Terrorism Phenomenon in America - Essay Example

Terrorism Terrorism constitutes deliberate acts of violence underlying political, ideological and religious goals aimed at propagating fear or terror and, although it may lack a globally comprehensive, legally binding definition, it is largely agreed to be a crime. A key characteristic of terrorism, which also makes it a contentious political and policy issue, is that it does not have any regard for the safety of civilians or military personnel in times of peace, who are essentially non-combatants (Miller 21). The major issue being discussed is the long-term objective set by President Bush’s administration following the terrorist attacks in September 2011 on American soil, which is opposed by proponents of President Obama’s administration. Although not implying that previous administrations ignored terrorism, Bush’s emphasized that terrorism could only be eliminated by apprehension, death and destruction of terrorists and their support bases and infrastructure. It also advocated for the reprisal against nations harboring or aiding terrorists and terrorism. In contrast, President Carter’s administration, for example, had fought terrorism by focusing on a global advancement of human rights. These two views still reflect in the present regime’s policy-making initiatives, with President Obama strongly against offshore prisons and aggressive interrogation policies, which he regards as going off course (Spiegel & Weisman 1). The role of intelligence in the US is to furnish policy-makers with information that will aid the decision-making process for the common good of the nation (Lutz & Lutz 89). However, with dynamisms of the political platform, two opposing views as to how the US should respond to terrorism include supporting the United Nations’ (UN) leadership in its model of fighting terrorism and; expanding the direct assault on terrorism. Essentially, it is a debate between diplomatic and forceful means to end terrorism. On the one hand, there are those that argue terrorism is not a national issue but rather, a global problem. Hence, the ability of the US to work in partnership with the civilized world will determine the nation’s security and how the global threat will be addressed. Those who maintain this view propose that the UN be acknowledged as the legitimate entity capable of developing and maintaining initiatives towards controlling terrorism. As a capable nation, the US must be in the forefront enhancing the effectiveness of the security efforts fronted by the UN and provide economic, intelligence and military support. On the other hand, the proponents of a direct assault on terrorism argue that the vice is intolerable and its perpetrators, alongside their sympathizers, must not be spared. They believe that as a superpower, the US bears the sole responsibility of protecting its citizens and attacking terrorism wherever it is rooted. This view, albeit reluctantly, admits that the US needs other nations to fully cooperate with it and leans more towards the need to tackle terrorism even if the US isolated by other nations in that endeavor. The proponents believe that the aggressive approach towards terrorism is the legally justified and essential step to take if the war against terror is to be successful. Those advocating for the leadership of the UN to fight terrorism cite the strained relations with long-standing allies that resulted from the invasion of Iraq without being sanctioned by the UN as major setback to the nation. Following their perspective that terrorism is a global problem, they believe that international cooperation will achieve better results as it will pool together diplomatic, intelligence and financial resources. Instead, if the nation goes to war against terrorism on its terms and leadership, the necessary resources for domestic protection will be diverted overseas (Lutz & Lutz 94). Those supporting forceful and aggressive mean opine that when the US acts on its own, it will bypass the difficulties associated with seeking international cooperation, which often take place while the nation’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks increases. Preemptive measures, they propose, are the best way to work without worrying about different political motivations or constraints presented by potential international partners. This stems from their notion that there are conventions already in place by the UN against terrorism but they have largely been ineffective or unenforceable. This paper supports a diplomatic approach towards addressing the terrorism menace. It is imperative for the measures adopted by the US to reflect the nation’s democracy and ethics. It is true that 9/11 attacks sent a message of vulnerability to Americans, in their own country, that they had not experienced in over five decades. However, it is also time for the policy-makers to acknowledge that the nation’s foreign policies have created enemies who wield bitterness to the level of terrorism. The starting point would be minimizing enemies and maximizing allies by diplomatically reestablishing and strengthening traditional alliances. Forceful and aggressive measures such as torture would only portray the nation as advocating for democracy abroad while it diminishes within its own borders. When military might is used in retaliation to terrorism it will, in most cases, result in the deaths of non-combatants (Nicolson 40). Further, it is only a diplomatic approach that will address deeply engrained bitterness against the US and its primary causes. That is the most effective way to curtail vicious cycle of aggression that only causes death to the innocent. These policy changes will occur at the federal level of government in order to harmonize them as a national initiative to address an international issue. Different interested parties have been staged against each other in terms of responding to terrorism. In this sense, this paper proposes that a law by Congress would be a reasonable step towards establishing a system that would comprehensively a system to address preventive detention, which a national court can supervise. Once Congress defines and approves a national adversary, a national court would operate at a level advantageous to the system currently in place by reducing the burden placed on civilian courts (Nicolson 69). Classified information would be handled in ways appropriate to them, allowing specialized judges time to evaluate the credibility of defense lawyers and the government. A drawback to this decision, however, is that a national security court may not be afforded similar media and public access as ordinary criminal trials inasmuch as they would also operate in public. Further, the detainees’ appeal rights, which Congress would have to insist on, may not be readily agreeable by most interest groups. Works Cited Lutz, James, and Brenda Lutz. Terrorism: Origins and Evolution. New York: Macmillan, 2005. Print. Miller, Martin. The Foundations of Modern Terrorism: State, Society and the Dynamics of Political Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print. Nicolson, Paula. Domestic Violence and Psychology: A Critical Perspective. California: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Print. Spiegel, Peter, and Jonathan Weisman. Conflicting Views on Terror Fight Get Capitol Airing. . 2009. Web. Read More