Counter-terrorism Policy and Human Rights Essay Sample

Terrorism has become one of the major concerns in the recent universe in the recent times to the peaceable being of people globally. Over the clip. there has been different measured deployed in order to control the threat and its menaces to peace and misdemeanor of human rights. This has included the proviso of adequate and suited tools indispensable to stop and block force Acts of the Apostless such as the passage of the USA Patriot Act. This paper critically discusses the act in mention to the Torahs enacted in post-9/11 epoch against the terrorist act threat. In add-on. the paper looks to the countless measures deployed in order to control the threat through the Bush and Obama disposals in United States. In add-on. the paper looks into the relation between the Torahs enacted and deployed against the misdemeanor of human rights ( Whittaker. 21 ) .

Thesis statement: In the wake of onslaughts in USA in September 2001. the fright of more terrorist onslaughts has led to alter and re-evaluation of security concern. However. many of the actions taken has left a lasting reverberation in human rights protection. and one of the most serious wounded of station September 11th is the eroding of civil and political rights taken by States seeking to protect their security. Compared to other policies deployed in Britain the United States move has been considered relatively mild.

Terrorism has become a common term in mention to human and belongings security in the universe. It has been seen as an effectual maneuver for the weaker side in any given struggle. However. despite the popularity of the term within the human race in the universe. terrorist act can be a cloudy term or construct. Even within the United States authorities. bureaus that are responsible in the battle against the threat have different definitions to it. The United States Department of Defense holds the definitions of terrorist act as a deliberate usage of unwanted menace or force which is intended to instill fright. with an purpose of haling or to intimidate societies or authoritiess in the chase of ends which are by and large political. ideological or spiritual. On the other manus. bureaus like FBI defines terrorist act as indefensible usage of force and force against belongings or individuals with an purpose of haling or intimidating civilian or a authorities in promotion of political or societal aims ( Brysk et al. 52 ) .

Despite the legion definition of the job. the basic point is that steps have to be deployed in order to protect people and belongingss both in different states and in the full Earth at big. This has brought new term counter-terrorism. This incorporates tactics. techniques. patterns. and schemes that different authoritiess. military. constabulary sections. and all other security bureaus adopt to assail terrorist menaces and or acts both existent and imputed. For illustration in United States. there has been the agency of counterterrorism whose primary mission is to hammer a partnership with transnational organisations. Non-state histrions every bit good as foreign disposal in bend to progress the counter terrorist act aims and the national security of United States.

USA Patriot Act of 2001 ( US ) and Terrorism Act 2000 ( Britain )

The USA Patriot Act of 2001. which normally referred to “The Uniting and Strengthening America by offering suited Tools necessity to stop and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” this is one of the legion steps deployed by the United States authorities in the battle against terrorist act Acts of the Apostless in the state. The Act was enacted into jurisprudence in October 2001 as a reaction to the September 11 terrorist onslaught in United States. This was after a proposal by the section of justness. The focal point of the jurisprudence developed enacted focused chiefly on the support of the arm shop and tools available to the critical Central Intelligence Agency. The jurisprudence besides focused to the authorization of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) . and federal prosecuting officers for placing and disenabling terrorist webs working both within and outside the United States.

In mention to the Terrorism Act 2000. the USA Patriot Act looks relatively mild. This is an act of the parliament in Britain which every bit good increased constabulary powers for the critical intent of countering terrorist act. Similar to the USA Patriot Act. the Terrorism Act 2000 besides extended the figure of yearss for fishy detainment without charge in Britain. This jurisprudence annulled the British exigency statute law which had ab initio been directed to Irish terrorist act. and in bend revised the legal tools against terrorist act in Britain. The two Acts had the same docket. which was to increase people security against the terrorist act actions. In add-on. ‘The Terrorism Act of 2000’ besides consists of commissariats for the detaining of individuals alleged of taking portion in terrorist act and commissariats sing hunt and detainment powers. among other things depending on the Judgess warrant. The development of the anti terrorist act statute law in Britain since the old ages 2000 has been similar to the instance of USA after the 9/11 incident. However. when the two instances are compared. the Terrorism Act 2000 in Britain looks more comprehensive than the mild United States attack.

