Terrorism Investigations and Trials - Essay Example

Ethical and Legal Issues Related to Terrorism Investigations and Trials Terrorism is all about the use of coercive intimidation in the urge to justify political issues. However it is difficult to fully and correctly give a definition of terrorism since as many as the definitions seem to exist, some of them greatly lean on the individuals and group but fail to look at the whole concept as a whole. Terrorism has been termed as a criminal event having a political objective of terrorist attacks (David, 2006). We can also say that terrorism involves all criminal acts that are committed with the intentions of causing deaths and striking feelings of terror. It involves all criminal acts including those against civilians. The perpetrators aim to create that feeling of fear either aiming the general public, a group of people or particular persons. The sole aim of the criminals will always be political. As compared to crime where the criminals will always employ violence, and with a sole aim to gain materially, terrorists will likewise be violent but with a different aim of striking a form of war and posing threat to the national security. With time, many scholars, lawmakers as well as other practitioners have come to classify terrorism according to what type of attack agents the attacker use. One form is the state terrorism where the state without declaring war, uses the threat of force, or use arm groups to achieve political objectives. Another form can be the release of toxic biological agents to terrorize civilians and this is better known as bioterrorism. Others can be cyber terrorism which is basically the use of information technology, nuclear terrorism and Eco terrorism (Steve, 2004). All these have a sole objective, which is to achieve political goals. Ethical issues Global war on terrorism has rekindled the discussion on when and how a society can use violence or limits the rights and freedoms of their own citizens or other people probably they come across from other destinations despite the conditions of meeting whether hostile, friendly or any other. Several questions can be asked like whether a country that has been struck by terrorism of the sort gives authority to some specific actions by its citizens. There might be a possibility that the inflictions caused by a terrorist attack may scale the options that can be permitted by such a state to its citizens. Such options can be either ethical or moral. We can try to shift our focus on the ethical issues with regard to nursing and we can employ certain principles that relate to terrorism related actions. Taking a look at the Nonmaleficence principle, it gives a general definition of not taking the responsibility of causing harm of any form to fellow humans. There exist some relevant examples that strongly support the state principle such as not having to kill and not having to cause pain or suffering on other individuals. In the field of nursing this principle would largely apply to cases of abortion (Robert, 2001). However preceding the American tragedy of September 11 this principle acquired an expanded meaning. This tragedy caused severe harm and tragedy to those who witnessed it such as stress, fear nightmares and severe traumas. Assuming the occurrence of such calamities is more frequent then the effects also become drastic and to a very large extent, violating the ethical principle of Nonmaleficence. Beneficence This principle is stated as a complete opposite of the above Nonmaleficence principle. It carries the aspect doing well, the prevention and removal of harm. With it as well are some examples that support it such as protecting the rights of others and offering defense where possible and coming to rescue of those individuals in danger (Janice, 2003). Looking at the assault that occurred on twin towers, the New York staffing association had never predicted a mass disaster of such great depth and despite the lack of an existing plan, they managed to bring together an emergency rescue team within an hour of the incident. They were also able to manage the high number of nurse volunteer calls from all the state regions. All these actions were backed by one among the organizations’ goals which requires them to always do well. This scenario as we can say it complements the principle of Beneficence which calls for us to prevent harm and doo good. Although it was not possible to prevent the harm, and unfortunately there also lacked a backup plan for such a massive disaster, the organization has however managed to formulate a plan for the future in order to prevent lack of preparedness for massive casualties. Any one called up for an emergency not necessarily nurses should find it to respond at once regardless of the time of the day, their previous engagements or the necessary steps needed to make other arrangements. This will be falling to place with the Beneficence principle. Distributive justice is used to refer to fair and equitable distribution of resources which are determined by social cooperation that are structured by the justified norms. There is a very great cost that arises with the global terrorists act. With distributive justice ethical issues will only occur when the resources become scarce creating a state of desire for all and thus leading to competition. International terrorism has caused a high inflation on the amount of resource that is spent just to curb the prevention and dealing with the aftermath of the attacks (Norman, 2008). It becomes difficult to compare the amount that would be sufficient to handle the prevention and aftermath of terrorism attack with the amount to substitute the other demands. On the increase are the dollar costs in trying to control the spread of terrorism activities in the USA. The approximate cost can total to as much as $640billion. This will include several costs such as those of lost earnings of the terrorism victims, compensation to the affected members of society, rebuilding and repair of the areas of calamities and many others. Rounding up all these the unveilings are unbelievable on the amounts of damages incurred globally as a result of the terrorism activities. For the nurses it has been a tall order having to handle the victims of terror attacks. It might just seem relevant that they step out and speak trying to explain to the public what ethical issues they have been facing as a result of terrorism not only within their states such as in the Use but they should speak out globally. Legal issues The USA has very strong military and due to this fact, any terrorist attacker should find a better way of confrontation and not necessarily direct confrontation. But again because of the openness that people live with, that, which they are used to, gives the adversaries an easy way of choosing their targets for them to accomplish their aspirations. In posing the attacks they have a sole aim of trying to put the government in a position of not being able to defend the country. Before the September 11th terrorism was rather sidelined. There was a realization of the need to have a legal guide in the USA and this therefore led to the National Commission on terrorism to recommend that the president should take the lead and facilitate the preparation of a manual on the implementation of existing legal authority (Raphael, 2001). This will be effectively used to address catastrophic terrorist attacks and threats. USA is said to be a nation of wars but however much, it is still a nation with not only recognized laws but also values. Any actions should always be in line with the constitution and be in line with the statues, court precedent and the rule of law. This is the right thing to do and can also be seen as the most effective approach that can be taken in trying to combat the actions of those who do not wish well for others and are bend to cause destruction and harm. Values have always been known to be a countries best asset and in doing so it strengthens the country and creates peace. As previously stated, before the September 11th incident terrorism had rather been sidelined and the level of interagency cooperation was not the same as it currently is. The attackers chose both the military and civilian targets, having crossed the jurisdiction lanes and the borders. The government at the moment was not well prepared to address the threat as it lacked all the necessary tools at that particular time. It therefore forced them to draw on all its available resources. Currently, lawyers, analysts work together to confront the emerging issues on the threats on national security giving priority to the prime threat of terrorism attacks. The overall duty of the Justice department is to oversee that the intelligence community’s activities should always comply with the law and also, to authorize surveillance for any individuals held as suspects of criminal activities. Once a suspect is captured then decisions must be made on how to handle the individual so that a best serving disposition to the American people and the security of the nation is arrived at. The USAs criminal justice system is renowned for its transparency and appropriate handling of legal issues. A perfect example is that of John Walker Lindh, an attempted shoe boomer Richard Reid and a conspirator of the September 11th blast Zaccarias Moussaouis conviction of terrorism related offences; this was done without any controversies politically (David S. , 2011). Other than the ones mentioned there are others who have been convicted for the same and includes the prosecution of the attempted Times Square boomer Feizal Shahzad and a conspirator of the 1998 Us Embassy booming in Kenya and Tanzania. This just gives a clear illustration on the remarkably good record of success the country holds on terror prosecutions. Despite the numerous achievement attained by the state in trying to fight terrorism, there has been calls that the use of civilian courts for prosecution should be burned. These calls are not of any help since if heeded to, and then the state would have lost the ability to incapacitate those who are found with offences. Since the September 11th several individuals have been convicted to terrorism offences by the courts and are serving their sentences in the federal prison. It should be noted that not only the civilian court is responsible for prosecution but also the Federal courts can act as an option (Jennifer, 2012). In appropriate circumstances when need arises, then the Military commissions can as well be used to handle cases of prosecution and pronounce judgment upon the accused. In order to ensure that the Military Commission is effective enough then there has been the involvement of the Administration’s approach. This approach strengthens the procedural protections onto which the commissions are based. Same fundamentals of trial applied in the civilians or any other court likewise apply to this commission where the accused will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the