The US Civil Liberties Implications of Counterterrorism Policies - Essay Example

The U.S Civil Liberties Implications of Counterterrorism Policies Introduction In the United s’ history, the American commitment and efforts to civil liberties has often been put to test. The US efforts to protect itself against internal subversion and foreign adversities were characterized by various activities. They were characterized by activities and factors such as the Sedition and Alien Acts, the persecution of those who seemed to be the war critics during the World War I as well as the Red Scare that followed it, the suspension of the habeas corpus during the Civil War, and the government carrying out surveillance that targeted the Vietnam War opponents. The darker sides of the American history, particularly those that involved crackdowns on political dissents and immigrants, have always manifested themselves during times of war or war threats. It is specifically in a historical context in which people’s rights have been subjected to jeopardy particularly during times of war that the American counterterrorism policies need to assessed. In the wake of September 11, 2001, the United States was a victim of several attacks. Therefore, George W. Bush, then the president of the United States, had to come up with agenda to counter terrorism. This essay will therefore focus on the historical agenda and policies that put in place by President George W. Bush to counter terrorism and other forms of attacks from other nations. President George Bush’s agenda President George W. Bush’s agenda to counter terrorism during his era drew a lot of criticism from all corners. The agenda and policies drew criticism from the civil libertarians and other groups in the United States and from abroad. The groups were totally against Bush’s policies such warrantless domestic surveillance, USA PATRIOT Act, harsh detention and interrogation policies, extraordinary renditions, opening a special detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay, and curtailing the review of these matters(Davis & Silver, 2004). There were several arguments that were specifically advanced against such policies and those that were articulated by the Bush’s administration as well as its supporters. However, it would not be an easy task for anyone to assess what transpired during this period. A number of actions that were taken by the Bush’s administration in its efforts to counter terrorism presented threats to rights of the US citizens as well the foreigners who were victims of these counterterrorism policies (Davis & Silver, 2004). At the same time, the setbacks to the rights of individuals during the counterterrorism war posed less severe threats the American liberty than those that resulted from the previous major conflicts. The United States has not declared the suspension of the outlawed political dissent, habeas corpus rights, conducting surveillance on war critics, placing of those who not of the white race domestic detention centers, or blacklisting the academics or entertainers who try to differ with the federal government’s policies. In addition, the government has not taken any action against the media, despite the fact that they produced many articles that revealed sensitive information related to the initiatives to fight terrorism (Katyal et al, 2007). In evaluating the policies of the Bush’s administration, there have been questions of whether the laws and methods developed to fight traditional military conflicts were still suitable for fighting the global terrorism networks. These terrorism networks highly disregard the traditional warfare rules and ready and committed to causing more casualties on the civilians of the United States and even other nations. Civil libertarians and other groups strongly argued that the laws and policies that were devised to deal the traditional warfare were sufficient enough to cope with the terror threats. To some extent, they were right in their argument. Despite that, the U.S and other democratic societies are still struggling with this issue that is of great importance. The countervailing forces of the American democracy tempered with more ambitious initiatives of the administration and have had an important impact on how America fights terrorism in future. The Congress, law courts, and the press have all played a crucial role in forcing some changes in the approach used by the administration to fight terrorism. Therefore, their role has become more significant as the policies to fight terrorism are moderated and refined further. The USA PATRIOT Act The USA PATRIOT Act is an abbreviation for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. It is also simply referred to as the PATRIOT Act. On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed this Act into law. It was the administration that sought it and the Congress had the task of passing it in response to 9 out of 11. It was intended for the expansion of intelligent agents and law enforcement officials to fight terrorism in the United States and other nations. The PATRIOT Act amended most the existing United States statutes, including the anti-money laundering laws, banking laws, immigration laws, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 (Davis & Silver, 2004). Even though the law enjoyed a strong approval in the Congress after being passed, and despite being renewed in March 2006 through a vote of 280 in the House, most of its provisions have remained to be highly controversial and the court has always challenged them. This controversy seems to be of great importance since the application of the PATRIOT Act both perpetuates and leads to the broadening of government powers in the long-run. Most of the disputed provisions are modeled on the antiracketeering statutes that existed before. These statutes strengthened and