A important difference between the two instances of anti-terrorism statute law adopted in USA ( USA Patriot Act ) and Britain Terrorism Act 2000. Unlike the United States instance. Britain failed to go through statute law that allowed the locking up of suspected terrorists as “illegal battlers. ” This is considered is a downside to the USA instance compared to the British statute law. In add-on. both in Britain and United States. the counter-terrorism statute law that was adopted has led to prevalent public argument because it frequently denies the indispensable protections provided by constitutional and condemnable jurisprudence. This in bend has brought along legion struggles with the human rights Torahs. This has in bend made the USA attack to counter terrorist act instances relatively mild

However. despite the United States in-migration policy being held responsible for the entryway of foreign terrorists into the state. and commit their atrocious act. the act ( USA Patriot Act ) treats the states in-migration policy as a late add-on. The in-migrations commissariats that were included in the new jurisprudence reflected two progressively debatable and relentless perceptual experiences shared by a good figure of the elective representatives every bit good as the justness section in United States. I. e. the naturalisation and in-migration service’s cardinal map is the admittance of foreigners in to the state. This is in contradiction to the coveted enforcement of the Torahs modulating such admittances in the state. Second. the jurisprudence posed the in-migration policy as a political morass better left untasted.

One of the perceptual experiences is reflected by the USA Patriot Act’s failure to place that the enforcement of active migration bylaws is merely every bit important in the war on terrorist act as better foreign intelligence and more persevering court of those with terrorist ties. and its failure to keep the bureaus apt for such enforcement. The subsequent observation is reflected all through the immigration-related parts of the Act: Rather than necessitating immediate action by the INS and the State Department. many commissariats merely necessitate surveies of possible hereafter actions ( Whittaker. 46 ) . As an option of demanding that bureaus straight off put into pattern certain plans endorsed by Congress in 1996. the jurisprudence entails progress studies. Undoubtedly. the ‘USA PATRIOT Act’ holds a figure of migration demands that will progress our capableness to acknowledge and either exclude or prosecute foreigners with terrorist ties. It is every bit clear. nevertheless. that this new jurisprudence represents merely a first measure in the immigration-policy reforms that are necessary to battle terrorist act efficaciously and to protect Americans from future terrorist onslaughts ( Whittaker. 36 ) .

The American response to the 9/11 has been much criticized all around the universe. but non to the full understood within the United States context in footings of alone legal and political civilization. After the 9/11 the American attack was dominated by the facet of aggressive effort of executive power every bit good as doubtful claims of legality. For illustration. the most ill-famed behavior was directed to the non-Americans outside the state. This came as a aftermath up t the human rights issues as it was widely regarded as misdemeanor of human rights. For illustration. the steps that were adopted after the 9/11 threat included detainments without test into the celebrated Guantanamo bay every bit good as anguish. maltreatment and increased usage of renderings directed to those states with hapless human rights records. In add-on. some of the moves were directed to the American citizens such as spying of the NSA ( national security bureau ) ( Brysk et al. 66 ) .

In add-on. less apprehended is the fact that the American legislative response to the terrorist act threat. in the old ages after the 9/11 incident was mild when compared to the response to other democracies. To be certain. the uniting and beef uping America by supplying appropriate tools needed to stop and blockade terrorist act Act besides simplified as Patriot Act which expanded surveillance and expression for powers and contemplated the usage of in-migration jurisprudence as antiterrorism jurisprudence. Nevertheless. the jurisprudence didn’t make an effort to minimize from rights by suspending habeas principal or else enact new and controversial processs such as preventative apprehensions. oppugning warrants and fact-finding hearings which were introduced into Canadian Australian jurisprudence after the 9/11 incident.

One of the grounds why the official American legislative response to the 9/11 appears mild in comparative position is that. the 1st amendment has restrained the devising or the creative activity of condemnable discourtesies against rank in terrorist groups or address that appears to recommend the terrorist act threat. Another ground for the comparative clemency of the legislative and domestic and domestic American response to terrorist act is the political and legal limitations on what should or can be done in the United States with respect American citizens. The united provinces have no the bureau in the name of domestic security intelligence but alternatively relies on FBI bureau and other bureaus in patroling in forestalling domestic terrorist act.

Looking into the steps against the terrorist act in the universe. the battle has taken a figure of steps including passage of jurisprudence in order to control the threat. Many democratic states have developed the willingness to take serious and terrible steps against the lifting menace of international terrorist act. The 9/11 incident in United States among other major onslaughts throughout the Earth has proved that the menace of terrorist act is existent and authoritiess can no longer afford to disregard it. Key anti-terrorism statute law in Britain and the United States were enacted from the events of 9/11 to the present. The two states have been on the bow forepart in the war against international terrorist act. The legal tolls and steps that are taken by the two states can be of great aid to other states and aid in contending terrorist act efficaciously without unnecessarily compromising human rights ( Brysk et al. 80 ) .

