| |
| War On Terror |
| The Patriot Act and The Affects of Global Issue |
| |
| Matthew Lichtenstein |
| 5/15/10 |
| Term paper on the United States of American’s War on Terror and the harm it has cause not only the US’s image but has hurt people worldwide. |
Matthew Lichtenstein
Professor Felipe De Brigard
4/27/10
The War on Terror:
The War on Terrorism is a term created by former President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks on the United States, it is a term that has brought great criticism towards the United States in the manner that they have handled the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan from both the outside the United States and from the citizens within. The War on Terrorism is not just United States issue but it is a global issue that affects all countries even if they are not physically involved in the fighting. The Patriot Act has hurt this country and it’s citizens more than it has helped fight the war on terror.
The Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) the act of that was put into place one month after the horrific attacks on our world trade center on September 11th 2001. The reason behind the act is to prevent terrorist acts like this to ever occur on US soil again. The Patriot Act stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Many Americans have come out and said that Patriot Act has violated their right to privacy and has invaded on their basic rights as US citizens. The Patriot Act has done nothing of the sort in fact. Instead it has tightened our boarders, stopped acts of terror in the sky, and has improved the safety of US citizens in a post 9/11 era. The Act has had its greatest impact in these four areas since it was put in place, it has enhanced the federal government’s capacity to share intelligence; it has strengthened our criminal laws against terrorist and terrorism, it has removed obstacles investigating terrorism and has updated the law reflect the new technologies used by terrorist today. The Department of Justice has used these improvements in the law to better combat terrorism and continues to work to enhance the coordination, information sharing, and other investigative efforts the USA PATRIOT Act has made possible.
The Patriot Act has enabled governmental agencies the capabilities to communicate with each other, and made investigation and surveillance into illegal activities less cumbersome for our agencies. The USA PATRIOT Act equips federal law enforcement and other intelligence officials with the necessary resources to have an effective and coordinated campaign against this nation’s terrorist enemies. The Act has simplified and has gotten rid of the counterproductive legal restraints that have impaired our law enforcement’s ability to gather, analyze, and share critical terrorism-related information and intelligence. As of May 5th 2004 there have been 310 arrests made due to the Act, 179 of those arrests had already led to convictions by May 5th 2004. Through the Act the Justice Department and other intelligence agencies have made the United States a safer place for all US citizens because of the Act.
The Act has also created more resources for families that have been affected by terrorist attacks, families that lost members of their families in 9/11 lost millions dollars that their families had potential to earn. The Act now is able to help those families in need, and a family suffering doesn’t have to come both physically and emotionally anymore because the Act has given people financial security. It has also developed financial funding to help restore the businesses that are also affected by terrorism; besides insurance the Act is a security blanket for businesses in the United States.
Although many people have because of the invasion of privacy power the Act has and the belief that it has given too much power to government agencies, people have criticized it saying it has hurt more citizens then have helped. The counter argument is that if you are an everyday law abiding citizen then the average American citizen should have nothing to hide from our government. It is just a preventive measure against citizens who are doing illegal activities to support terrorism around the world The only thing that the US Government is doing is protecting the freedom and the real rights of the US citizens. If your neighbor or co-worker is sending information to terrorist groups or they are sending financial contribution to anti American, terrorist organizations wouldn’t you want the US agencies to step in and monitor their emails and their financial accounts to protect you and your family. The right to privacy is something we Americans hold true to our hearts but we are not have nothing to be concerned with then Americans should really be concerned with the war on terror in the US.
The countries that are allies with the US have urged the US to have more precaution and more concern for the well being of others, and the citizens of the US have cried out against the War on Terrorism and what it has put the troops through. Although President Obama has not used the phrase outright he has stated that this country is at war with a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”[1] Obama with sending in more troops into Afghanistan is standing by the War on Terrorism even if the outside world doesn’t think he should. The British Government has been our strongest supporter on the “War on Terrorism”. Although many countries have told the US to not send troops into Iraq because there was no actual proof after the UN had sent in a team to find the “weapons of mass destruction”, the United Kingdom still supported the US’s decision to enter Iraq. This being said the British don’t believe in the “War on Terrorism” altogether. The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom, Ken McDonald said, “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement”[2] Even our most trusted allies don’t defend our notion on the “War on Terrorism”, the rest of the world and especially the Middle East must see this as American policing and the isolation of the United States and our power from the rest of the world.
From the onset of this new defined war by President Bush he had his objectives clearly stated. He wanted to “Defeat terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and destroy their organizations, identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations, defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad and Implement the National Strategy for Homeland Security”[3] The objectives seem reasonable because they are foremost in protecting the citizens of the United States, and to rid the world of two the most radical terrorism leaders in the world, which most of the world agrees is a necessary good.[4] What has occurred though starting with the Bush Administration and now has carried on through President Obama’s first year is that the leaders of the world have criticized the US and its policies. For example, the French’s opposition to the war in Iraq which fell under the “War on Terrorism” because President Bush was convinced that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together. After the United Nations passed a resolution saying the US could not invade Iraq, the British and US pushed again for another resolution to allow them to, but France and German delegates from two of the US strongest allies stood ground and gain support from multiple nations in the fact that US had no right to invade Iraq. Even members of the British Government spoke out against the invasions of Iraq especially Robin Cook former member of Parliament and served in the Cabinet as the Foreign Secretary stated that, “Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.”[5] Cook foreshadowed the future which has divided the European Union even more and has created thousands of soldier’s lives, Germany and France still have not sent troops into Iraq and nor will they and the opposition to the US has grown stronger the longer we are in Iraq and the more troops are lost. With such opposition to the war, Bush and his British ally pushed on and invaded Iraq, which not only had a negative effect on US relationship with many countries, but there were many officials and citizens in the United States that were angered by the lack of evidence Bush should before he sent troops overseas again.
The Oxford Research Group has put out information saying that the “War on Terrorism” or the “War on Terror” has been counterproductive to the efforts of actually ending terrorism in the world. They say not only has the United States isolated itself from the rest of the world it has now made terrorist attacks more likely on US soil as well as the this war has created more material from Al Qaeda and other organizations to recruit young men. The Oxford Research Group states, “Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 9/11. ...Far from winning the 'war on terror', the second George W. Bush administration is maintaining policies that are not curbing paramilitary movements and are actually increasing violent anti-Americanism.”[6]
To the critics of the war on terror, US citizens today feel safer due to the fact the Act was put into place and although US has made many enemies abroad, the governments main concern is at home and home land security. The Act has brought out both good and ugly in people, but the belief in the US today is it is safer than it has ever been. The war on terror has hurt people abroad and the US image for many people but the Act has made our lives a better place due to the security measures put in place. Al Qaeda will always be a threat to United States if countries do not help us with our fight against them, US can not afford to do it alone, but the Patriot Act will help secure the US boarders for the time being.
Citations:
"BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Cook's resignation speech." BBC NEWS | News Front Page. Web. 25 Sun. 2010.
"Patriot Act Report." Department of Justice. Department of Justice. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.
Oxford Research Group. Web. 25 Jan. 2010.
"President Obama Inauguration Speech Transcript - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more - ABC News. Sun. 25 April. 2010.
"President Bush Releases National Strategy for Combating Terrorism." Welcome to the White House. Sun. 25 April. 2010.
"There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP - Times Online." Business News, Market and Financial News | Times Online Business. Sun. 25 April. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment