How to Preclude Terrorism, Research Paper Example

Abstract

The present paper examines the imperfect US terrorism prevention system that poses a threat to the country’s democratic status. There is much evidence that limitation of human fundamental freedoms (namely, individual privacy, freedom of speech and movement) is a side effect of the current US counter-terrorism policy. Through the analysis of the reasons of the US severe counter-terrorism policy and its anti-democratic aspects, one may reveal how terrorism prevention may customize Americans’ freedoms. The evaluation of recommendations and examples of existing democratic counter-terrorism policies help to offer an optimal democratic anti-terrorism policy. Such practices as the implementation of the Congress oversight, the elaboration of democratic methods in counter-terrorism, decrease of federal surveillance, governmental transparency, and intelligence dissemination are offered as effective.

Introduction

Terrorism is believed to be one of the non-eradicated diseases of the modern society, and should be treated as a global problem. The USA is one of the countries that fights with terrorism, and takes corresponding measures to stop future terrorist attacks. The events of September 11, 2001, when the Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the strategically important sites (namely, the World Trade Center, Pentagon, etc.), clearly demonstrated that the national government and corresponding counter-terrorist organizations were not ready for this aggressive and offensive act against the whole nation (Lygutas, 2009). For this reason, the US counter-terrorism system started transforming; the government and law enforcement agencies established an improved counter-terrorism policy. In general, since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the counter-terrorism preventive measures have become an essential course of the US national security strategy.

However, the application of the US counter-terrorism national policy is often associated with violation of the civil and human rights stated in the legislative documents of the country. According to the contemporary approach, such policy undermines the principles of non-discrimination, and compromises freedoms and fundamental rights of the nation (Hocking, 2007). Dye, Schubert, and Zeigler (2011) mentioned that the counter-terrorism policy implemented after the terrorist attacks of 2001 gave the authorities an opportunity to make the terrorism prevention activities severer, which greatly limited the fundamental freedoms and rights (namely, the right for privacy, free movement, and freedom of speech) of American citizens.

When the tough counter-terrorism policy was implemented, Americans immediately felt the negative changes. For example, communication confidentiality was infringed, the immigrant policy and passport control in relation to the Muslims on the streets became more rigorous, and the citizens suffered from lack of privacy; however, the list of limitations can be continued (Dye et al., 2011). Hence, the implemented severe terrorism prevention system revealed its side effects such as the violation of the fundamental democratic freedoms set in the US legal documents. For this reason, counter-terrorism in the context of the US democracy has become a dilemma that may raise legislative, ethical, and other issues. Moreover, it has transformed into an ambiguous phenomenon that demonstrates an evident conflict between the US counter-terrorism policy and the norms suggested by the country’s democratic status.

The present paper is dedicated to the identification of the optimal ways in which the anti-terrorism policies can be implemented without compromising the rights and reedoms of Americans. In addition, the paper aims to reveal the contradiction caused by the implementation of the severe terrorism prevention policy in the US democratic environment. The following assumption serves as a starting point for this paper: counter-terrorism policy really compromises the freedoms of the nation (Hocking, 2007). Hence, the research question aims at finding the effective ways to prevent terrorists’ attacks without compromising the freedoms on which the USA relies to have a desired quality of life. In order to achieve the purpose of the paper, one should understand the crucial aspects of the problem of aligning the combat against terrorism without the loss of human privacy. Certain aspects of the problem should be examined in detail, such as the need for the effective US terrorism prevention policy, human freedoms and rights that can be compromised by the existing policy, and the optimal approach to the counter-terrorism system that fits the country’s democratic status. The analysis of the mentioned aspects will give a key to the in-depth understanding of the research problem.

