Protecting Ourselves Against Terrorism

Protecting Ourselves against Terrorism major consequence of 9/11 has been that now one cannot talk rationally about terrorism and its causes. Any attempt to look for the reason why anyone would be mad enough to blow up oneself smells of sympathizing with the terrorists and people are now becoming reluctant to voice their opinions. Prior to Sept 11 horrible crime against humanity, it was possible to discuss terrorism dispassionately, look for its causes and try to counter these to solve the problem.

The IRA violence in United Kingdom, our own brushes with terrorism (Kenyan Embassy bombing, TWA flight bombing over Lockerbie), terrorism by ETA in Basque territories, Chechen violence in Russia and terrorism and counter terrorism in Israel / Palestinian conflict in the Middle East even when combined did not have the impact of 9/11. When Chechen terrorist blew up several high-rise blocks of flats in Moscow killing hundreds of civilians in each block, our Secretary of State condemned the incident and emphasized the need to solve the Chechen issue by political means.

In the present charged atmosphere, a safe advice to all Americans with Arab or Muslim connections would be to treat the subject as taboo and avoid it. That to some has been the worst consequence of 9/11, we have lost much more than what we lost in the terrible tragedy, we have lost the freedom of expression among several other freedoms our country has preached (and practiced to a large extent).

One very much hopes that an end to Iraq war results in restoring the things we have lost as a result of government policies, actions that in the broader worlds view may be seen as intensifying the anti-American feelings and does not place us among the 'banana-republics' where crushing opposition and freedom of expression is the norm.

Despite executives pleas not to weaken the hands of the wartime Commander-in-Chief (the President), Supreme Court's recent decision to declare military commissions for Guantanamo prisoners illegal, helps restore confidence in our democracy, respect for the rule of law and weakens the terrorism. Causes of Terrorism One problem of being a superpower is that its international interests demand supporting all kinds of policies, which in a number of cases range from objectionable to abominable.

Former Soviet Union's attacks on Czechoslovakia, Hungary, ensuring that the former soviet states and the countries of the Warsaw Pact had pro-Soviet government were all parts of ensuring their supremacy over the area of USSR influence. Muslim empire in its heydays resorted to similar tactics too. The history of the Ottoman and pre-Ottoman days gives some comical reasons for invading different territories.

Muslim Invasion of India, for example was the result of failure of Indian ruler to reign in the pirates, the conquest of Spain happened because a Spanish warlord Roderick invited Muslim ruler of the time to invade Spain. United States has been the superpower for almost a hundred years and over the years has supported many causes that have turned the lives of people in many regions of the world upside down.

After the end of the cold war and break-up of the former Soviet Union, we are the only superpower. In order to protect our interest we need to have friendly governments and no one will support U.S. policies more than the rulers whose own survival depends on our support. We have to support Shahs, Marcoses, Sauds, Suhartos, Sadats, and Mubaraks of this world despite strong local opinions against them.

Dictators and military despots, kings and emirs steal billions of dollars from their people and we have to turn a blind eye and support governments; which will not last a month without U.S. support. There is no doubt that this kind of support creates a lot of hostility towards our policies abroad. This is perhaps what Noam Chomsky meant when he said that the best way to protect ourselves against becoming victims of terrorism is not to participate in it.

Our policies in the Middle East of supporting kingdoms, emirs and totally not representative people, opposing democratic movements likely to result in governments not supportive of U.S. policies has created strong feelings among people who want to rid their countries of these autocratic rulers. While, this may be justified in terms of protecting our oil and other regional interests, there is little doubt that these superpower interests have been a major cause of anti-American feelings in many parts of the world.

As I write this essay, Israeli planes are bombing Beirut Civil Airport, bridges of only civilian interest for the second day in succession. The leaders of our allied countries are urging Israel to exercise restraint, while our President is the only world leaders who has declared support for Israeli actions. American support for Israel for this action unacceptable under the international laws, and lack of any protest from pro-American governments in the Middle East fills many in the Arab countries with the kind of feelings incomprehensible to most of us.

This is perhaps what Noam Chomsky meant when he said that the best way to protect ourselves against becoming victims of terrorism is not to participate in it. As Tony Blair, prime Minister of Great Britain (a staunch U.S. ally) has emphasized on many occasions, a just solution of the Middle East crisis would diffuse many of the reasons for worldwide terrorism. It is the single most important issue that can reduce the risk of terrorism on our soil. There is no excuse for killing innocent civilians.

