The Foreign and Domestic Counterterrorism Policies that the US Have Set in Place - Research Paper Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Introduction Due to the tragic and unimaginable events of September 11, 2001, the United States and the world at large are increasingly changing their ways of combating terrorism activities. Such policies include the Patriot Act, Immigration reforms and drone policy. Therefore, leaders across the globe are struggling to formulate and implement appropriate policies to address the new reality presented by such level of terrorism. In addition, concerns over the protection of civil liberties have become a major issue and controversies of such policies are made public. Since terrorism cannot be justified, it is worthwhile for the world to respond and fight the evil because it threatens and destroys people’s basic freedom and way of life. It explains why freedom and fear are mutually at war. Combating terrorism as well as securing the U.S. homeland from various attacks has been considered a top priority in the National Security Strategy. Therefore, Americans take into consideration that they are not alone in the fight against terror menace and confront the related threats for their foreseeable future. In the United States and the world at large, it has become a great concern to continue taking aggressive steps to uncover individuals or groups involved in terrorist activities (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism 5). This research investigates the foreign and domestic counter-terrorism policies formulated and implemented in the United States, discusses how civil liberties are protected during counter-terrorism. It also analyzes the controversies that have erected from the government’s efforts in countering terrorism. The foreign and domestic counterterrorism policies that the U.S have set in place The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides domestic counter-terrorism efforts and presented domestic terrorism in a 1999 report as groups or individuals operating entirely in the U.S and its territories without involving foreign direction. Such groups could comprise of right-wing, left-wing or simply special interest origins whose causes are associated with issues that concern both American political and social issues (Knight 2). Threats caused by domestic and international terrorists continue to pose great challenges to the United States particularly for their foreseeable future. This is because terrorists refine and use different approaches that cause greater threats in the U.S. However, it is important to note that despite the huge destruction associated with the September 11, 2001 attack, a number of changes have been made in the international terrorism by the United States intelligence community through bodies such as National Security Agency, the FBI counterterrorism elements, Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. Furthermore, there has been a shift in the operational intensity ranging from the traditional sources of discovering terrorists commonly known as ‘state sponsors’ as well as ‘formalized terrorist organization’ to include the partly affiliated extremists. It is notable that the different trends in the international terrorism are as result of the general shift in various tactics and methods used by international terrorists that basically aim at causing mass casualties (Watson 14). Generally, the current United States’ counter-terrorism policy and organization is developed from the three fonts of Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs). This includes PDD-62 which basically deals with a type of threat known as the Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), while PDD-63 addresses the cyber threat. Lastly, PDD-67 is specifically concerned with the continuity of operations as well as focuses on government continuity planning. PDD-62 is a policy implemented on the assumption that the United States will in the future face more asymmetric threats, for example, attacks on their critical infrastructure or attacks associated with WMD. Therefore, it can be noted that U.S counterterrorism policy is mainly composed of key elements such as preventing the acquisition of WMD and protection of their critical infrastructure, ensuring that terrorists’ operations are not successful through countering particularly foreign terrorist group threat within the U.S and promoting international cooperation. However, it is important to point out that the above mentioned elements focus on law enforcement and intelligence community objectives that aim at combating terrorism. Over and above, it can be noted that a number of counter-terrorism programs are managed through designation of different organizations working as lead agencies that implement the counter-terrorism programs in the various parts of the U.S. Overall, the U.S’ history of combating terrorism is encouraging, however, the race is tough and will never end (Cressey 14). The FBI Counterterrorism Center that was established in 1996 has developed and strengthened its counterterrorism program to combat domestic and international terrorism. In particular, congressional appropriations have expanded and made the FBI’s counterterrorism capabilities stronger. Generally, the FBI combats terrorism activities based on three fonts: domestic terrorism operations, international terrorism operations in the U.S as well as in collaboration with extraterritorial investigations and countermeasures to combat both international and domestic terrorism activities. Additionally, the federal agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of State and Secret Service ensure a regular presence with the FBI center to enhance its daily operations. The main objective of this multi-agency arrangement is to provide an extraordinary platform for sharing real-time information, warning and intelligence analysis (Watson 28). The ability to use known information, for instance, travel information about individuals is considered a key tool for effective