Counterterrorism, Term Paper Example

President Bush’ Military Order titled Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Agaist Terrorism was issued shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The order applies to non-citizens who are for some reason believed to be members of al-Qaida or be in any way involved in the activities against the citizens and national security of the United States as well as to those  who “knowingly harbored” such individuals. These people are eligible for detention. Some conditions that must be provided to the detained such as “adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment” and freedom of religious practices as well as general humane treatment are mentioned, but the Secretary of Defense is given a free hand in deciding on any other necessary conditions. The detained will be tried by military commission and sentenced thereafter if found guilty by at least two-thirds of the members of military commission.

A number of reasons can be traced behind the imprisonment of so-called “enemy combatants” in what judging by the system of incarceration and the treatment of prisoners appears to be a concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay. First of all, after 9/11 attack and the declaration of the war on terrorism the Bush administration needed actions desperately to show the Americans whose feeling of security was shattered that all possible measures are taken to protect them. This eagerness resulted in arresting a huge number of people who were obviously unrelated to the al-Qaida and were detained just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Moreover, a failure to catch Osama bin Laden quickly was being compensated emotionally by arresting an army of his supporters, unfortunately too often fictitious. Still, people who were confessed or very likely terrorists and could be a source of valuable information on al-Qaida were also arrested and needed to be kept in complete isolation until the information is obtained via interrogations. In addition, incarceration appeared to the administration as a trusted and traditional method since it was central in the presumably successful war on crime. The administration just stuck to what was familiar. Strangely, Guantanamo detainees never acquired the status of prisoners of war. One reason for it could be financial concerns (government’s daily expenditure on the incarceration of a prisoner of war is to be 75 Swiss francs under Geneva convention). Another reason, however, can be the fact that, if the Bush administration had acknowledged the detainees as prisoners of war, it would have to abide by the international rules governing the treatment of such prisoner. It might well be that the Bush administration preferred its own will to the law and wanted to create a precedent.

Torture in general is illegal on the territory of the United States. First of all, it is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (a part of Bill of Rights). It is additionally prohibited by Chapter 113c of Title 18 of the United States Code where torture is defined as enduring physical or mental harm inflicted under the color of law. Also, the United States participates in the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed by the President Ronald Reagan in 1988. However, Military Commissions Act signed by George W. Bush in 2006 give certain protection to US government employees inflicting mental or physical abuse on “enemy combatants”. The Act was specially designed for justification of the “war on terrorism” practices. Section 6 of this Act changed the definition of a war crime which previously meant any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and came to mean only “grave breaches”. Undoubtedly, this law gave US government employees a freer hand in using various methods of interrogation and applying sentences based on testimony obtained from badly abused people.

Steven Emerson, a courageous independent investigator of domestic Islamist organizations who cooperates with U.S. security services but is not afraid to break apart and go beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. Together with his think tank, the Investigate Project on Terrorism, established in 1995 or alone he has disclosed a number of terrorist groups and individuals often shelters buy religious charity organizations. Emerson’s attention has been focused on such organizations since 1994 and he often implies that they took part in nurturing the attacks of September 11 which could have been prevented if measures had been taken when first alarming signs appeared.

On November 8, 2005 he testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee the fact of funding of an extensive network of charity and religious organizations on the part of Saudi Arabia. The problem was that the organizations in question were linked to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas.

Emerson points out that many leading Muslim groups are engaged in raising funds for more obviously radical organizations in the East. They arrange a network of non-profit, tax-deductible organizations in the United States which at different stages can be responsible for fundraising, recruitment and even designing acts of terrorism. The organizations tend to lure American Muslims with often badly needed education, food, and health care thus making them dependent and susceptible to Islamist propaganda. Additionally, they imply that by cooperating with them a Muslim has a chance to pay zakat, which is an important religious duty. Zakat, although completely legal and moral for a Muslim in itself, often goes straight to the funds of jihadist groups. Religious practices successfully disguise terrorist ones. When approached by U.S. security services, such organizations are quick to claim they suffer oppression of their religious activity and deter security services by likewise blames.