The Need for Effective Terrorism Prevention in the USA

The existing US terrorism prevention policy is a result of legislative transformations that happened after the threatening terrorist attacks of Al-Qaeda in 2001. As Lygutas (2009) stated, the events of September 11, 2001 “showed that the counter-terrorism system of the USA was ineffective” (p. 145). Hence, the corresponding changes were necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks, namely the enactment of corresponding laws, changes in the national information systems, reorganization of the governmental bureaucracy, improvement of the security strategy, switching from the domestic to the global prevention of terrorism, etc. Since that day, the USA has become a driving international force in counter-terrorism (Lygutas, 2009).

Lygutas (2009) mentioned that all national mechanisms and policies should undergo continuous improvement to meet existing legislative, political, economical, and social demands; the case of the US counter-terrorism system is not an exception. The events of 2001 clearly demonstrated the flaws and weaknesses of the counter-terrorism national system; the US Government decided to improve it by providing more rigorous control of the US and non-US citizens. One of the essential components of the democratic freedoms, privacy, was infringed (Dye et al., 2011).

In general, the effective terrorism prevention in the US context has a problematic nature, since the active counter-terrorism national policy violates civil liberties and fundamental human rights of Americans and other nations. The adoption and implementation of “anti-terrorism laws” obviously limits the national freedoms stated in the legislative documents (Whitaker, 2007, p. 1017). For example, the so-called “democratization” of the Third World (considered by Bush’s administration and the US Government as a preventive measure against future terrorist attacks) is one of the processes that accompany the US counter-terrorism policy, and cause a negative reaction of other ethnic groups and nations (Whitaker, 2007, p. 1017). The Third World countries experience the side effects of the mentioned US policy in their own way. As Whitaker (2007) noted,

“In some countries the adoption of anti-terrorism laws has provided leaders with the tools they need to silence critics and punish political opponents. In others the introduction of such bills has actually encouraged debate and fostered civil society activism, much of it anti-American in tone” (p. 1017).

Hence, strengthening of the US foreign policy in terms of international security along with almost aggressive promotion of democracy in other countries has a potential to create a negative attitude of the global community to the United States in general. The global expansion and imposition of the US democracy in the Third World countries can be considered one of the ambiguous anti-terrorism measures, since this policy has two sides. On the one hand, the national government sees the instrument of eliminate future possible terrorist attacks in the democratization; on the other hand, aggressive imposition of democracy leads to disappointment of the locals and violation of civil rights and freedoms of in developing countries (Whitaker, 2007).

It is obvious that goals of promoting democracy and fighting terrorism are related. To a certain extent, these two phenomena complement each other, since both are caused by extremism rooted in “frustrations associated with a lack of political freedom”; however, the goals of fighting terrorism and promoting democracy are at odds (Whitaker, 2007, p. 1017). The case of the US policy in the Third World countries suggests that there is an urgent need for the effective terrorism prevention policy that will not compromise individual privacy, free movement, communication confidentiality, etc. (Dye et al., 2011).

The US form of government, representative democracy, is based on the democratic pillars (such as the rule of law and responsible government, for example) that provide non-negotiable fundamental rights and freedoms that cannot be compromised in any case. Since the USA is a democratic country, its counter-terrorism policy instruments should be democratic as well. Undoubtedly, the US Government should reconsider its preventive policy to avoid undesirable consequences (a new war, terrorist attacks, ruined reputation, broken international relationships, etc.), and should recognize the sophistry of “balance”, following the example of the United Nations (Hocking, 2007, p. 149). Hocking (2007) revealed the essence of the balanced counter-terrorism policy,

“effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing ones. The defense of human rights is essential to the fulfillment of all aspects of a global counter-terrorism strategy” (p. 149).

The idea of the balanced policy suggests that the interests of national security should not be privileged over national rights. The US should establish the effective terrorism prevention policy that will not ruin the democratic pillars of the nation (Lygutas, 2009). The positive transformation will confirm the democratic status of the USA, and will positively influence the world community’s perceptions about Americans as the effective anti-terrorism protectors and active defenders of human rights and freedoms.

