Three-part essay on unspecified topics

Terrorism

What is involved in terrorism investigation? Unlike many criminal investigations, investigating terrorism and terrorism issues are dependent on far more issues. First, the investigation may be national, international, or a combination -- it may involve a number of agencies, jurisdictions, and political formats. The terrorism investigation is also dependent on whether it is proactive or reactive. Proactive investigations are used to prevent acts of terrorism and include coordinated or long-term planning, intelligence gathering, and ways for different agencies to cooperate. Reactive methods are used to investigate terrorism after the incident occurs. These include crime scene processing and analysis, detective work (following leads and tips), using informants, data mining, surveillance, and other standard law enforcement tactics.

Proactive methods are designed, particularly after 9/11, by the theory of preventive policing -- to anticipate and diffuse the next terror attack. These techniques do not focus on crime, but on the idea that a crime might be committed on a future date. It is primarily intelligence gathering, data mining and analysis, sharing of information with pertinent agencies, and gathering of intelligence by different means so that there are few surprises to law enforcement. One real challenge in proactive investigation is balancing civil liberties against terrorist threats.

Reactive methods follow similar techniques to basic modern criminal investigations, but on a larger, more complex manner. Because of the nature of the incident, local officials might not have enough equipment or personnel to adequately handle the investigation, and it is highly likely that because of the nature of terrorism, that other cities or countries are also involved. Of course, the incident must have a responder, usually local law enforcement and then other agencies being called in. Once the incident is under control, crime scene processes sing and analysis occurs and is as extensive as possible. Information is gathered, leads checked, background issues are uncovered, and an agency, usually Homeland Security in the United States, coordinates efforts to build a profile and apprehend the suspects, with the help of coordinating agencies.

Part 2 -- What are crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity are serious offenses against a nation, an ethic group, a part of society and a serious attack on humanity or degradation against one or more individuals. They are not isolated events, but part of a formal policy or a wide practice of atrocities, torture, or offenses that are somehow condoned by a de facto authority. Some examples of crimes against humanity are mass extermination, torture, rape, persecution for political, racial or religious reasons, and the systematic process of widespread criminal activities. While the term has been around for at least a century, it was the aftermath of World War II and the resulting Nuremberg Trials that brought the issue to the forefront. The jurisdictional element of these types of crimes is not limited to war but as a "part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, or religious grounds" (745).

Since 1948, the legal responsibility for prosecuting crimes against humanity has been the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. However, since the International Criminal Court has no real power to arrest, the UN has not referred to the ICC since 2005, but instead uses other means, including the Hague, to prosecute these types of activities.

In modern terminology, and for foreign policy, political science and international law, crimes against humanity are any atrocious act committed on a large scale. They can be prosecuted in most any Federal Court System, depending on where they occurred and which population was part of the criminal activity. The implication for international law is that crimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction, which means that States can exercise their own jurisdiction regardless of where the crime was committed, and that all States also have the obligation and duty to assist each other in the defense of these sorts of activities. It is also important to note that no human, regardless of affiliation, is immune from prosecution, even heads of state, and on person can plead a defense as obeying orders.

Part 3 -- Is it legally justified to invade/occupy another country in the name of arresting/hitting terrorists? International cooperation regarding the arresting or bringing to justice those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities began in the 1960s and revolved around airline hijackings. Several notable events occurred to solidify international laws: the 1985 seizure of the cruise liner the Achille Lauro, the hijacking of TWA flight 847, the 1972 Munich Olympics issue, at sea piracy, and of course, the events of 9/11.

There are really two issues surrounding this question: 1) international cooperation in the aiding of capture and extradition of suspected terrorists, and 2) the legality of entering a sovereign nation who refuses to cooperate internationally. First, countries that belong to the United Nations and those who have agreed to the International Convention for the Suppression and Financing of Terrorism agree to criminalize terrorism and to cooperate in the "apprehension of persons who commit… and to extradite or prosecute an accused person" (726). In this sense, it is legal to share in law enforcement efforts to capture suspected terrorists as long as the host country allows other military, para-military or law enforcement agencies to operate on their soil.