Do Terrorists Have Human Rights - Essay Example

Part The Irish Republican Army: The IRA was formed in 1969 as the clandestine militant branch of the political movement Sinn Fein. It is dedicated to two prime objectives. Firstly, it intends to remove British military forces from Northern Ireland and secondly, to re-unite Ireland. The IRA carried out attacks until its cease-fire agreement in 1997. When it signed the Belfast Agreement, IRA promised to disarm and, which laid the foundations for a peaceful Northern Ireland. But the organization is beset by internal disagreements, especially with regard to support for the Northern Ireland peace process, which led to the spawning of two more radical splinter groups: Continuity IRA (CIRA), and the Real IRA (RIRA) in mid to late 1990s. The IRA, sometimes referred to as the PIRA to distinguish it from RIRA and CIRA, is organized into small, tightly-knit cells under the leadership of the Army Council. The IRA’s militant activities have comprised of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies. Prior to the cease-fire agreement in 1997, the group was involved in terror campaigns in various places in Northern Ireland and England, including senior British Government agencies (and its officials), innocent civilians, police forces, and the Royal military installations. While the rationale for their activities is quite genuine, the group has also attracted criticism for its rigidity. For example, the IRA has not been willing to adopt non-violent methods for pressurizing its oppressive neighbour. For example, the group’s refusal in late 2004 to allow photographic documentation of its decommissioning process was an obstacle to progress in implementing the Belfast Agreement and stalled talks. The IRA is also criticized for funding its operations through criminal means. Every year millions of dollars are added to its coffers through robberies and other crimes. Unless the IRA puts an end to such deviances, its mission is unlikely to succeed. The IRA does not pose a direct threat to Australian citizens or Australian national interests. But in an indirect way, with the refusal of Canberra to detach itself from American and British neo-colonial ambitions, Australia can face a backlash. Already we saw an instance of this in the Bali bombings of 2002. With the IRA’s links with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, ETA and the Colombian militant group FARC, Australia is vulnerable to terror attacks from these organizations, if its foreign policy framework does not change. It is also no surprise that the media at large is hostile to IRA. Baring a few exceptions, the British media is undeniably biased against the IRA’s cause and its methods. Australian media, too, is similar to British media, especially when Rupert Murdoch controls a significant share of media in both nations. Part 2: 1. Bali bombings in October 2002 The Bali bombings of October 2002 are one chapter in the pattern of increased incidents of terrorism after September 11, 2001. Islamic terrorist groups such as Jemaah Islamiah were implicated in carrying out this atrocity targeted against Australian nationals. As for its causes, it is widely perceived by political commentators as a response to Australian government’s participation in the American led War on Terror. The War on Terror declared by the Bush Administration, in response to attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, has done little to prevent terrorism. To the contrary, the Allied invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq (both nations having large Muslim populations) had strengthened the rationale behind the Islamic Jihad of the terror groups. And the diplomatic and military manoeuvres of the Australian government since the Bali bombings have done little to mitigate the situation. 2. Palestinian-Israeli conflict: The Israel-Palestine conflict comes to symbolize the lack of understanding and mutual trust between the global East and the global West. Both sides claim that their stance has legitimacy. When the United States led western coalition carved out Israel in the Middle-East region at the conclusion of the Second World War, it claimed to have taken this radical course of action to prevent further human rights violations on Jews, as was witnessed during the Holocaust. But the irony lay in securing a safe Jewish homeland at the cost of violating basic human rights of Arabs in the region, whose claims of nativity to the region are equally legitimate. Ever since its inception, Israel had to counter Palestinian resistance movement, which inevitably took the form of sporadic acts of terrorism. With both sides unwilling to make concessions for the sake of peaceful co-existence, terrorism remains the only option left for Palestinians to make their voices heard. 3. Religion: As Professor Samuel Huntington proposed, there seems to be a global ‘clash of civilizations’. While Huntington pointed out to the incompatibility between the modern Western way of life and the primitive Islamic code of conduct, the influence of religion in political affairs can be seen in a smaller and local level too. Epitomizing this theme are the geo-political conflicts in Ireland and Middle-East. At the outset, linking religion to politically motivated terrorism might seem incongruent. After all, the twentieth century world polity was based on the separation of church and state. Yet, religion remains a key component of national, communal and individual identity. And as long as this reality remains, the dictum of ‘separation of church and state’ will not see practical implementation. Organization such as the Irish Republican Army and Al-Qaeda has been carrying out acts of violence in the name of religion. 4. Eco-terrorism: Usually, the term terrorism is associated with attack on human beings. But in recent history, groups or organization that have a demand to make, carry out or threaten to carry out acts of environmental/ecological damage, in order to coerce the government or government agencies. This term has also been applied to the activities of social activism groups, who heckle business corporations or government agencies to make their operations and processes environmentally friendly. Either way, the underlying theme behind eco-terrorism is the preservation of ecology through resort to violent means. One merit attached to eco-terrorism is that the target of attack are factories, farms, etc and not human beings. At least eco-terrorism seems to guarantee that innocent civilians will not lose their lives for the mistakes committed by their governments. Part 3: Do terrorists have human rights? Is it ever justifiable to torture terrorists or imprison them without due process or trial? Torture means “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.” Now that we are dealing with sombre issues like terrorism and conviction of terrorists, the all important question relates to the treatment of convicts, terrorists, prisoners of war within the criminal justice system. Also, how far can we go in their detention and torture? The act of torture is proscribed in a number of international laws and treaties. Torture is prohibited as a human rights violation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), European Convention on Human Rights (1950), American Convention of Human Rights (1978), the African Charter on Human and Public Rights (1981) and so on. These rules make it almost impossible for torture to be authorized under any circumstance. In the changed atmosphere of ever lurking terrorism, some commentators have stated that torture should be sanctioned. Their case rests on the fact that although torture is not permissible either under the Geneva accord or the laws governing any state or country it is still practiced sometimes even surreptitiously. The examples given include the action of the French in Algeria, US torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and so on. The eminent lawyer Alan Dershowitz opines that torture be made lawful. His theory is one of “harm minimization” where the torture victim is afforded the least possible punishment. There are disagreements concerning the ends and means of a particular case. One might dispute that the means are more important than the ends they realize. The question of ethics also crops up while dealing with such topics. Human rights activists hold that an individual however inhuman he/she may be needs to be treated ethically maintaining human dignity. An additional barrier towards legalizing torture is that a lot of thought and effort needs to be pumped in to make torture acceptable to all sections of the society. Morality also begs the question if the torture meted out to a person is in proportion to the actual crime committed. As a matter of fact, it may just turn out that the person wasn’t guilty in the first place. Another vital point is whether the law makers have to adopt the same inhuman methods of the law breakers. Is this not anti-democratic? When Japanese American civilians were unlawfully detained during the Second World War, without recourse for due process, Winston Churchill harshly condemned this practice saying that it stands against the fundamental tenets of democratic governance. The fact is Churchill made this statement when Britain was devastated by German Luftwaffe and on the verge of complete annihilation by the Third Reich. That shows how much emphasis Churchill placed on preserving basic human rights even in dire political circumstances. The recent proposal of the Patriot Act in the United States is blatantly oppressive on its citizens, and if enacted, will see the plight of Japanese Americans in 1943 played all over again. Read More