major difference is that in military commissions, the evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations within a warzone (Jennifer, 2012). The military Commissions Act of 2009 was since enacted into a law through the president’s leadership and through the backing by bipartisan. In response to the perpetrated attacks and continued threats posed by the attackers such as the al Qaeda or the Taliban, the congress has bestowed upon the president to use all necessary and appropriate forces upon these groups. As stated in the constitution, the President has got the power to protect the whole nation against any imminent and violent attacks. However, not being in a conventional war does not change the fact that the state has got the inherent right of national self-defense, and also the rightful authority to take relevant actions against enemy belligerents under the international law. The legal authority of United States is not only confined to the battlefield in Afghanistan. USA is a state at war we could say again, and no court either the federal or the civilian court has given them a limited geographic scope and that is why, no matter the destinations where the attackers choose to ambush the country from, the government is still posed with the responsibility of protecting its citizens. There however, exist International legal principles (Bin, 1953). This principle calls for the respect of anther nation’s sovereignty and therefore does not allow the country to attack anywhere anytime they wish to. In the principles of war, it is not ant crime to target senior operational leaders of such unauthorized forces bend to cause harm such as the al Qaeda. Such operations have come to be referred by many as assassinations which is not true since the defence will only be using the lethal forces in self-defense against such individuals. We will have to agree that not all the threats come from enemies from foreign countries but also, there might just be some individuals who choose to turn and rebel against their own state. Among the gravest decision that an American leader can face would be that on such an individual who is a citizen of his own country but diverted and became a leader of the group posing threats or attacks (Bin, 1953). Any operation targeting a USA citizen in any foreign country who has become a leader of al Qaeda or any other associated group, would only be considered lawful and would be carried out only if it has been thoroughly reviewed and proven that the individual possess an serious attack of violence on the USA, if it seems impossible to capture the individual or if the whole attack would be conducted in a manner that falls in place with the law of war principles. Any use of lethal force by the United States should always comply with the existing fundamental principles that govern the use of force. The principles permit the use of stealth and advanced technological weapons to carry out the operation. The executive Branch is responsible for managing the national security operations. It therefore regularly informs the members of congress about all the counter terrorism activities in trying to keep with the law and constitutional systems of checks and balances (Jennifer, 2012). Before conducting such an operation, then this branch should have a clear overview before taking any action since not all the legal requirements will apply in all situations. Conclusion Terrorism has become a major threat and the country will continue facing these challenges not only from foreigners but even at times from their own country. Whenever we have encounters or threats or similar experiences then it is for us to go back to our laws which are clear and see what is required of us so that we have the best way of dealing with terrorism threats and activities. We should be cautious in the quest to look after our home range security. The state should continuously continue advocating for peace that brings people together. The constitution lays a platform by providing applicable principles that gives guidance throughout. Any other government not necessarily that of the United States should find it within their mandate to offer full protection to their citizens against any attacks or threats. Solidarity calls for the combined efforts by all state members in order to address the looming threats by terrorists. There should always be a rescue plan in case of attacks by terrorists which are always of great Impacts. References Bin, C. (1953). General Principles of Law as applied in International Courts and Tribunals. United KIngdom: Stevens and Sons Limited. David, L. (2006). Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Cultural Studies, 6, 416-439. David, S. (2011). Options for Prosecuting International terrorists. USA: United States Institute Peace. Janice, E. E. (2003). Community Health Nursing:CAring in Action (2 ed.). New York: Delma Learning. Jennifer, K. (2012). Comparison of Rights in Millitary Commissions Trials ans Trials in Federal Criminal Courts. USA: Congressional Research Service. Norman, D. (2008). Health care needs and distributve Justice. Philosophy and ublic Affairs, 10(2), 146-179. Raphael, F. (2001). National Commission On Terrorism Report. USA: The Library of Congress. Robert, M. (2001). Clinical Ethics:Due Care and the Principle of Nonmaleficence. Maryland: University Pres America. Steve, B. A. (2004). Defining Terrorism. Animal liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 2, 1-18. Read More