Human Freedoms and Rights Compromised by Counter-Terrorism Measures

It is easy to prove that the US terrorism prevention violates the national fundamental rights. There are several factors that may confirm this piece of evidence. First, the significant legal documents (such as the US Constitution, the Declaration of independence, etc.) guarantee the democratic status of the country and juridically verify the implementation of democratic principles and values. For example, the US Constitution of the USA does not allow the country to act against its democratic status and norms. According to the US Constitution, freedoms of people are guaranteed and protected by the law. The US Constitution suggests that the country and its citizens are provided with security, freedoms, and other fundamental rights; in addition, they “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” (The Constitution of the United States, 1787, preamble). Such core democratic values as a rule of law, individual rights, freedom of religion, etc. are constitutional principles that must be followed by the US power and the population (The Constitution of the United States, 1787).

Dye et al. (2011) suggested that taking into consideration all democratic freedoms and fundamental rights stated in the significant legal documents obliges the US Government and corresponding organizations to follow all democratic norms. The authors underlined that the democratic government should envision “a citizenry commitment to core values – liberty and equality, freedom of speech and the press, tolerance of diversity, property rights, and due process of law” (Dye et al., 2011, p. 79). In addition, the democratic status makes the authorities and the whole nation follow the fundamental beliefs in the individual’s right to life and liberty (namely, personal, political, and economic liberties), common good, justice, patriotism, etc. (Dye et al., 2011). Hence, the second factor suggests that the democratic status of the US suggests that the country manifests the same democratic principles and values in relation to other nations. In this context, the US counter-terrorism policy presupposes the radical and intrusive acts on the territory of the developing countries, that in its turn has a huge potential to compromise their democratic freedoms and norms.

Since the greatest security threat to the USA is terrorism, the Government believes that the war on terrorism is an effective method of terrorism prevention. The war on terrorism was greatly enhanced after the terrorist attacks of 2001 that caused deaths and destruction. However, as Dye et al. (2011) stated, “the current ‘war on terrorism’ was inspired by foreign terrorists rather than by domestic mass activism” (p. 101). The fear of further attacks made the US Government adopt various repressive measures, and even the use of torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists became justified. Hence, the third factor provides with the idea that the strengthening of the national counter-terrorism policy and enactment of corresponding laws compromise the freedoms stated in the US laws and Constitution (Dye et al., 2011).

After the events of 2001, a controversial law was enacted to strengthen the US counter-terrorism policy. Whitaker (2007) noted that the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (signed in October) was a response to the terrorist attacks. The act dramatically limited the freedoms of the American public, and expanded law enforcement powers. Correspondingly, domestic and border security measures against terrorism along with surveillance procedures were enhanced. Naturally, since that time, the attitude to the US immigrants has become more captious to prevent possible terrorism-related acts usually made by foreigners, and attention to counter-terrorism policy in foreign countries has increased (Whitaker, 2007). After the enactment of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the US pressure in relation to developing countries has become evident, since the US Government required the enactment of corresponding laws by other countries.

The coexistence of the US counter-terrorism and national democratic norms has become an unresolved dilemma of XXI century. Whitaker (2007) noted, “the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation in the context of democratization poses significant challenges” (p. 1026). Violation of people’s freedoms and rights in the developing countries, where democracy was artificially imposed, should be considered one of the side effects of the US counter-terrorism policy that views democratization as an effective anti-terrorism measure. According to Matz (2008), the USA Patriot Act of 2001 jeopardized civil liberties. The enactment of the law strengthened surveillance procedures that were implemented to the US and non-US citizens. The major controversy of this law is that the act allowed the governmental organizations to monitor all domestic communications via the Internet, and to collect, and they can elicit private information without permission or without informing its holders (Matz, 2008).