Killing of non-combatants even in a declared war is unjustified and a war crime. Killing of the thousands of civilians as in the case of World Trade Center bombing was an abhorrent act and we need to ensure that we protect ourselves from a repeat of any act of terrorism, not only by being vigilant at home but also by pursuing policies, which can be justified by norms of international laws. This may require making some difficult decisions against supporting dictators and rulers hated in their own countries.

After all, removal of Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in Philippine and Pinochet in Argentina has not created political problems for the region from a U.S. perspective. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, our government thought it safe to work with a military dictator in Pakistan. The problem is that people of Pakistan had to suffer a dictatorship for 11 years due to this U.S. preference. The war against terrorism and Bin Laden, unfortunately has forced a similar situation once again on that country.

This does not mean that by following certain policies, we can eliminate the risk of terrorism. There are plenty of nutcases in the world and our national interests and security of our citizens demands that United States remain vigilant in protecting her people both within the country and abroad. What is Terrorism? Terrorism is such a misused word that one person's terrorist is another ones freedom fighter.

Bin Laden and his criminal gang were described as 'Mujahideen- the Holy Warriors' by the western media and their indiscriminate terrorist attacks during soviet occupation and pro-soviet Afghan government days were projected as freedom struggle and acts of bravery. The international politics has thus not permitted building a formal definition. The United States Congress has defined [22 U.S.C.

[sections] 2656 f (d)(1)-(2) (1994)] "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents"; "international terrorism" is defined as "terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country" [Reisman, 1999]. This definition does not consider state terrorism or state sponsored terrorism, which is often the case, as international terrorism often requires a hideout and a sympathetic or covertly supporting state. Terrorism has three types of effects on those at the receiving end of this abhorrent act.

[Reisman, 1999]: an immediate effect of killing or injuring people, who are deemed, either for all purposes or in that context, to constitute an internationally prohibited target; an intermediate effect of intimidating a larger number of people and thereby influencing their political behavior and that of their government; and an aggregate effect of undermining inclusive public order Charters, 1993] in his book, the Deadly Sins of Terrorism investigates the impact of terrorism on six countries affected by terrorism.

The book written before the 9/11 terrorist attack makes some interesting observation that are equally true today. Until the 9/11 terrorist attack, international terrorism was considered a great nuisance but not a threat to the democratic values. [Charters, 1993] argues that most of the democratic countries facing terrorism in 1980s emerged 'subtly less free'.

The real danger from international terrorism, he argues is "not that democracies would fail to defend themselves, but rather that they would do so far too well -- and, in so doing, became less democratic." While fighting terrorism, our main concern has to be protecting democracy, human rights and freedom of individuals and not turn into a suffocating society like the Soviet Union of the Cold War days. Protecting Ourselves from Terrorism- a) Follow International Law Roth, 2002] in his article argues that U.S.

has to be active in supporting the International Law. He argues that our effort should not be to defeat a set of criminals, Osama Bin Laden, his Al-Qaeda network and a few like-minded groups, but we have to undermine the notion that any action is acceptable for a cause and slaughter of civilian is an acceptable political act. The fight against terrorism has to be based not on destroying a certain group of terrorists but as a campaign of human rights.

Geneva Conventions and international human rights law specifically establish that terrorism is not a legitimate act of war or politics. These rules specify that civilians should never be deliberately killed or abused, regardless of the cause. Mr. Bush's refusal to condemn Israel's bombing of civilian targets in an impotent Lebanon may be politically expedient but it says that United States considers it all right to deliberately bomb civilian installations and killing innocent civilians for the cause of punishing Hezbollah.

Roth, 2002] argues that disregard for civilian life must not be condoned, "The pathology that led a group of men to attack thousands of civilians on September 11 may never be understood, but it is essential to understand the mores that would countenance such mass murder as a legitimate political tool. Sympathy for such crimes is the breeding ground for terrorism, and sympathizers are potential recruits.

Building a stronger human rights culture -- one in which any disregard for civilian life is condemned rather than condoned -- is essential for defeating terrorism in the long run." September 11 has given many dictatorial and repressive regimes a chance to crush legitimate opposition which in the name of 'fighting terrorism'. These countries can do what they like with their dissidents while they support U.S. efforts in fighting terrorism against Bin Laden and his sympathizers. Fight against terrorism will be helped greatly by U.S. support for international law.

U.S. have constantly refused to ratify many of the international treaties relating to international convention on human rights. United States has a decent record on human rights but asking for special treatment on many of these issues has not gone well with international community. Our go-it-alone policy on Iraq, failure to find any weapon of mass destruction in the country and the much publicized breaches of the rules of war have not helped in the international war against terrorism.

