Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
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…[continue]
"Counter Terrorism Issues The Writer" (2006, July 07) Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/counter-terrorism-issues-the-writer-70954
"Counter Terrorism Issues The Writer" 07 July 2006. Web.29 November. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/counter-terrorism-issues-the-writer-70954>
"Counter Terrorism Issues The Writer", 07 July 2006, Accessed.29 November. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/counter-terrorism-issues-the-writer-70954
Even so, it has been argued that the limitation of liberties does not necessarily help the war on terror. Given the nature of the legislation, which includes limitations on freedom of expression or transportation, the society is most of the times limited in its enthusiasm. In this sense, members of Parliaments throughout the world draw the attention on the fact that anti-terrorism laws have infringed the freedom of speech, the
They are also dangerous to the United States because of the United States policy of having open doors and welcoming many different cultures and traditions to its lands. For this reason the three groups believe the United States works closely with those that they wish to eradicate. In addition the groups can easily infiltrate the nation and set up terrorist plans in this country because of the freedom of travel
Rational choices are limited in this setting, and may merely consist of making the best of the worst available alternatives. The American public is becoming increasingly frustrated with national policymakers who seem to be firing global broadsides but are not able to hit anything. In fact, Butler even questions whether the war on terrorism is a struggle against Osama bin Laden, his Al Qaeda network, and a few similarly minded
Terrorism, during its long violent history, has been used as a means of intimidation and aggression. In its narrow definition only violent acts (or threats of violent acts) committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals are considered to be terrorism, but in the broader context governments have been known to commit terrorism as well Terrorism may include political assassinations, violent political revolutions, hijackings, skyjackings, and bombings. When such acts are perpetrated within
In face of such measures, citizens start more and more to lose faith not only in the Government but also in its policy implicantors: ministries, police, health system, etc. Paul Wilkinson in "Terrorism vs. Democracy: The Liberal State Response" touches on sensitive issues for the UK society like over-reaction to terrorism, using too much military and less intelligence to prevent terrorism and especially the unpopular measures of surveillance, human
Sohail believed that because this incident happened -- and because it reflects negatively on the image of Muslims -- "…all the Muslim people in America will be driven out. This has happened in reality," he asserted. "This is obvious. This happened, and it is happening now" (Rousseau, 167). Some of those interviewed in Karachi expressed "intense pain and anger at the injustice of the aftereffects on Pakistanis and Muslims"
617). Certainly, it is one thing to mandate policies that apply to normal circumstances such as a warehouse fire where property should be protected but not at the expense of emergency responders' lives; by very sharp contrast, though, when human beings are in jeopardy and emergency responders believe they can make a difference in a life-or-death outcome, polices do not mean all that much. This relativistic view of what