America’s Safety Net, Essay Example

Terrorism is the use of violence and threats to force or intimidate somebody or a group of people to do another’s wish. It is currently a global problem because very many terror groups have cropped up and are doing acts of terrorism all over the world. “The threat of terrorism against the US citizens and property both at home and abroad is an issue of growing national concern….” Richard Davis, the Director, National Security Analysis. Davies said these words in a report released by the National Security and Internal Affairs Division on September 26, 1997.  With this in mind the national federal agency to combat terrorism was formed, and it had three main objectives. To prevent and deter terrorism, to respond to terrorist threats or incidences and to manage the consequences of a terrorist act involving weapons of mass destruction. In 1995, the president signed a central blueprint for the US counterterrorism strategy (GAO, 1997). This was the origin of the rejuvenation of the US policy on terrorism and this strategy consisted of three elements: reducing vulnerability and prevent terrorist acts before the take place, respond to terrorist acts which have occurred by managing crises and arresting and punishing the perpetrators and finally manage the consequences of terrorist attacks.

The United States Policy to combat terrorism had been enacted in the early 1970s though it came into full force in 1986 when the Reagan government issued the National Security Decision Directive. At this time, there was much terrorism abroad rather than within. Eventually, when the Presidential Decision Directive was signed in 1995, an elaborate national policy was formulated with the aim of protecting the citizens within and abroad from terrorism.

Even though there is still no single comprehensive federal law dealing with terrorism, the congress had passed a series of laws dealing with different aspects of terrorism. The laws that were passed by the congress were basically to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to book. The implementation of this policy is a mandate of the intelligence, policy making law enforcement, defence and the regulatory agencies. The presidential Decision Directive signed in 1995 directs the federal agencies to ensure that all the citizens and properties under their jurisdiction are protected against terrorism (Country Report,2004).

There have been many relating to the effectiveness of the policy on terrorism. This is because there are no common criteria for measuring its success. For success to be achieved against terrorism there has to be some measurable factors and for that reason, it is not possible to tell whether there has been success or not. This is coupled with the fact that it was assumed that some progress had been made, only to be thwarted by the September 2001, blasts at the world trade centre. The other problem is how to measure the impact of the side effects of a terror attack. Structural and environmental factors also should be evaluated, and since terrorism is a process, it is very difficult to measure these (GAO, 1997).

There is rising concern on how the federal government handles the issue of terrorism.  The first being lack of clarity on the legislative standards to be applied in the process of assessing terrorism threats. The government goes through a painstaking process of convincing the congress of the significance and reliability of the threats. This allows the legislators and the judges to make their own decision of whether the government is correct or not.  Secondly, “there are human rights law which makes ample provision for strong counter- terrorist actions even in the most obvious circumstances….” Koffi Annan, the former UN Secretary General. Protecting people from terrorism and at the same time upholding human rights and the rule of law is a complicated process. This controversy became evident when the government decided to use the drone abroad to kill the Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. More than half the population of the US disapproved this action. Some 26 members of the House of Representatives have even written to the US president asking for legal justification of those actions. Therefore implementing the anti-terror policy is a big challenge in so far as the constitution is concerned. This concludes that the federal policy on counterterrorism and the constitutional framework are at loggerheads and the lawmakers must therefore come up with clear cut laws whish deal with specific aspects of terrorism, otherwise most of the actions taken to counter terrorism will elicit serious debate giving demeaning the whole policy(Wert, and Habeas, 2011).

The Habeas corpus may be a big blow on the policy since it states that the privilege of legal action shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. This gives the right to federal judges to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government within the country from custody subject to certain limitations; this could include the arrested terrorists. To confirm this, the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 led to an increase in the number of habeas corpus cases filled by the state prisoners. Booker decision also led to increase in the number of habeas corpuspetitions filled in 2005 by the Supreme Court.(Wert, and Habeas, 2011).

References

Country Reports on Terrorism. (2004)Retrieved: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/img/assets/4475/Country_Report_Terrorism_31727.pdf]

Kofi Annan.(2005, March).A Global Strategy for Fighting Terrorism. Keynote Address to the Closing Plenary of the International Summit on ‘Democracy, Terrorism and Security. Madrid

United States GAO. (1997, Sept). Report to Congressional Requesters. Combating Terrorism- Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Implement National Policy and Strategy. Washington DC

Wert, and Habeas.(2011). Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights. University Press of Kansas