Terrorism And Counter-Terrorism - Research Paper Example

Terrorism And Counter-Terrorism Introduction Terrorism refers to any act of violence against civilian’s targets that is conducted in pursuit of ideological and political objectives. In the new millennium, the world is increasingly facing a diverse number of terrorist threats some of which include the use of weapons of mass destruction, dirty bombs and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The United States government is currently facing a number of challenges on how to effectively respond responding to the new terror threats. Although a number of new provisions of the Anti-terrorism act of 1996 and other new legislations have been put in place to help address these threats, there have been significant debates regarding the balance between freedom and security posed by some of new anti terrorism legislations (Nicholson, 2005). This paper critically analyzes the new terrorism threats facing our nation as well as the effectiveness of the current provisions of a number of anti terrorism legislations. What new threats does the nation face from weapons of mass destruction, bioterrorism and "dirty bombs?" There are a number of new threats that our nation is currently facing from bioterrorism, weapons of mass destruction and dirty bombs. This is particularly because terrorism has significantly evolved and has increasingly exploited new technological developments to meet the challenges of new forms of conflict such as the counter terrorism measures that are currently in place (Cameron, 2008). One major threat of the use of these weapons is that weapon technology has widely become more available and the purchasing power of terrorists has also significantly increased. Consequently the risk of terrorists using dirty bombs, weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons is compounded by the fact that both the technologies and trained personnel are currently available and this is a real challenge even to the sophisticated counter terrorism measures of the federal government. As the United States continues to fight against international terror groups, there is an increasing fear of Americans at home facing the threat of weapons of mass destruction which include biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological devices. They range from the threat of a poisonous gas assail to catastrophic nuclear explosion. The attackers’ main motive is to strike fear and panic in millions of people, despite of them knowing the impact of such attacks. President Bush in Jan 28 2003 instructed the FBI, CIA, Department of defense and Security Department to come up with a Terrorist integration Centre whose purpose was to merge and analyze all types of threat information in a single location so as to provide people, at the right time with protection. According to Brower and Chalk, (2003), the biggest threat The United States faces at the moment, is of weather the attack from the terrorist possessing the weapons of mass destruction would be chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. No one can clearly tell this, even though the weapon of mass destruction is hard to obtain and to successfully deploy, so are the chemical and biological weapons, which when exposed to environmental factors make them more harmful both to the handler and the targeted group. Another major risk that the United States is currently facing is the possibility of explosion of a nuclear device in one of the major American city (Allison, 2004). Even though this threat has a much lower possibility of taking place because of the difficulty in possessing or building a nuclear bomb, but it still can’t be ruled out. In Addition to difficulty in possessing the nuclear bomb, such an attack against the American homeland would only achieve to increase American determination in fighting terrorism rather than force a change in US foreign policy. What provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act of 1996, the USA PATRIOT Act and other recent legislation would help address these threats Over the last few decades, a number of anti terrorism acts and legislations have been passed in an attempt to mitigate some of the potential threats posed by new forms of terrorism. Generally most of these acts and legislations have included specific provisions that allow both the state and federal governments to bypass some civil liberties when fighting against terrorism related crimes. As a result critics argue that the current antiterrorism legislations such as the Anti terrorism act of 1996, US PATRIOT ACT and other key legislations are repressive and may unjustly target particular social groups. For example, the antiterrorism act of 1996 was later enacted to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims and provide for an effective death penalty. One of the major provisions of the act is that it limited the power of federal judges to grant any relief to the terrorist suspects as well as provided from strict time limitations against death row inmates. On the other hand, the US PATRIOT ACT 2001 was passed and signed into law by President Bush a s response to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the US soil. The Patriot act has also significantly reduced the restrictions in the law enforcement agencies particularly when foreign individuals and entities are involved. Another important provision of the law is that it has also allowed immigration and law enforcement authorities to detain and deport suspected terrorists without court trials. Lastly, there are also a number of other antiterrorism legislations that have been recently enacted to enhance the fight against new and emerging terrorist threats. Some of the recent legislations include the Homeland Security Act 2002, REAL ID act 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Some of the common provisions found in the recent counterterrorism legislations include restrictions on the traditional liberties, expanded powers of law enforcement agencies and restrictions on the freedom of movements and giving federal agents new powers to detain suspects and prevent access. What are some of the arguments for and against the enhanced government authority in these laws?  How do you feel about the balance between security and freedom posed by such legislation? Although a number of new provisions of the recent antiterrorism legislations have been put in place to help address some of the emerging terrorism threats, there have been significant debates regarding the balance between freedom and security posed by some of new anti terrorism legislations (Decker, 2003). The enhancement of the authority by the United States government has ensured that the intelligence services are always alert through; the CIA guide lines which were implemented in 1995 restricting recruitment of unsavory sources and being prevented from applying when recruiting counterterrorism sources. These enhanced government authorities have also lead to more terror attacks by the terrorist groups as the pain of being mistreated by the U.S authority overwhelm them. Proponents of the new antiterrorism laws and legislations argue that by expanding the legal powers of federal agencies, the new anti terrorism legislations will allow the government to have the legitimate legal authority to effectively detect, deter or prevent future terrorist acts against American citizens. On the other hand, critics argue against the recent anti terrorism legislations have given so much power to the Federal government while at the same time providing little oversight into how some of the new provisions should be used. Consequently many civil rights groups have increasingly complained that the recent antiterrorism legislations are not only discriminatory but have also invaded the personal privacy of individuals. In my view, the new laws have unfairly targeted individuals from certain groups and in some cases have deprived foreigners and citizens their basic freedoms. Although I agree that our security agencies need some powers to effectively deal the emerging threats of terrorism, I feel that our existing criminal laws are sufficient to deal with the new terrorism wave. Conclusion   In conclusion, terrorism has significantly evolved and has increasingly exploited new technological developments to meet the challenges of new forms of conflict such as the counter terrorism measures that are currently in place. Although the government has introduced a number new antiterrorism legislations address some of the emerging terrorism threats, the debates regarding the balance between freedom and security posed by some of new anti terrorism legislations continues and many individuals increasingly fee that the new legislations should be amended to ensure that they provide more oversight into how some of the new provisions should be applied. References Allison, G. (2004). Nuclear terrorism: The ultimate preventable catastrophe. New York:Times Books. Brower, J., Chalk, P. (2003). The global threat of new and reemerging infectious diseases. Santa Monica: RAND. Bullock, J., Haddow, D. (2009). Introduction to homeland security, 3rd edition. Boston: Butterworth-Heineman. Cameron, G. (2008). The likelihood of nuclear terrorism. Journal of Conflict Studies,6, 5,28. Decker, H. (2003). Controversies in Criminal Justice. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishers Company. Nicholson, C. (2005). Homeland Security Law and Policy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas publishers Ltd. Read More