Developments in anti-terrorism statute law in the United States after 9/11

After the 9/11 terrorist onslaughts. the state ( United States ) adopted strict instruments to conflict terrorist act by go throughing and ordaining fresh statute law every bit good as amending the bing 1s. Congress passed the chief act of statute law against terrorist act. the US Patriot Act. on October 26. This across-the-board act of statute law mostly revised tonss of bing American Torahs to allow the US security agency to take insidious steps. in seeking. surveillance. apprehension. and gaining control of assets and its riddance. which had antecedently been denied as they compromised human rights and basic freedoms. For case. Section 412 of the US Patriot Act revised the Immigration and Nationality Act. and in bend added a proviso on the parturiency of suspected terrorists. This amendment to the act empowered the Attorney General in US to order an apprehension for aliens when there is a sensible footing linking them to be involved in terrorist act or other activities that may present danger to the country’s national security. Initially. the lawyer general was merely given an allowance of seven yearss to make up one’s mind whether to behave the suspect or condemnable steps should be taken against the detainee other he ( detainee had to be released from detainment ) . Nevertheless. the new-fangled proviso permits the administrative detainment of an person. even in instances where their exile from the US does non emerge impending. for a period of 6 months at a clip if the ( AG ) Attorney General thinks the discharge of that individual would endanger the country’s security. public safety or the safety of any person. It is of import to observe that as of today that proviso of the jurisprudence has non been used to confine suspected terrorists ( Wilson. 33 ) .

More to the point on the US Patriot Act. the American Administration besides responded by ordaining new statute law which gave manner to detainment of legion Al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants in Afghanistan leting their tribunal for war offenses. On November 13. 2001. United States President issued an order. giving mandate to the apprehension of affiliates of Al-Qaeda and everyone who took portion in. gave safety to. helped. or schemed to perpetrate Acts of the Apostless of world-wide terrorist act. every bit good as their prosecution in particular military courts created for that intent. Based on this order. the United States detained 100s of persons throughout the combat in Afghanistan ( Wilson. 78 ) . The huge bulk of them were Taliban combatants and members of Al-Qaeda. These prisoners were behind closed doors taken to a U. S. Navy parturiency installation in Guantanamo Bay. Cuba. and detained there for an limitless period. without judicial reappraisal and without the possibility of meeting and confer withing a attorney. The acceptance of the legion steps to control the spread of terrorist act in the universe by the US bureaus was extremely active after the 9/11 incident in the state. This was during the government of President Bush who moved fleetly to ordain the policies and authorise the bureaus responsible for compensating and protecting the Americans against the terrorist onslaughts. The security bureaus underwent extremist alterations whereby they were empowered.

The response to the September onslaught in United States was for illustration responded by the acceptance of a war paradigm for what the disposal of President George W. Bush called the “war on panic. ” Under this theoretical account. the United States sought to short-circuit condemnable jurisprudence and human rights precautions for alleged terrorists by asseverating that it was in a planetary armed struggle with al Qaeda and affiliated groups ; that such Torahs were unsuitable ; and that if any jurisprudence applied to counterterrorism attempts. it was the Torahs of war for gaining control. detainment. and onslaught. Under the Obama disposal. both the rhetoric and pattern have changed—the illegality of anguish is recognized. as are other human rights protections—yet US counterterrorism actions. such as targeted violent deaths outside of clear war zones. remain based on this war paradigm.

The counter terrorist act and human rights undertaking develops international jurisprudence statements and tools in response to the United States patterns in controling the terrorist act activities. which goes against or negatively affects human rights. Through the policies that were passed after the incident in September 9/11. there has been a call to construct webs that facilitates educational preparation every bit good as advancing coordination among protagonism groups. However. the legion patterns such as fishy detainment. has been a hinderance to the development of human rights patterns and development of lawful theories and helpful case in points based on planetary jurisprudence through work on choice judicial proceeding before U. S. tribunals. in international and local forum. and through other advocacy undertakings.

As it is the instance with the fact that terrorist/terrorism has direct impact to human rights. the same instance is seen when counterterrorism steps are taken into history. and as such. states has an duty in taking effectual counterterrorism steps. However. despite the magnitude and complexness of the challenges confronting states in the battle against terrorist act. international human rights jurisprudence is seen as a flexible adequate channel which can turn to the challenges efficaciously. Effective counterterrorism steps and the protection of human rights are complementary and reciprocally reenforcing aims. which in bend must be pursued together as portion of a state in protecting the citizens.

Impact of the New Paradigm on International Human Rights Law ( steps ) in relation to Terrorism Act 2000

There is small dissension that human rights criterions have been disregarded as legal restraints under the ‘new paradigm. ’ The UN has expressed a consistent place that ‘all steps to counter terrorist act must be in rigorous conformance with international jurisprudence. including international human rights and human-centered jurisprudence criterions. ’126 The UN. meeting at the degree of Heads of States or Government on the juncture of the 2005 Summit. recognized ‘that international cooperation to contend terrorist act must be conducted in conformance with international jurisprudence. including the Charter and relevant international conventions and protocols ( Fenwick. 56 ) . States must guarantee that any steps taken to battle terrorist act comply with their duties under international jurisprudence. in peculiar human rights jurisprudence. refugee jurisprudence and international human-centered jurisprudence. ’127 It should besides be noted that the UN Commission on Human Rights has mandated both an independent expert on the protection of human rights and cardinal freedoms while countering terrorist act. 128 and a Particular Rapporteur on the publicity and protection of human rights and cardinal freedoms while countering terrorist act. 129 The human rights system allows for restrictions and disparagements. peculiarly those provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( Gearty. 61 ) .

