counter terrorism issues. The writer uses three sources to answer questions about Mosques, agents and privacy.
The city that we live in has a large Arab population. The Arab community is comprised of both Arab-Americans and immigrants from Arab nations. As a senior counter terrorism official for the United States government it is my duty to determine the level of caution and steps that will be taken in this area to counteract and help prevent any possible acts of terrorism in the area.
When one wants to determine what level of caution to take when it comes to preventing acts of terrorism it is important not to focus exclusively on Arab populations. One only need to study the Oklahoma bombings to understand the depth of danger in focusing on one group or one population when looking for signs of planned terroristic activities. With that in mind however, one must be mindful of the fact that the United States currently faces the largest threat from Arab or Muslim nations, therefore it is prudent to remain diligent and cautious in the observation of a focused Arab or Arab-American group in the area.
To that end this department is going to take the necessary steps to maintain a presence within the area’s Arab community including both covert, and overt infiltration operations.
Efforts will be focused on infiltration with the use of undercover federal officers who are of Arab descent. They will be encouraged to live and work among the community members and to plant ideas and thoughts of discontent among those who they believe may be anti-American or tied to possible terrorist groups. This will be done in the hopes of getting invited to join any group that may be forming or has already formed in the area that is capable of planning a terrorist attack on a U.S. target.
One of the methods used to infiltrate the community for the purpose of examining the possibility of attacks will be to have the selected agents attend the Mosques. While this must be done on a very low key level as to maintain the dignity and respect for the Muslim faith it is important to include it in the operations as some of the threats to Americans is based in Muslim anger at the country.
The next step that will be taken is to develop informants within the population. This step must be undertaken with extreme caution as the informants may tell others that they are informants and if there are any terrorist plans being made they will be buried even more deeply underground until they are carried out.
The informants will be adults and they will be developed based on mutual interest in preserving the safety of those residing in the United States, both foreign and natural residents. The informants will not e paid for their information to prevent any false information being fed to the agents in the attempt to make money.
Informants will be developed in several areas, to include Mosque, business, and social groups in the Arab community of the area. Each informant will be asked to report any suspicious rumors or behaviors that they become aware of so that it can be checked out using the utmost care and caution not to reveal the informant’s identity.
There are several ethical considerations to be considered within the counter terrorism program that will be set up.
While it is important for the nation to remain safe and as part of the effort to maintain that safety things must be done, it is also important to maintain the ethical standard that this nation was founded on. The United States constitution provides certain rights and responsibilities to those who live here in both laymen and in official capacities.
The prevention of needless deaths through acts of terrorism must take a front row seat in the plan of action by this department. The acts signed into law by President Bush allows a more focused tracking and observation of populations that have been allowed in the past. While this is important to the overall plan of countering terrorism it is important to remember that this nation was founded on the rights of people to have lives free of unnecessary persecution.
One example of this line will be demonstrated in the infiltration of the Mosques. While agents will be assigned to attend Mosque they will also be required to take part in the religious steps that are commonly expected in the setting. They will also be expected to only infiltrate to the point of looking for terrorist activities or discussions and remain out of any other issues including political discontent or American bashing speeches.
If an American citizen is captured in the U.S. And is suspected of being involved in acts of terrorism the same laws and rules must apply to that person as would apply to any other person accused of a serious crime. Acts of terrorism come with a separate set of guidelines for detainment rules and sentencing possibilities but it is important to remain neutral and not let the treatment of that person be ruled with emotion instead of focused legal efforts.
The status and rights of the suspected terrorist must be respected. The rights to a fair and speedy trial are important factors as well as protecting that suspect from vigilante justice attempts by citizens or law enforcement agents.
A reasonable bail must be set to allow that person to bond out. There should be extra steps of precaution taken however, including the confiscation of any passports and the freezing of any bank accounts so that the suspect cannot leave the nation before the trial or fund terrorist attempts.
While these precautions may seem to infringe on the rights of the suspect it is not an uncommon practice when it comes to the judicial system. The same steps are often taken in the suspected drug activity world to insure the suspected drug dealer not leave the nation or spend money that was obtained through illegal activities or used for future illegal activities while awaiting trial.
A foreign national who was engaged in acts of terrorism should be held without bond until he or she can be tried. This is because of the fact that the person in question most likely has a support system and family outside of the United States and the chances of that person fleeing the United States to avoid a trial is higher than with most U.S. citizens.