increased the penalties for certain types of offences that were committed by those in the criminal organizations, and decreased the burden on the government to provide evidence in criminal investigations and during trials. Even though they are still controversial even on being applied on their original target, which was organized crime, the antiracketeering laws are currently being used for prosecuting other crimes. In the same way, most of the tools used to fight terrorism and are provided in the PATRIOT Act are still being used to chase for those who are suspects of other crimes, mostly the drug crimes. The controversy of the National Security Agency The PATRIOT Act was not the measure that led to the rise of concern about the civil liberties. In 2005, there were many reports that claimed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was trying to eavesdrop on telephone calls that were made between people in the U.S and the associates in other countries. Under this program, the NSA was monitoring some calls without obtaining any warrant from FISA, either retroactively or in advance. President Bush has taken a step of secretly authorizing this program, claiming that the U.S Constitution gave him broad and inherent powers that would surpass legislation such as the FISA. In addition, he cited the resolution that had been passed by the Congress just after the 9 out of 11 that gave him authority to use force in fighting terrorism (Davis & Silver, 2004). In responding to the revelation of NSA program, President Bush’s administration asserted that the requirement of warrant in FISA was a cumbersome and slow process and was hindering investigations on terrorism. Some of the administration officials said that in case the NSA program had been in place in 2001, it might have caught some the hijackers of 9/11 and averted any form of attacks. However, those who criticized the program noted that FISA allowed the NSA to seek for retroactive warrants after it conducts any surveillance. The reason for this claim was that the warrant process had no need of delaying surveillance. Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp President Bush issued an order on November 13, 2001 that authorized the capture and detention of all suspects the al-Qaeda terror groups by the military forces. In 2002, the US military took a further step of opening a prison and an interrogation center. Both the prison and the interrogation center were opened at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba. The prison currently holds all those suspected by the armed forces or the executive branch as being the operatives of terror groups such Taliban and al-Qaeda. Most of the suspects held at this place were captured by the U.S its allies on the Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields. The treatment and status of those detained has caused a lot controversy in the United States and in other nations. A total of 775 detainees have so far been detained at the Guantanamo Bay. Out of this number, approximately a third has been freed. Those detained at Guantanamo Bay included citizens of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and 30 other nations. In his 2001 order, President Bush gave the specific conditions under which those detained were supposed to be held (Katyal et al, 2007). He called for the free exercise of religion, humane treatment, and access to medical treatment. However, he excluded the rights that would challenge their detention of file appeals to challenge decisions made by the military tribunals in the U.S courts. The main reason for detaining these prisoners was to find more information about the ongoing terrorism activities by interrogating them. At first, the Department of Defense claimed that the enemy combatants were not supposed to receive any form of protection from the Geneva Conventions. In addition, it maintained that the government had the authority of interrogating the detainees using methods that would otherwise be banned. Many officials issued sets of orders that would approve the methods of interrogation to be used at the Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus Habeas corpus is a legal writ or action by which those detained can challenge unlawful imprisonment. In the U.S Constitution, the Suspension Clause was specific in including the common English law procedure in Article One of the constitution. The law states that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion of the public safety requires it” (Davis & Silver, 2004). There are several stories and debates such as the Parhat’s of how to fight the unconventional war against an enemy who mainly uses terrorism as the tactic. As a case such as Parhat’s found its way in the U.S courts, there were arguments on how to balance freedom of individuals against the civil libertarians who have for human rights. In the fight against terrorism, the U.S government has been snatching suspects off the streets in foreign countries, and interrogated the suspects using methods that the American allies have termed as torture. The government has detained the suspects without charge or judicial review (Davis & Silver, 2004). Conclusion The core institutions of the U.S democracy have continued to grapple as a result of issues caused by President Bush’s administration to fight terrorism. These issues have particularly been caused by the executive branch’s assertion to enhance authority. Techniques used to counter terrorism have received criticism from different groups and have been termed as harsh. Reference Davis, D and Silver, B. (2004). Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science. 48(1), 28-46 Katyal, N.K., Bongiovanni, G & Valentini, C. (2007). Terrorism, Emergency Powers, and the Role of the US Supreme Court: An Interview with Neal K. Katyal*. Ratio Juris. Vol. 20 No. 4, (443–55). Read More