United States government needs to review its policies on support for international laws to protect us from terrorism. Roth, 2002] finds that failure to ratify international human Rights law has placed us in an awkward position.

He argues that, "The administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of seeking global law enforcement cooperation to protect its own citizens from terrorism while trying to undermine a global law enforcement institution that many governments rightfully see as essential for protecting others from comparably severe crimes." We need to follow policies that can at least satisfy our traditional allies on working together for a terrorism free world. Vociferous support for democratic reforms should not be limited to countries opposing U.S.

policies but our 'allies' should also know that democratic reforms and respect for human rights will be a condition for U.S. support. United States has a great deal of respect for its humanitarian stance on most international issues. Real support for democratic reforms and withdrawal of support from cruel autocratic, non-representative dictators, kings and emirs and namesake democracies will only enhance U.S. prestige and reduce the risk of terrorism on our soil as well as to our interests abroad.

Protecting Ourselves from Terrorism- b) Domestic Measures Soon after the 9/11, tragedy U.S. government took steps to strengthen anti-terrorism measure on home front. The measures have been largely successful and United States has remained safe from even minor incidents involving terrorism. The Office of Homeland Security has stressed that this incident-free period is due to actions taken to reduce threat of terrorism on U.S. soil and several terrorist attempts were foiled by advance intelligence.

The threat of terrorism requires us to prevent both domestic and international terrorists and their sympathizers from causing harm to our country. In doing so what can keep the United States great will be our desire and effort to protect civil liberties, avoid racial isolation of our citizens and achieve the result with least possible impact on democracy and freedoms.

We are fortunate to have a free press, people with a concern for freedom and privacy, courts that are willing to exercise their power to protect these concerns without compromising national security. We can therefore be reasonably sure that actions by the executives will be closely scrutinized and fighting terrorism will not unduly invade on democracy and civil rights. The law enacted in response to Sept. 11 terrorism is known as 'Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 2001 (PATRIOT Act 2001).

This Act gives the government broad power and discretion in acting to fight terrorism. Some of the powers given o the executives under this act have come under criticism as against the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Section 411 of the Act, for example, makes an alien resident responsible for the acts of terrorism, if they even unknowingly supplied material assistance (food and shelter) to a terrorist. Section 412 permits indefinite detention of a suspected terrorist.

There are time limits specified for the detention but 'a reading of the statute, however reveals that detention may be continued indefinitely through a series of additional six-month periods, if the attorney general continues to believe that the alien poses a threat to national security or to the safety of others' [Grebinar, 2003]. In most cases, the law limits this detention to seven days after which the detainee has either to be charged for act of terrorism or deported.

Civil rights advocates assert that detention without charge even for seven days negates the right of 'Due Process' allowed to aliens under our constitution. Freezing of assets of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations, keeping track of terrorist sympathizers, racial profiling are some other measures being used to counter terrorism.

A major concern for democracy and freedom is that the laws are not used to victimize Americans as well as aliens of their rights granted under the Constitution, as this is a major difference between United States and 'non democratic lawless dictatorships' in some countries. [Roth, 2002] criticizing the application of the law of detention under the PATRIOT Act states, "The U.S.

government detained over 1,000 suspects following the September 11 attacks but threw a shroud of secrecy over the cases, making it impossible to determine whether detention powers were being used appropriately. As best as can be determined, only one suspect has been charged in connection with the September 11 attacks -- Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker" who was already in custody on September 11.

Most of the detainees are charged with minor crimes or immigration offenses yet are denied the usual bail and held in maximum security jails for little reason other than that they are young males of a certain religion and national origin. While we can control the terrorism by closing our doors to all individuals from certain countries, keeping taps on all our citizens, depriving U.S. citizens of the freedoms and rights given by the constitution, we surely would not like this to happen.

Fortunately, United States has all the checks and balances in place and we can look forward to keeping the United States terrorist free with minimal sacrifices of democratic norms, personal freedom, privacy and freedom of expression that makes United States great! Conclusions United States needs to encourage and practice respect of international laws on human rights. What makes this country great has been our love and respect for the laws and the Constitution. Our record on human rights is second to none.

As the sole superpower, we have an obligation to encourage both our friends and others to respect the human rights, observe international human rights and not be the supporters of dictatorial regimes who commit human right violations on their own people. PATRIOT Act and increased vigilance has protected us from any repeat of 9/11. We need to ensure that the Sections of the Act, objectionable from the viewpoint of our own Constitution are either removed or applied with extreme caution and with full authority and permission of our Courts.

We have to ensure that the executive authorities in the rush to curb terrorism do not crush our freedom of expression, freedoms and liberties we all love and.