Dye et al. noted that the current level of trust in the national government is decreased Although since September 11 of 2001 many US adults volunteered to serve their country and support the military actions in the hotspots, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, mass response to the counter-terrorism policy has become negative (Dye et al., 2011). Growing US citizens’ distrust in the government can be easily explained. When a new counter-terrorism policy was implemented after the terrorists’ attacks of 2001, the national intelligence services became intruding in private lives of the citizens. For example, the organization called Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) (a global clearinghouse) was established to control all financial transactions and to rigorously monitor money flow. Actually, the SWIFT was actively engaged in capturing the Al-Qaeda mastermind of the 2002 terrorists’ attacks (in Indonesia), since the fact that the global terrorism depends on financial transactions was widely known for the US Government. However, the US citizens faced the side effects of the functioning of the SWIFT: limitations, severe transaction policy, and impossibility to make private money transactions were some of undesirable consequences (Dye et al., 2011).

Another intelligent service that violated privacy of Americans was ECHELON, the global signals intelligence network. This network allows the US and other countries to monitor most global communications, including, fax, e-mail, phone, that travel by telephone networks, satellite transmission, and microwave links. According to the data of 2005,

“after holding the information for a year at the administrator’s request on national security grounds, the New York Times reported that President bush had authorized the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls to track possible terrorist communications” (as stated in Dye et al., 2011, p. 362).

Hence, the established counter-terrorism policy by the US Government compromises the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Americans. This way, “the irony of democracy” becomes more evident, since the national government (represented by the elites) disempowers the country’s citizens and does not act in their interests for the sake of security; in its turn, this behavior shatters the democratic foundations of which the US is proud (Dye et al., 2011, p. 1). Probably, the current unsatisfactory quality of life of the majority of the US citizens is explained by the expansion of the unfair terrorism prevention policy that guarantees national security at the expense of people’s privacy and freedoms (Hocking, 2007).

The Optimal Approach to Design a Counter-Terrorism Policy

Taking into account all information stated above, one may clearly see that the existing US counter-terrorism policy evidently violates the freedoms of Americans (Dye et al., 2011). Hence, the policy needs to be improved to present a democratic approach to terrorism prevention that would align the US citizens’ interests and freedoms with national security goals. One of the ways for the US Government to implement an optimal approach to the democratic counter-terrorism policy is either to improve the current terrorism prevention system or to follow the successful examples of other countries. Probably, the combined approach to the solution of the problem is the most appropriate one.

According to Joffé (2008) and Oikarinen (2012), the EU may provide a valuable example of the democratic response to the global terrorism. The tragic events of 2001, when the US national security system was posed to threat, made the EU react in its own way. The EU Member States decided to align democratic and counter-terrorism goals. The EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 2005 sought to accommodate human rights and security concerns. According to the strategy stances, the EU countries are obliged

“1) to combat terrorism globally while respecting human rights, and make Europe safer, allowing its citizens to live in an area of freedom, security and justice, and 2) to pursue the EU goals in a democratic and accountable way” (Oikarinen, 2012, p. 958).

In general, the European democratization policy is quite successful in comparison with the US democracy promotion and expansion. The protection of human rights and freedoms has always been notable in the EU countries (Joffé, 2008). The two mentioned obligations of the EU in the implementation of its democratic terrorism prevention strategy seem to be appropriate for the US as well. Moreover, the necessity of the democratic approach to the counter-terrorism policy was publicly expressed by the US politicians. In 2005, Condoleezza Rice claimed that the country needed another course, since “for 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the middle East – and we achieved neither” (Joffé, 2008, p. 160). This statement proves that for several years after the events of 2001, the US has paid attention to the democratization of other countries for the sake of the national security, but at the expense of domestic democratic policy. In this context, following the EU example, the US Government should pay more attention to the internal democratic processes in the country, provide the American citizens with a high quality of life based on the “area of freedom, security and justice”, and pursue terrorism prevention policy in a democratic way (Oikarinen, 2012, p. 958).

