Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Limiting the Spread of Radical and
Online hate speech or rhetoric that calls for violence against another organization or the government itself.
Sources of information about operational techniques, such as how to create bombs, develop poisons or to carry out effective violent attacks.
Whenever the subject of terrorism comes up, the question of how to balance law-abiding Americans' rights to individual freedom with the need for public safety inevitably must be addressed. In 2010, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the U.S. Supreme...
can be criminalized if it is 'coordinated' to support a foreign terrorist organization named by Congress" (Feldman 2010). The material in question did not meet the standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio, "which held that advocacy of violence can be made criminal only if it is directed to incite imminent lawless action and is also likely to produce such action imminently" but was pro-jihadi and supported the aims of terrorist organizations (Feldman 2010). According to one legal scholar "Speech that might well be protected under the First Amendment can now be included in criminal charges and submitted to the jury alongside other evidence of material support" (Feldman 2010).
As abhorrent as such speech may be, the question arises about where should the government draw the line? White supremacists' political rhetoric has been protected under the First Amendment, although this speech has obvious potential to spill out into violent action against others. But then again so could the words of radical anti-abortion activists and anti-immigration activists. In the case of speech which actually instructs others how to build a bomb or develop poison, the line between speech and action seems more firmly drawn. But it remains less certain how to protect all…
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-14/speech-isn-t-free-when-terrorists-are-involved
M4D2: Lone Wolves vs. The Pack: Who Poses a Greater Threat?
Lone wolf terrorists tend to have less formal organizational capabilities and training than organized terrorists. Events which caused mass causalities like the 9/11 bombings require more careful planning and coordination that one individual (particularly a mentally unhinged individual) is likely to be capable of; also, organized terrorists have financial resources that lone wolf terrorists do not possess, either from selling money through the drug trade, wealthy radical backers, or other means. Thus it would seem that lone wolves are less likely to precipitate actions with mass causalities. However, they can still be quite deadly as in the case of "Nidal Malik Hasan in the United States, who killed many of his fellow soldiers after opening fire at a military base" (Thompson 2013). The problem with lone wolf terrorists is that their motives may be so shadowy and their logic so twisted it is difficult to anticipate their actions or predict where they will strike. Or, in the case of Hasan, they may be a case of an insider whose disaffection with the organization gradually spills over
T) he FBI can now act like a domestic CIA when seeking a criminal conviction. It can obtain a secret warrant from a secret court to gather evidence of crime without ever having to present to the court evidence that the person upon whom it wishes to spy is involved in crime. Moreover, evidence gathered in criminal case can now be more easily shared - without a court order -
Civil Liberties, a Price to Pay for Safety? Terrorism is something that a country or a nation has to deal with at some time or another. The United States experienced a terrible tragedy on September 11th 2001 when the twin towers in manhattan collapsed due to hijacked airplanes. Ever since then, America has been on high alert in order to avoid another catastrophe. Some of the measures taken such as the
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, War Terror subtopics: Explain historical evolution habeas corpus, including English American traditions. The explanation evolution American tradition include general meaning habeas corpus U. Habeas Corpus The principle of habeas corpus promotes the idea that a person needs to be brought before a court in order for him or her to be judged before he or she is provided with a sentence. Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you
However, during war it becomes all too easy to look for convenient ways to disregard even the most important laws. The first, and most dramatic, effect of war is to increase the general fearfulness of a population. Fear and anxiety rocket way up during wartime, and are fueled by all the myriad effects of such conflicts. But another, less-well-understood reaction to war on the part of a both the individual
Civil Liberties The United States is a country founded on the notion of protected civil liberties. After all, the pioneers who came to the country in the 18th century were themselves fleeing from persecution and seeking the freedom to practice their religious beliefs and the right to discuss their diverging views in public. Today, these freedoms are protected by law under the Bill of Rights. They serve to protect individual freedoms from
The main advantage of the convention is that they provide an opportunity for candidates to define themselves in a positive way and for the party to heal itself after a decisive nomination battle. 2. The electoral college is the means by which presidents are actually elected. To win a state's electoral votes, a candidate must have a plurality of votes in that state. Except in two states, the winner takes all. 3.