detecting of potentially dangerous people who involve in terrorism and the associated transnational criminal activities. Although the US and European officials have had differences, they agreed to share travel information as well as modes of payment. In addition, officials from both governments support the use of appropriate privacy protections to secure people’s personal information. In this regard, the U.S has fundamentally enforced their border and immigration laws by successfully disrupting and denying terrorist travel, drug smuggling and human trafficking transactions seeking to enter the nation (Chertoff 10). Local law enforcement agencies within the U.S take into consideration that attacks that occurs particularly in the remote location could as well be effected through a global effort in collaboration with the local operational agent. Therefore, they assume that the attack could continue to be a threat locally and supported by local individuals or simply be exploited by local rebels who intend to promote their political agendas. As a result, it has become critical for the local law enforcement agencies to consider security issues beyond the U.S. shores particularly for the leading future regional issues. Local agencies in the U.S have been successful in countering terrorism because the country supports over 16 federal intelligence agencies and the establishment of 17,500 law enforcement agencies at local level that employ officers who are competent in local law enforcement. Although the policy of decentralizing the law enforcement responsibilities poses a challenge to ensure that effective collaboration is practiced among different agencies, it also creates an opportunity to develop appropriate skills and expertise that can be shared across the U.S law enforcement community (Downing 3). How civil liberties are protected during counterterrorism The world-changing events of September 11, 2001, have changed the traditional debates about civil liberties. For example, the term ‘civil liberty’ has been connected more with anti-patriotic elements, and thus causing much pressure on it as well as widening the gap between the popular and liberal views of what it means to protect civil liberties. The leadership styles of certain democratic states have deepened their hostility to issues of civil liberties. This has given them more power to cause assault on the liberal understanding of the term. Since the events, the concern is no longer on who protects civil liberties more effectively, how well the community as a whole is represented or the main objective of the civil liberties. Instead, the concern has been shifted to whether the civil liberties of some groups must be considered. Although the civil and political rights commonly referred to as ‘civil liberties’ are positively protected, they are not given absolute entitlements. This is because their protection often leads to individual cases in which the person deploying the freedom is restricted within the interests of democracy particularly in situations of acute political tension. The inclusion of civil liberties protection within the constitution of human rights charters as well as in the domestic bills of rights has increased the protection for civil liberties (Gearty 15). Research shows that in secure times, the civil liberties are not subject to much danger. However, during threat and fear moments the governments are required to take the appropriate actions against the subversive of their human rights. It is in the historical context in which the rights of individuals are said to be placed in jeopardy in particular during wartime that American counterterrorism policies can be appropriately assessed in regard to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The United States in particular have reacted more to war-time danger and fear. Although protecting the state as well as upholding its civil liberties has created much tension between the two, the U.S has had to fight with it over the years as a way of ensuring that the civil rights of its citizens are respected. However, the major issue concerns how the rule of law should be respected and used to protect individuals from arbitrary power (Goldstone 157-8). The task of balancing liberty and security within the context of countering terrorism has taken false assumption because the two aspects are considered to be mutually exclusive. It is important to note that liberty and security are mutually interrelated and reinforcing, and thus cannot be balanced against each other. Liberty and security can only be balanced on the assumption that individual rights have to be balanced against the interests of the entire community. In regards to counterterrorism, however, the civil liberties as well as human rights of each person must be sacrificed as a way of ensuring more security for the majority (Michaelson 29). As a new policy in U.S law enforcement history, it was considered important to encourage senior officers from different city police intelligence units within the nation to unite and form a major Intelligence Commanders Group (ICG). As a result of the increased role played in the intelligence arena, various responsibilities have been created for the police to ensure that civil liberties are protected by operating in a more legitimate and transparent manner. In this regard, local law enforcement agencies are required to cautiously and accurately differentiate individuals they suspect will involve in criminal acts. However, in executing this task there must be a balance and precision that essentially motivates the support and trust of the population in the United States to also encourage local residents to work in collaboration with the police in accomplishing the lawful mission of countering terrorism (Downing 34). The controversies that have erected from the U.S government’s counterterrorism efforts The need to have balanced efficient law enforcement for the civil liberties of the citizens has made the U.S government’s efforts in combating terrorism to have additional burden. As a