According to Crank and Gregor (2005), “One of the central moral dilemmas in the war on terrorism is the conflict between good ends that agents pursue, finding terrorists before they carry out some vile deed, and good means, which refers to the extent that agents should be held accountable to the laws of due process, international notions of fair play, and to agency protocols” (224). As such, can the United States ignore established precedent in the new War on Terror? What are the implications at home to this new policy shift? Arguing that the Patriot Act completely overrides previous privacy legislation and is an invasive and possible illegal piece of legislation, this essay will conclude with a concise summation of the ramifications of invasive measures on the citizens of the United States.
The attacks on the World Center represented the most serious terrorist act ever carried out on US soil. A watershed moment in world history, the morning of September 11th 2001 will forever be engrained in the American national psyche. From a political, social and economic perspective, the hijackings of 9/11 were unparalleled in scope and sheer devastation. In a fascinating article entitled “Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City”, it was estimated that the direct cost of the attack stood at between $33 billion and $36 billion to the city of New York (Bram, Orr & Rappaport 55). In addition to the direct economic costs associated with terrorism and the threat of further terrorism, 9/11 also had important political ramifications. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (a contrived acronym meaning Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was established in the aftermath of September 11th to protect Americans from the threat of
The Bill of Rights explicitly mentions the right of Americans to privacy and successive legislation has further established privacy as an important right…
Section 1 of the Prevention of terrorism Act of 2005 defines terrorism as the threat of action, whereby the actions involves the use of violence against other people, serious property damage or creates a serious risk of healthy and safety of the public. The UK terrorism intelligence gathering uses sophisticated methods that are geared at breaking down the terrorist network before they commit the attacks.
If the citizen was a member of a foreign terrorist group, in a foreign country, or working for a foreign government, they could be considered an unlawful enemy combatant. An example is Jose Padilla, a US citizen charged in Chicago with aiding terrorists in the construction of a 'dirty bomb'.
The justicability of the UK courts however has always been compromised to some extent by judicial deference to parliamentary sovereignty. This deference has never been more significant than it has in recent years with respect to
Are you going to send agents to attend Mosques? Are you going to develop informants among those already living in that population? Are you bounded by any ethical considerations other than the need to prevent needless deaths through terrorism?
Based on the
The author states that California is also the economic hub of America and also houses the biggest number of important buildings, international corporations and film industry. After 9/11, US Patriotic Act was amended and renamed ‘USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act’. There were introduced surveillance and detention of people.
The Congress brought out the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to make sure of proper rights for war prisoners. The military was brought out of its coercive interrogations methods by the
illa be detained in military custody where he remained for the next two years while his attorney sought to challenge his detention via a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum (Writ).
“A writ [is] directed to the person detaining another, and commanding him to produce the body
A special, top secret court, termed as the FISA was crafted to hear appeals for such justifications. Safeguards were placed in a position to make certain that investigators following criminal issues did not
The DHS is working to establish a detailed report of its achievements through investments in interagency forums like Border Enhancement Security Task Force (BEST) and Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET). The offices that participate
In reference with today’s terrorism, there is a great difference as many of these nations battle to attain political power. However, there is a great difference in the tactics used by militants during those early days. This is following the growth and advancement in
1 pages (250 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Counter-Terrorism: Constitutional and Legislative Issues for FREE!