An American citizen who engages in fights against American forces abroad and is captured committing acts of terrorism will be treated in the same manner as foreign nationals who engage in such behavior. An American who is willing to fight and kill members of his own nation has given up the right to be treated in the same manner as an American citizen would be treated. He or she has made her allegiance clear with actions and should be held without bond with the knowledge that they most likely have ties outside of the U.S. that will help them escape their trial if allowed to bond out and exercise freedom during the wait.
There will be times when foreign organizations will demand terrorist suspects be released to their homeland and face trial for their actions there. The United States must refuse to cooperate with such requests. The United States has the right and must maintain the right to try and sentence those who commit acts of terrorism against its people.
There is an anti-American sentiment in the United States (Backlash, 2001). It is demonstrated in the Arab-American community and the local Arab community is no exception. There have been several anti-American demonstrations in this area in which agents attended and used digital cameras to take pictures of the crowds being gathered to demonstrate. These photos will be enhanced and the individuals in them will be sent to a national database and compared with photos of known terrorist friendly people in that database. If any come back as a match an agent will be assigned to those people to infiltrate and try and determine if they have plans or are supporting any future plans for terrorist attacks.
The anti-terrorist sentiment is very strong in America. The nation watched in horror as 3,000 innocent civilians lost their lives in an attack on the New York Towers. It was something that the nation had never before experienced and the outrage about the act could be heard worldwide. When all was said and done the initial reaction of the American public was to go after terrorists with little regard to ethics or human rights. However, several years later as the war on terrorism continues that sentiment has changed. When the photos of the Iraqi prisoners being tortured by American soldiers was broadcast there was outrage that soldiers would commit such acts of brutality.
There will never be a reason to torture terrorist prisoners. As tempting as it may be in the quest and hope of finding out information, to do so would be to place Americans on the same level as those they are trying to fight.
Even if the torture of these people would save lives it is a slippery slope that we do not want to begin. Once we allow the torture of suspects or terrorists it could begin a landslide witch-hunt in which people who are not terrorists and have not committed any crimes could be tortured based on suspect or circumstantial evidence.
While there is justified outrage at what happened in this country we, as Americans, must maintain our ethical standards at all times. It is only by maintaining these standards that we can hope to set and example worldwide about the strength and dignity of our nation and all that it stands for.
The history of “just war” philosophy stems from religious and secular issues. One of the longest standing Just War traditions centers on religious differences including the differences between Muslim and Christian faiths. In addition the “Just War” theories support the idea of a war for the purpose of self-defense. While the war in Iraq may have begun after the attacks in the United States had ended, many people believe it is a Just War because of the possibility of future attacks that would kill more innocent, non-military citizens.
Some experts currently believe that President Bush failed to satisfy the requirements for a morally just war when he launched the attack on Iraq. Searching for Bin Ladin and attempting ot bring him to justice was supported by the experts and the American public, but the attacks on Iraq, a nation that had not committed any aggressive acts against the U.S. In a decade was morally unjustified according to many war experts.
One expert “added that, as a foreign policy goal, regime change is the “moral equivalent” of the unconditional surrender demanded of the Axis powers by the Allies in World War II. Such terms, he said, give the victorious nation the responsibility to rebuild the nation it has destroyed, but the White House has yet to detail “a coherent plan” for rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq. Another issue, Walzer said, is that the Bush administration’s arguments for humanitarian and national security reasons for an Iraq war are based upon dated events. He said the United States has passed up such opportunities in the past — such as when Saddam gassed Iraqi Kurds or blocked U.N. weapons inspections — when attacking Iraq was clearly justifiable (Might, 2002).”
If these were true reasons to have a Just War the time to launch that war would have been during the 1990’s according to the standards set out for the Just War philosophy.
I just war is often launched to change a regime that allows people to be treated inhumanely. While many people argue over what the criteria should be for a Just War, it is generally accepted that a Just War is warranted any time a body or government tries to force others to live by its rules, for instance dictatorships.
Whether or not the current war on terror is a Just War has been debated since its beginning. While some say it is a just war because it seeks to change the way many are being treated inhumanely in certain nations, others will argue it is not just because it forces other nations, such as Iraq to change the way it operates. Many news shows have broadcast the anti-American sentiment in Iraq because this nation went in and forcibly dismantled its government and forced it to structure a democracy in its place.
Iraq has not been proven to have been involved in the attacks of the towers, therefore experts argue the war is not just as it forces a nation to change it structure without moral cause to do so.
While the war on terror can be characterized in its broadest sense as a jut war, its individual actions and details deviate from the moral and ethical justifications for such a war being called a just war.
