International Terrorism in US History - Research Paper Example

Terrorism Contrasted With Historical Events By Insert Presented to Location Due Contrast of US history on response towards international terrorism Introduction Terrorism became apparent so much that the world was getting a beating and something had to be done. It was at this point that the US was under President Bush. Perceived as the super powers the duty of putting an end to the ever increasing terrorism (Brust 2007), Bush administration felt obliged to counter this act. That is when bush declared war on terror. Though no one can easily prove that the al Qaeda network is only based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is widely believed that the operation of the said network is vastly in the two countries soil. The major reason Bush deployed American troops to these two countries among others like Iraq. The US increasingly became aggressive in their quest to end terrorism. This meant that either way terrorism had to come to an end that is no matter which way they were going to use. The US troops continued bombarding the Middle East and turned the place bloody with those escaping death finding themselves in major prisons in that area. One notorious prison in Iraq in the name of Abu Ghraib soon became the home of captives. Later on many Iraqis were held captive in this prison by the bush administration and it is for this reason that the prison came into light. Historical pundits have described the prison as one of the most controversial following the acts committed there by the Bush administration. Though it was right to some extend to capture suspects of terrorism in Middle East, it was equally wrong to do so without trial or some sort of analysis to capture real terrorist (Brust 2007). It was terribly wrong to torture the captives as well. This kind of events would later bring on many question about the Bush administration and whether the alleged crimes actually took place. A significant number of people confirmed this acts including Bush himself after pictures of mistreated prisoners in Abu Ghraib went on air. With all these coming to light, Bush was quick to turn around everything by issuing an apology an even ordering the detention of the alleged perpetrators. In fact most soldiers were detained following the same. This gave Bush credit and to some extend showed the world that he actually wanted fairness and that his only aim was to counter terrorism. For him the alleged acts were a crime and he showed it by disapproving them. It was a good gesture to the world since almost everybody wants to end terrorism. Bush administration was getting credit for trying their best to do away with terrorism. Allegation of human torture, rape ,murder and even sodomy and homicide in this prison cannot be ignored but rather brought to light and condemned as wrong. So it is say though some might claim the Bush administration went a bit to far, fact is, terrorism is not allowed and that Bush was right. Some people might even want to say it may tarnish the rich history of US but that is not the case at all.(Walter 2004). Whereas the acts committed by the bush administration continue to be a subject of discussion, it is also fair to mention the reason why such acts can be viewed as controversial by some. First, we cannot ignore to mention that the rules and regulations as provided by the Geneva Convention cannot under any circumstance be flouted. Especially those provisions that touch on humanity, yet the alleged crimes are in contras. A very good case in point that may tend to question the said act is the trial of the Imperial Japanese Army General Tomoyuki Yamashita (Askin 2007). Yamashita was charged of unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duties as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against the people of the United States and of its allies and dependencies, particularly the Philippines; and thereby violating the law of war (Walter 2004). Traditionally and actually the way it is supposed to be, the US formed a military committee to try Yamashita whereby authentic evidence was produced to actually confirm this charges and eventually give a verdict on the same case (Askin 2007). This case began and was hotly contested for between the involved parties even though at the end of it Yamashita was found guilty and a verdict was brought forward. So unlike the Bush administration where the suspects of terror were captured and treated like dogs, the Yamashita case proved the right way to handle such crimes. It is not clear whether Bush ordered a committee to investigate the suspects though terrorism ha to end anyway. This might a bit have contrasted with history. It is also true that the provision on the principle of habeas corpus might not have been observed by the president as provided by the Ex parte Merryman (Maga 2001). Just like the Bush administration to some extent President Lincoln did not observe the principle of habeas corpus (Halbert 2003) . It became a controversy at the time and generated a huge debate as to whether the president should be the only one suspending it but eventually an agreement was sealed; that congressmen only had this authority, forcing president Lincoln to release almost all political prisoners on parole at the time since a better perception of judging people was born. Given this two comparisons, it is important to note that the Bush administration should have stuck with history and observe this principle (Halbert 2003).though it can be argued that Bush administration flouted this principle, it is also important to remember Bush was dealing with a totally unaccepted vice that not only affected the US alone but the whole world, so whatever he did was at the same time right. Similarly, during the world war two eight Germans who came to America to commit acts of sabotage were captured and put on trial by the then Franklin Roosevelt. Though six of the eight were killed through electrocution it is widely believed that the remaining two were not guilty enough to be electrocuted. Such a move makes it clear to the whole world that whenever crimes present themselves it is always important to set a respective tribunal to weigh the matter and finally give a verdict (Sontag 2004). Even though Bush issued a directive in September 11, 2001 to authorize the creation of military tribunal to try non-US citizen who may have assisted al Qaeda terrorist, things became a bit different when in 2004 American troops descended on Iraq and took a lot of suspects to captivity without trial. This situation is worsened by the fact that the captives were subjected to extreme psychological and physical torture according to photos of suspects undergoing torture at Abu Ghraib being leaked to internet. Comparatively to both Lincolns approach to crimes we can note that terrorism has contrasted history. We can clearly observe that, traditionally the US has a culture of trying suspects as observed also during the capture of the eight Germans but here comes a situation where tradition faces a major challenge thanks to the allegations brought forward. (Goldsmith & Sunstein 2002). But while taking a look at all these it is very important to understand that Bush was trying to do a way with terrorism and that all he did can only be attributed to the urge to restore peace, fact almost everyone agrees with and to some extend justify the allegations. Generally there is an urgent need to draw the lines showing the limits placed on individual rights when dealing with crime or terrorism. Personally I tend to think that however much someone might seem a criminal, the rule of law should not be flouted, not even by president. This point might seem very controversial but just as history has proved, it is worth evaluating whether one is guilty or not. It is also worth noting that the alleged refusal of president Bush to bow to the provision of the Geneva Convention that the said provision did not apply to their detainees is a total reflection of how human rights can be flouted [tough this stance did not actually meant Bush was insensitive of human but only that he did not tolerate terrorism]. Hence it remains a huge controversy for if not well scrutinized such stance could lead a greater animosity which is actually dangerous in every way (Goldsmith & Sunstein 2002). Nonetheless the stance that Bush took seem s to portray the provision of the Ex parte Marryman that unless crimes committed are of universal nature or projects a nation in a state of insecurity then the principle of habeas corpus can be dropped, which for sure should be the case. This kind of perception seems to place an individuals right in the balance for a moment and in safe side or another (Finkelman 2004). Otherwise, it can be safe to attribute all this controversy on human rights to terrorism, which led Bush to change the course of history while in pursuit of a terrorist-free world and not Bush himself (Finkelman 2004). Reference Askin, K. D. (2007). War Crimes Against Women: Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Brust, R. (2007). Setting Precedent In Two Wars. ABA Journal , 17-23. Finkelman, P. (2004). Limiting Rights in Times of Crisis: Our Civil War Experience . Cardozo Pub. L. Poly & Ethics J , 25-27. Goldsmith, J., & Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Military Tribunals and Legal Culture: What a Difference Sixty Years Makes. HeinOnline , 261-263. Halbert, S. (2003). Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by President Lincoln. American Journal of Legal History , 95-100. Maga, T. P. (2001). Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Sontag, S. (2004). Regarding The Torture Of Others. New York Times Magazine , 24-38. Vagts, R. B. (2004). Speaking Law to Power: Lawyers and Torture. The American Journal of International Law , 689-695. Walter, C. (2004). Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law: Security Versus Liberty? New York: Springer. Read More