The mentioned EU strategy can be practically realized through the parliamentary oversight. The normative framework within the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 2005 presents the implementation of the following principles. First, parliamentary oversight of the terrorism prevention policy should be motivated by the democratic legitimacy. Second, the ultimate legitimacy and authority involved in counter-terrorism in democratic countries should be derived from legislative and constitutional approval of their powers, expenditure, and operations by the parliament. Third, the parliamentary oversight mechanisms should strengthen the public legitimacy of these agencies as the democratic actors (Oikarinen, 2012). However, the parliamentary oversight is beneficial not only because of the implementation of the mentioned principles. Other advantages include increasing expertise and public awareness of democratic counter-terrorism policies resulting in an improved decision-making system; enhancing the critical public debate on basic national policies; decreasing the governmental “partisan policies”, misunderstanding, and misinformation; contribution to the effectiveness and clarity of governmental mandates, etc. (Oikarinen, 2012, p. 1078).

In the US environment, the “parliamentary” oversight mechanisms in the provision of democratic counter-terrorism policy can be replaced by the Congress oversight system (Oikarinen, 2012, p. 936). The US Congress should take responsibility for providing a reasonable terrorism prevention policy with genuinely democratic legitimacy and practical methods. For example, the improvement of decision-making and problem-solving systems in all national intelligent resources (namely, informational agencies and organizations) and development of effective interrogation techniques and a legal advice system to prevent possible terrorists’ attacks in a democratic way are some of possible practices potentially helpful in expanding US citizens’ rights and freedoms. They can be easily implemented and controlled by the national Congress (House of Lords, House of Commons, and Joint Committee on Human rights, 2010).

The report made by House of Lords, House of Commons, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (2010) suggest other democratic methods for the reformation of the counter-terrorism policy. Since there can be no justification for the use of torture in a democratic country, the US should refuse from this inhumane and violent method of the information extraction. Then, publication of a detailed report on previous national counter-terrorism practices and official recognition of inappropriateness of anti-democratic terrorism preventive measures may return to the US Government public trust and citizens’ respect. As one may see in the report, “in order to learn lessons for the future, as well as to ensure proper accountability for past wrongs where appropriate, it is essential that the earlier guidance be published” (House of lords et al., 2010, p. 18). Hence, refusal from inhumane and anti-democratic measures, and establishment of trust-based relationships between the US population and authorities are necessary for the implementation of an improved terrorism prevention policy.

With a new democratic anti-terrorist policy, the US Government (including the national Congress as its bright representative) should ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the country’s citizens are not threatened, whether it is the right to privacy, right to freedom of association, or freedom of movement. For example, the Canadian Government found a balance between human freedoms and national security in the liberalization of its existing terrorism prevention policy. Today, the country has a transparent counter-terrorism mechanism, increased individual privacy, and a high level of terrorism-related information availability (Heymann, 2004). Thus, governmental transparency, absence of severe domestic surveillance, and a non-intrusive policy in relation to the citizens can be beneficial practices for the USA as well.

Heymann (2004) noted that the principal challenge for the USA today is not to prevent terrorism, but to do it in a way more consistent with democratic values, beliefs, rights, and freedoms. According to the author, one of the most democratic ways to prevent terrorism without violation of human freedoms is to increase intelligence and its accountability. Appropriate use of such invaluable human asset as intelligence does not customize fundamental freedoms; knowledge expression is encouraged by the freedom of speech that can become an effective instrument for terrorism prevention. The USA Government and corresponding agencies can be actively involved, for example, in terrorism-related knowledge dissemination across the country (namely, publication of different research and scholarly materials) and foundation of intelligent R&D organizations that investigate the effective democratic ways to prevent terrorism (Heymann, 2004). The development of “war on terrorism” ideology leads to anti-democratic measures and violation of human freedoms. In the 21^st century, knowledge and human intelligence should become the main weapons of a democratic society (Heymann, 2004, p. 27).

Preservation of personal privacy in cyberspace should become one of the principal tasks of the new democratic counter-terrorism policy. To accomplish this task, the US Government and corresponding agencies should decrease the level of federal electronic surveillance, provide the Internet users with more privacy, and protect the most sensitive business information from cyber terrorists. In this context, the development of the IT sphere along with advancement of current computer technologies seems to be reasonable and vital (Hocking, 2007).