Fighting terrorism is going to be declared just as long as that is the only purpose. To understand the difference between that and an unjust war one can turn to legal operations in the states. When a search warrant is executed for a home the search warrant must specify what items the warrant will allow a search for and why the search is needed.
Many people have heard that if police go into a home with warrant that names a body, and a murder weapon as the items being searched for and the officials find drugs, they cannot seize the drugs nor can they prosecute the home dwellers for those drugs.
The war on terror ceases to be just when the war is used for motives and purpose other than defeating terrorism. This is what caused the experts to debate whether or not the war on terror should have included the dismantling of the Iraqi government. The nation was not involved in the attacks or at least no proof has been located that it was. In addition, the U.S. went in and forced the people of that nation to submit to a democratic structure of government without their consent.
The war on terror ceases to be a just war when the war is launched for one reason and then used to accomplish different sets of objectives as with the attack and overthrow of the government in Iraq.
Under these circumstances the fight against terrorism ceased to be just because it was no longer about fighting terrorism but instead using the American fear of terrorism to unseat a government and force democracy upon the people of that nation.
The reason this ceases to be just is because it goes against everything the United States Constitution stands for. Freedom should not just apply to democracy, but to total freedom to choose what form of government that a people wish to live under and have that decision supported. In addition when no evidence was located linking Saddam Hussein to the acts of terrorism against the U.S. The war became a personal vendetta between President Bush and Hussein.
The war on terrorism should continue but its focus must be narrowly defined to include acts of terrorism and the attempt to prevent such acts in the future while at the same time maintaining the rights of people to live under privacy and peace.
Currently the anti-Americanism problem in the U.S. is not a significant one. It may be due to the fact that this nation was founded on the right and ability to voice one’s opinion thereby giving people who live her a comfortable forum by which th voice their concerns without fear of retaliation or punishment. It is important to note that it is not the vocal anti-American sentiments that pose a threat to the nation but the quiet unspoken issues that may lay in wait for another opportunity to attack.
People who incite violence against America but do not take part in the actual violence themselves should be prosecuted. In the legal arena if a person is aware that a crime is being planned, and that person takes part in the planning of the crime and does not actually have any part in the execution of it that person can be charged with criminal responsibility. The same rules should apply to anyone who takes part in the incitement of violence against America even if that person does not take part in the actual violent acts against the nation.
In the same way that the government can seize money and property of those who support drug dealing the government must be supported in seizing money and property from any organization, Mosque, or school that supports terrorism.
The discovery should be factually based and documented so that a court of law can determine whether the seized funds and property was actually in the support of terrorism.
The USA Patriot Act is an act that is designed to provide freedoms in the fight against terrorism that the constitution usually prohibits. The act provides means to track individuals based on profiling them based on a predetermined criteria.
It provide the right to tap phone lines and to intercept correspondence that would otherbe3 protected by the constitution as private.
While it may skirt the edges of fairness, at this time it is important to support its intent. The officials must take extreme care to only use it in the war on terrorism. This means if a letter is intercepted that has nothing to do with terror, but has something to do with drug dealing, that information should not be used to prosecute anyone. As difficult as it is to follow the integrity of the constitution must be upheld in this manner even when utilizing the Patriot Act in the quest to fight terrorism.
The Patriot Act has contributed to the reduction of terrorism against the United States. Because of the ability to intercept and track information the nation has been able to uncover many members of terrorist groups and watch their movement and activity. The fact that they are being watched has most likely contributed positively to the reduction in actions against the U.S. therefore the Patriot Act deserves credit for its success.
If I were a member of congress I would not vote to renew it as it currently stands. I do not believe it should allow things such as the interception of millions of people’s phone records in a random search nor do I believe the profiling should be allowed.
I think if the officials have provable evidence of terrorist plans they should then be allowed to step in a selectively intercept some of the records to monitor that situation.
CONCLUSION
The war on terrorism is one that is fraught with issues. While few would argue its intent, there are many boundaries that must be set so that the war is not used to right old wrongs, overstep constitutional boundaries or remove the right to privacy.
The war on terrorism can be maintained with ethical and moral standards that will allow America to maintain its standing in the world and continue to set an example of living peacefully.
REFERENCES
Anti-American Backlash The Washington Post; 10/16/2001 The Washington Post
10-16-2001 Anti-American Backlash
IRAQ WAR MIGHT NOT BE A ‘JUST WAR’ United Press International; 10/1/2002
United Press International 10-01-2002
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
