English Composition Unit 3 IP, Essay Example

Abstract

In order to protect our nation’s security further legislature should consider revamping the system which would still allow terrorists the same rights as law abiding citizens but would add some restrictions to their access to evidence and security clearance issues such as attorneys with such access. This revamping would still allow due process but give additional protection to our law abiding citizens by eliminating loopholes that are often used to protect violent and terroristic criminals. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was legislated to ensure that all accused of crimes are given access to fair trial without deprivation of civil liberties, property and liberties. Included in these rights are access to an attorney and rights to a fair and speedy trial through means of habeas corpus. However in contrast, the law abiding citizens have the right to be protected from criminals and terroristic acts. The safety of the community is a priority for law enforcement and the judicial to consider at all times. The military currently controls the detention of accused terroristic acts yet Congress would like to control these issues through legislation. It would seem more practical to have a combined militia and legislative process in force for the ultimate protection of the citizens of our nation. Through the use of conventions and legislation that allow ‘discretionary powers’ of the government and militia to act in times of suspected terrorist activity is the key to having a very strong policy against terroristic activity.

Essay

“Under the Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001 screening of passengers and their property prior to boarding a passenger aircraft requires as per section 103 military presence at airports where threat of terrorism is suspected.” (“Terrorism Law and Policy”).  Section 104 of the act prefers hiring members that have previous military or security experience. Further section 107 requires all employees to undergo a mandated background screening prior to employment. Section 121 of the act makes the availability of funds to impose threat assessments of vehicles parked within 300 feet of the airport. This Act was imposed following the terroristic attack on the twin towers of 9/11 to further prohibit the entrance of terrorist into our country.

There has been an increase of police cooperation after the attack on London. Terrorism has no boundaries. The information that is presented with regards to terroristic attack must be made available to all government officials in order to prevent such attacks in the future. A cooperation of United Nation forces must work together exchanging information on a daily basis rather than when mandated or necessary. “Terrorism is the enemy of democracy and Europe needs to realize this with full eyes open.” (“Freedom, Security and Justice”).  Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany know very well of extremist attacks on their democracy status. Radical extremist attacks cannot be tolerated. Countries of the European Union thought that they could not be touched with terroristic threat but soon learned through the attack on London that they could be attacked at anytime. Economic and political factors are all influences of terrorism. It is the responsibility of the military and government to educate the young people of Europe of the threat of terrorism and its effects so that they do not fall to the demise of influence from terrorism peer pressure. The causes of the violence must be addressed to prevent the actual physical act of violence.

Civilians and law makers often view the legal rights of terrorists as being totally wrong for the security of our country. “If terrorists decide they want to blow up your children whilst they are at school they still have legal rights and they will certainly have even more rights if Congress has their way.” (Carafano, 2007).  Giving terrorists rights to challenge their illegal detention through means of habeas corpus will open the doors to terrorists ploughing over our country. There is with good reason that civil law has not governed over the military law of this country thus far. Giving terrorist habeas corpus right would in fact put our soldiers and civilians in discriminating positions especially in conditions where alleged terrorists intentionally violate the set rules our country has laid down to prevent such terroristic activity. “The current legal framework allows U.S. armed forces to do their job without hampering military effectiveness or flouting standards of international law. Congress shouldn’t undermine their ability to detain unlawful combatants and, if appropriate, try them for war crimes.” (Carafano, 2007).  The Military Commissions Act of 2006 repealed the statutory privilege right of terrorists to habeas corpus and to date there has been no further attempt to overturn that act. “Simply put, there’s no reason to grant our enemies access to our civil rights even as they’re trying to kill us — any way they can.” (Carafano, 2007).

In the so-called case of the dirty bomber Jose Padilla it was stated by critics that the “federal courts are fully capable of dealing with terroristic cases.” (Farmer, 2008). Further the Padilla prosecution “reveals that the main domestic weapon is the struggle that continued reliance on the criminal justice system leaves our nation unprotected and corrupts the very essence of the criminal law itself” (Farmer, 2008). The main reason why the criminal justice system is not totally effective in situations of terrorism is that the main purpose of the system is to punish the criminal conduct that has already occurred rather than to prevent the actual illegal conduct from the beginning.  In a contrasting view “Professor Peter Margulies of the Roger Williams University law school perceptively told The New York Times after Padilla’s conviction, the way the statute is being interpreted “basically allows someone to be found guilty for something that is one step away from a thought crime.” (Farmer, 2008). Another situation of infringement of right is where the government set up Lakhini in United States v. Lakhani to procure shoulder head missiles and submarines. It was determined after almost two years that Lakhini could not deliver the merchandise so the government arranged to be the supplier hence committing an inducement for the defendant to commit the crime. Lakhini was found guilty even so and sentenced to 47 years in prison. The basis was that they pose a risk to our national security. The government’s holding of Padilla for over five years without formally charging him or allowing him access to counsel was unprincipled in nature. “Scotland Yard took that risk when it put surveillance on, but failed to detain, the future London subway bombers.” (Farmer, 2008).

Anti-prevention tactics should be used in aide to prevent terroristic attacks. That certainly does not mean we will never have to fear the threat of unprecedented attacks but can help to eliminate some attacks. In order to reduce the pressure of foreign terroristic attack our government “should minimize it’s presence of interference in other governments affairs.” (Browne, 2001). Many citizens believe that we should stay out of foreign battles because most of the time our boys shed blood for no precedent matter. Further our government should not aide foreign governments by giving monetary aid to support their means. The aggressors should be targeted rather than the innocent. This can be accomplished by assassinating the leader rather than simply moving in with full military force. With hope this will provide our nation with a strong protection against attack. (Browne, 2001).

References

Freedom, Security and Justice (2006) Retrieved October 12, 2009 from, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/terrorism/fsj_terrorism_intro_en.htm

Terrorism Law and Policy (2003) Retrieved October 12, 2009 from, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/terrorism3.htm

Carafano, J. (2007) Rights are Wrong:  Dealing with Terrorists Retrieved October 12, 2009 from, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed071307a.cfm

Farmer, J. (2008) The Wrong Weapon Against Terrorism Retrieved October 23, 2009 from, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/opinion/13iht-edfarmer.1.9171995.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Browne, H., 2001 Preventing Future Terrorism Retrieved October 23, 2009 from, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne8.html