The most illustrative example of terrorist activity merged with social is Hamas which is responsible for establishing the most elaborate network of Islamist groups around the United States. Established in 1981, the Islamic Association of Palestine appeared to be the main front of Hamas in the United States. The IAP initiated active Islamist propaganda at its annual conferences.

Still, the identification of terrorist financing is likely to appear extremely challenging. There are two main financial institutions that can help detect terrorist funding. They are Know Your Customer (KYC) and Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR). Both are greatly relied upon by the FBI. But to effectively detect and gather substantial evidence for shutting down a terrorist funding organization the United States need alertness of all the financial institutions nationwide. No bank is safe from being involved in illegitimate transfer of funds for terrorists. Moreover, the United States need unanimous cooperation of the European Union since the moment terrorists find their monetary paths obstructed in the United States they turn to fundraising on the European territory. When proved to be involved in logistical or financial support of terrorism, domestic organizations should be shut down under Executive Order 13224 issued by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001 and Executive Order on Terrorist Financing: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism as well as under the USA Patriot Act.

It is even less easy to deal with organizations which provide only moral support of terrorism since jihad is a religious movement and delicate balance should be stricken to eliminate terrorism propaganda and not be accused of breaching the democratic principle of freedom of conscience. These constraints prevent the United States from having a free hand at shutting down many radical Muslim organizations. Till now organizations like Taliban have unlimited access to the radio and other sources, which partially accounts for the fact that the United States cannot win the war of ideas with extremists.

The USA Patriot Act removed the constraints from intelligence officers in sharing information with law enforcement institutions. The measure proved highly effective and enabled a disclosure of a great number of terrorist plans, organizations and individuals. The USA Patriot Act empowered law enforcement and intelligence workers to unite their efforts, which is especially beneficial since terrorist activity is often connected with criminal such as spreading of illicit drugs and it is much easier to build evidence working in cooperation. Additionally, the USA Patriot Act dropped the “primary purpose” requirement which used to oblige courts to weigh “foreign intelligence” purposes against “law enforcement” ones and again obstructing information exchange.

The USA Patriot Act also elaborated on some previously existing criminal laws to make them more concrete and effective. One of the examples is the clarification of the term “material support to terrorism” due to which the term came to embrace “expert advice and assistance” as well as direct financing. The USA Patriot Act also facilitated prosecuting individuals and organizations offering financing to terrorists by raising the responsibility for awareness of “applicable state licensing requirement” and claiming the funding of any criminal activity illegitimate. The Act also strengthened control over all sums exceeding $10,000 being transported out or in the United States and imposed reporting requirements on transferors. Under the Act, all property and assets associated with terrorist or criminal activity became eligible for forfeiture. Legislation concerning the use and development of biological weapons was made more powerful and detailed claiming any possession of biological agents or toxins illegal if not justifiable by a peaceful purpose.

The USA Patriot Act gave more power in combating cyber-terrorism by introducing a severe penalty of five to 20 years in prison for an intended damage to a federally protected computer. It also broadened the scope of the notion of federal computer system abuse.

The Act also imposed a universal legislation protecting means of transportations from attacks.

The USA Patriot Act also dealt successfully with a number of legal obstacles which would not allow an effective investigation and combating of terrorist and criminal activity. For example, instead of losing time petitioning for search warrants while investigating the same case, law enforcement officials were given multiple out-of-district search warrants to be applied in terrorism cases. This had a two-pronged benefit of rapidly securing evidence and detecting hoaxes before they bring about the intended panic.

Under the Act, FISA received a right to conduct physical searches and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and their agents without having to renew its authority each 45 days losing precious time.

The Justice Department and other agencies can now enjoy the cooperation that they never had previously. The jurisdiction of the Secret Service and FBI was extended to include investigation of computer fraud which may include espionage and revealing of secret national defense data.

The Department was also enabled to create DNA databases of individuals associated with terrorist activities to for use of law enforcement and immigration officials. A system of rewards was introduced to encourage cooperation with law enforcement in terrorism cases. The USA patriot Act also opened up the information about criminals detained from educational institutions to the major law enforcement system. Previously this information was not be revealed. This measure is intended to trace terrorist bounds with educational institutions.