When viewed as a whole. the post-9/11 Torahs represent a unsafe enlargement of authorities powers in footings of look intoing. confining. collaring and prosecution of persons at the disbursal of due procedure. public transparence and judicial inadvertence. The Torahs in bend virtues for close attending. non merely many of them violates the human rights of the suspects. but besides because they have been used any a times to smother peaceable political dissent or else mark given political. societal or cultural groups. Many of the Torahs in counter terrorist act contains alterations to the procedural regulations which are meant to guarantee the justness system gives a due procedure which jeopardizes basic human rights and a warrant to fair test ( Foot. 98 ) .

Some alterations enhance the ability of jurisprudence enforcement functionaries to move without the mandate of a justice or any other external authorization. Others grant authorising power to prosecuting officers. or other members of the executive subdivision. who may hold a peculiar interest in the result of constabulary probes. These procedural alterations non merely increase the likeliness of rights misdemeanors. including anguish and maltreatment. but besides decrease the likeliness that those responsible will be discovered and punished ( Bonner. 45 ) .

Decision

Despite the geographical distance every bit good as different fortunes that led to United States and Britain to move and go through the anti-terrorism statute law. there are some similarities between them. In United States the act adopted gave the security bureaus wide powers in the name of war on panic. This was through the invasive steps such as supervising. detainment. surveillance and ictus among many other actions. The detainment pattern of suspected terrorist was extremely regarded as misdemeanor of human rights. Terrorism is existent. It can non be ignored. It will non merely travel off. Any reasonable response requires anti-terrorist Torahs that are wide and far-reaching. This creates its ain dangers. Such Torahs can gnaw the really democratic freedoms that they are designed to protect.

It’s clear that the 9/11 for was a altering incident in the battle against terrorist act in the state every bit good as the whole Earth. Government attempts to control terrorist acts are frequently prevailing with human rights maltreatment. Traveling from the Bush government to the current Obama regime. the empowering of security bureaus has been the in thing in the battle against terrorist act. In drumhead. the United States actions in post-9/11 counterterrorism Torahs and patterns including the assorted wars which were waged under the streamer of contending panic have widely been faced with disapprobation for the manner they have serious misdemeanor of human rights. Arbitrary detainment. improper killing. anguish. invasive surveillance and desolation of economic and wellness substructure are some of the many documented effects of the counterterrorism attempt.

Mentions

Benedek. Wolfgang. Anti-terrorist Measures and Human Rights: [ colloqium Organized in

Vienna on 30-31 October 2002 ] . Leiden [ u. a. : Nijhoff. 2004. Print.

Bonner. David. “Counter-Terrorism And European Human Rights Since 9/11: The United

Kingdom Experience. ” European Public Law 19. 1 ( 2013 ) : 97-128. Business Source Complete. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Brysk. Alison. and Gershon Shafir. National Insecurity and Human Rights: Democracies Debate

Counterterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2007. Print.

Counter-terrorism Policy and Human Rights ( 16th Report ) : Annual Renewal of Control

Orders Legislation 2010: Ninth Report of Session 2009-10: Report. Together with Formal Minutes and Written Evidence. London: Stationery Office. 2010. Print.

Fenwick. Helen. “Preventive Anti-Terrorist Schemes In The UK And ECHR: Control Orders.

Tpims And The Role Of Technology. ”International Review Of Law. Computers & A ; Technology 25. 3 ( 2011 ) : 129-141. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Fenwick. Helen. “Proactive Counter-Terrorist Schemes In Conflict With Human

Rights. ” International Review Of Law. Computers & A ; Technology 22. 3 ( 2008 ) : 259-270. Business Source Complete. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Foot. Rosemary. “The United Nations. Counter Terrorism. And Human Rights: Institutional

Adaptation And Embedded Ideas. ”Human Rights Quarterly 29. 2 ( 2007 ) : 489-514. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Gearty. Conor. “11 September 2001. Counter-Terrorism. And The Human Rights Act. ” Journal

Of Law & A ; Society 32. 1 ( 2005 ) : 18-33. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Whittaker. David J. Counter-terrorism and Human Rights. Harlow. England: Longman. 2009.

Print.

Wilson. Richard. Human Rights in the ‘war on Terror’ . New York: Cambridge University Press.

2005. Print.

Beginning papers