result, it has been debated that all lawful measures must be aimed at preventing such terrible crimes. The major issue here concerns both the legitimacy and lawfulness of the means used to combat terrorism activities. Therefore, the U.S government is required to determine the extent to which the civil liberties can be protected and how the normal legal processes must be circumvented. Following the awake of September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S, the American counterterrorism policies in particular President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism agenda, such as the USA PATRIOT ACT, the launching of a special detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless of domestic surveillance and extraordinary renditions as well as harsh detention and interrogation policies, have received more criticisms from civil libertarians within the United States. Therefore, the threat of terrorism remains a big issue for the U.S despite their proactive law enforcement efforts and continued implementation of counterterrorism initiatives (Watson 4). Research shows that various policies implemented by the administration in regard to its war or efforts against terrorism causes genuine threats to the rights of American citizens as well as of foreign citizens arrested of counterterrorism activities. Following a critical analysis of the administration’s policies, the fundamental question raised is whether the laws and means developed to foster the traditional military conflicts and espionage schemes are suitable to address conflict involving inchoate and global terrorist networks. It is assumed that such conflicts do not comply with the traditional rules of warfare because they continuously cause massive casualties particularly on the civilian population living in the United States and across the globe. As a result, civil libertarians have strongly argued that only laws and policies formulated to deal with the traditional warfare can cope with threats associated with terrorism. This sounds to be right, however, it cannot be doubted that the U.S and other democratic societies have not stopped to grapple with this important issue (Freedomhouse 5). From the incapacitation point of view, the most controversial aspects of new legal method for countering terrorism arise from the concern on how to incapacitate an individual apprehended in the U.S or overseas as a terrorist. Since the September 11 attacks, it is found that Congress has not taken any step specifically address the issue concerning incapacitation as it has always been the case with intelligence collection and sharing issues implemented under the PATRIOT Act. On the other hand, civilian arrest and charging made the right to silence more effective which in turn frustrates the process of debating about intelligence gathering that was the core objective of capturing terrorists. The current legal structure used for incapacitating terrorists in the U.S is perceived to be a rough compromise between security and civil liberties issues, and thus is known of its remarkable level of continuity in both the Bush and Obama Administrations (Chertoff 16). Conclusion From the historical context, it can be noted that counterterrorism policies are making fundamental freedoms to face threats and increased violation of civil liberties tend to be an overstatement of the existing conditions in the U.S. Constitutional protections such as ensuring the rights of immigrants proves to be a resilient way of respecting civil liberties. It seems that the threat of terrorism is still a big issue for the U.S despite their proactive law enforcement efforts and continued implementation of counterterrorism initiatives. Combating terrorism and securing the United States’ homeland from various attacks is a top priority in its National Security Strategy. Although the September 11, 2001 attack caused huge destructions, various changes have been made in the international terrorism by the United States intelligence community through bodies such as National Security Agency, the FBI counterterrorism elements, Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. It is notable that liberty and security are mutually interrelated and reinforcing, a clear indication that the two cannot be balanced against each other. Based on the assumption that individual rights must be balanced against the interests of the entire community, liberty and security can be balanced. Using known information particularly travel information about individuals is significant to detecting of potentially dangerous criminals who involve in terrorism and the associated transnational criminal activities. Determining the extent to which the civil liberties can be protected as well as how the normal legal processes must be circumvented is a major controversy for the U.S government. Works Cited Cressey, Roger. U.S. Counter-Terrorism Policy and Organization: Transnational Threats. National Security Council. 2000. Chertoff, Michael. Intelligence Collection and Incapacitation. US Department of Homeland Security. 2011. Downing, Michael. Policing Terrorism in the United States. The Los Angeles Police Department's Convergence Strategy. 2009. Freedomhouse. Civil Liberties implications of counterterrorism policies. Retrieved June 24, 2014 from, Gearty, C.A. Understanding Civil Liberties in an Age of Counter-terrorism. New York Times, 2001. Goldstone, Richard. Human Rights in the War on Terror: The Tension between Combating Terrorism and Protecting Civil Liberties, pp.157-168. Cambridge University Press. 2005. Knight, Judson. Domestic Terrorism in the United States. Conplan. 2001. Michael, Christopher. The importance of balancing Civil Liberties against National Security: A critique of counterterrorism. University of New South Wales. 2006. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. The Nature of Terrorist Threat Today. 2003. Watson, Dale. Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence. Washington, D.C. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2002. Read More