Finally, the USA patriot Act armed American law enforcement with latest technology enabling access to all forms of digital communication. It also allowed third parties such as telecommunications companies and Internet service providers to disclose important information associated with criminal or terrorist activity to the law enforcement without the risk of prosecution on the part of customers.

I find the USA patriot Act quite controversial and only justified by the war time. In fact, it gives increased power to the FBI, and where there is power, there is always a temptation to misuse it. This is especially relevant to the right listen to private communication on the phone or via the Internet. We should bear in mind that the state’s control over and monitoring of private lives is the first feature of totalitarian regime. Whenever the power becomes unlimited, one has to be extremely watchful of those in charge in terms of how well-intentioned and decent they are. Unfortunately, the sole example of Guantanamo prison proves that American officials find it possible to ignore human rights and behave inhumanely. Still, the global threat of terrorism is as far as ever from being eliminated and the success of the USA patriot Act in many cases of preventing the acts of terrorism for the time being justifies its existence.

The problem of domestic anti-Americanism is really burning nowadays. Anti-Americanism at home takes many forms from the opposition to the methods used in “the war on terrorism” to a monstrous justification of September 11 attacks voiced, for example, by an American Ward Churchill who called the victims “little Eichmanns”. Gerard Baker in his article “The US is a great place to be anti-American” points out that the most violent examples of anti-Americanism occur within the United States and due to the fact that the United States allow its citizens to exercise freedom of speech. Multinational as it is, America is boiling with destructive criticism from all points of view including absolutely extremist ones. I am no advocate of the absence of political competition, but anti-Americanism in its modern form can be turn into a serious weakness of the country which is unaffordable at the war time.

People and organizations providing encouragement to extremism should be answerable for their words even if they are not directly engaged in terrorist activity. They must be charged with a hate crime at least in the form of verbal abuse under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Still, prosecution practices of the United States in their turn invite criticism. They cannot be the only remedy. The war on terror is largely a war of words and ideas. We cannot oppose extremism solely with punishment. We have to win more supporters to our ideology by being steadfast in it and discouraging accusations of hypocrisy by keeping our promises both nation- and worldwide.

The USA patriot Act proved effective in a great number of cases concerning the prevention of acts of terrorism. Suffice it to look at the examples included in Report from the Field: USA patriot Act at Work (2004) to see that the Act is doing its job. It has ruined the “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement and enabled them to cooperate in combating interconnected terrorist and criminal activities. The provisions of the Act whereby the families of the victims of the acts of terrorism are to receive financial support from the government are only fair. It has also eliminated some red tape which used to stifle investigations and empowered law enforcement with new capabilities in fighting the war on terror.

The main drawback of the USA patriot Act is the control it gives to the government over citizens of the United States or anyone finding him/herself on its territory as well as Americans abroad and the sense of totalitarian regime which came along with this control. It seems absolutely inappropriate for the United States as a prophet of democracy worldwide to resort to such undemocratic measures. Their benefit for the prevention of terrorism may appear not so significant when weighed against the increasing level of domestic anti-Americanism and its grave consequences. The Americans felt increasingly insecure not only because they felt the threat of terrorist attacks but also because they were afraid to be persecuted by their own government on the basis of their private talks overheard or the list of books they take in the library monitored as a semi-public document.

If I were in the Congress, however, I would vote for the USA patriot Act because this is not the right time to sacrifice any security measures that we have been able to impose. Still, I would vote for more humane forms of interrogation in prisons and abolishing the status of “enemy combatants” unrecognized in international legislation. If the United States positions itself as a fighter against the dark and violent world of terrorism, it should have a clean record not only in the eyes of international publicity but also for the sake of its national conscience. History offers numerous examples of the ends justifying the means and infallibly being compromised by them.

References

Crank, J. and Gregor, P. (2005). Counterterrorism After 9/11: Justice, Security, Ethics Reconsidered. LexisNexis.

Pundicity. Informed Opionion & Review. Steven Emerson’s Blog. Retrieved June 8, 2010 from http://www.steveemerson.com/blog/

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report from the Field: The USA PATRIOT Act at Work. Retrieved June 8, 2010 from http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/patriot_report_from_the_field0704.pdf

Baker, G. (2007). The US Is a Great Place to Be Anti-American. Retrieved June 8, 2010 from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article2689746.ece