramson, Godoy, and Gradowski, 2005). The Act has been credited with hundreds of arrests and convictions, but to contend that it has prevented another 9/11 is premature and simply not quantifiable. Terrorists still have the capacity to strike in our open society, and 7 years is not the measure of success, or an indication of victory. Domestically, the Act has been an unnecessary intrusion into citizen's lives. The few domestic arrests that have been made under the Act have been for relatively benign activities that did not rise to the level of terrorism. In one case, an individual was arrested under the Act for broadcasting sexual messages over a police radio frequency (Copeland, 2004). In another, eight college students were arrested for terrorism for planning to disrupt traffic during the Republican Convention. In addition, it has put a chill over the organization of legitimate social protests because of its enhanced investigative and sentencing provisions. There is already an adequate body of law and enforcement tools available to pursue and apprehend domestic terrorists. References Abramson, L., Godoy, M., & Gradowski, K. (2005). The Patriot Act: Justice Department claims success. Retrieved April 25, 2009, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.phpstoryId=4756706 Anderson, K. (2003). Terrorism and just war (2003). Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218089/k.6225/Terrorism_and_Just_War.htm Bachmann, M. (2009). Radical Right Wing Agenda. Retrieved April 25, 2009, http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/bachmann-armed-and-dangerous/ Copeland, L. (2004, November 14). Domestic terrorism: New trouble at home. USA Today. Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-domestic-terrorism_x.htm Gartenstein-Ross, D., & Dabruzzi, K. (2007). The Convergence of Crime and terror: Law enforcement opportunities and perils. New York, NY: Manhattan Institute. Haynes, W. (2002). Enemy combatants. Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html Rubin, B., & Rubin, J. C. (2004). Anti-Americanism re-examined. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11(1), 17-24. Siggins, P. (2002). Racial profiling in an age of terrorism. Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html Werhan, K. (2004). Freedom of speech: A reference guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Read More