In general, the elaboration of the effective democratic counter-terrorism framework is an exceptionally challenging task for the US Government. Numerous measures in the existing counter-terrorism policy should be taken at all levels (political, legislative, economical, social, etc.) in order Americans take advantage of their lawful fundamental freedoms (privacy, freedom of movement, speech, etc.). Probably, the examples of the UN Member States and Canada, along with valuable recommendations derived from different sources (books, articles, governmental reports) will help the US to reconsider the existing terrorism prevention mechanism, and to focus on the restoration of the national democracy designing an improved policy. Struggle against terrorism and domestic democratization should be harmoniously combined in the single national security strategy for the sake of the Americans’ freedoms, rights, and privacy.

Conclusions

All information stated above proves that the American aggressive struggle with global terrorism and severe counter-terrorism policy implemented after the Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks of 2001 have caused negative side effects on the social life of the US citizens and residents. Violation of human fundamental freedoms set in the US Constitution and other essential legal documents has become a negative consequence of the rigorous terrorism prevention policy. This phenomenon clearly demonstrates that the more national security measures are taken, the fewer freedoms the country’s citizens have. Restrictions in civil liberties (namely, freedom of speech, movement, transactions, etc.), personal privacy, immigration policy, aggressive promotion of democracy in developing countries, and other aspects put the democratic status of the USA into question.

During a five-year period after the destructive terrorists’ attacks, the US and non-US citizens have been facing an extremely severe governmental policy that intruded in all aspects of their life. Strengthening of immigration policy, passport control, electronic surveillance, violation of interpersonal communications confidentiality, and intrusion into financial transactions were some of the negative displays of the unfair and anti-democratic policy in relation to Americans on behalf of their government. This way, the US Government increased the national security at the expense of the democratic freedoms of the citizens. Only five years ago, the US politicians officially recognized the inappropriateness of their counter-terrorism measures that limit the nation in its human and civil rights.

The existing terrorism prevention system can be improved by combining several effective ways to prevent terrorism without compromising Americans’ freedoms. One of the optimal methods (provided by the EU) suggests the implementation of the Congress oversight expressed in control over compliance with people’s fundamental freedoms during counter-terrorism procedures, and enhancement of alignment of terrorism prevention goals with democratic ones aimed to provide the US citizens with the environment of freedom, justice, and security. In addition, implementation of democratic methods of the struggle with terrorism (such as humane techniques of information extraction, legal advice, etc.), the policy of non-intrusion into individual autonomy, the improvement of cyber security, intelligence dissemination, and enhancement of governmental transparency are other effective methods that will help to maintain democratic pillars in the environment of active struggle against terrorism.

References

Dye, T. R., Schubert, L., & Zeigler, H. (2011). The Irony of Democracy: an Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (15^th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Heymann, P. B. (2004). Terrorism, Freedom, and Security: Winning Without War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hocking, J. (2007). Counter-Terrorism and the Post-Democratic State. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

House of Lords, House of Commons, and Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010). Counter–terrorism policy and human rights: bringing human rights back in. Report prepared for the session. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf

Jarvis, L., & Lister, M. (2010). Stakeholder security: the new western way of counter-terrorism? Contemporary Politics, 16(2), 173-188.

Joffé, G. (2008). The European Union, democracy and counter-terrorism in the Maghreb. Journal of Nippon Medical School, 46(1), 147-171.

Lygutas, A. (2009). Human rights in the context of counter-terrorism measures: United States of America. Jurisprudencija, 3(117), 145-161.

Matz, C. (2008). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act: values in conflict. Journal of library Administration, 47(3/4), 69-87.

Oikarinen, J. (2012). Parliamentary oversight of counter-terrorism policies. In de A. S. Fras, de A.M. Salinas, K. Samuel, & N. White (Eds.), Counter-Terrorism: International Law and Practice (pp. 936-1078). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

The Constitution of the United States. (1987). The official Senate Web-site. Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Whitaker, B.E. (2007). Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the ‘war on terror’ in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 28(5), 1017-1032.