In liberal democracies, most political acts are indeed legal, yet some instead decide on another way of influencing political decisions. Terrorism, is a seemly violent method intravenously employed by marginal groups to gain the focus of others on their case. Dyck defines terrorism as “the threat or use of violence, usually directed at civilian populations, in order to create some form of political change” (Dyck 401). The acts of terrorism that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 are a powerful mementoes of how some choose to engage in violence in order to make a political statement. The renown 9/11 perfectly demonstrates how international terrorism acts as a catalyst for regime change. When developing these changes, the core debate is how much can one's rights be sacrificed in order to protect themselves from terrorism. While suspending these rights make the fight on terrorism easier, it comes with a high democratic toll. In recent years, new body-scanners have been implemented at many airports which are in violation of one's rights and freedoms. Anti-terrorism tactics have been exlimplying how the government has gone too far in the fight against terrorism.
In the past 20 years, over one-half of the impoverished countries in this world have endured armed conflict, associated with appalling breaches of human rights. These incidents have been a catalyst for the acknowledgement of terrorism as a global concern (Dyck 260). Yet at times, it remains to be heard that “one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter” (Dyck 402). This shows the adversity of finding a consensus definition of terrorism. The United Nations continues to classify events as terrorists activities such as hijacking planes but does not ac...
... middle of paper ...
...an to change societal procedures. The aftermath of the 9/11 attack has led to the government attempting to change anti-terrorism policy procedures. Body-scanners have been becoming more apparent in airports in order to protect civilians from harmful threats that could arise in the aircraft. Yet, the American government is justifying invasions in other countries as anti-terrorism measures and loosing respect from other governing nations.
Works Cited
Boyd, N. (2011). Canadian law: an introduction. (5 ed., pp. 105-116). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson
Education Ltd.
Dyck, R. (2012). Studying politics: An introduction to political science. (IV ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson.
Mironenko, O. (2011). Body scanners versus privacy and data protection. Elsevier, 232-244.
Pankhurst, R. (2011). The legacy of 9/11: A decade of denial and destruction. Political Theology
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
However, evidence from previous events prove that the government is still incapable of preventing such incidents from happening. Concerning the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Washington Post asserts that there was “much technological overreach, yet counterterrorism officials still couldn’t do basic police work and catch the Boston bombers” (Dowd). Not only does this disprove the opposition’s claim, it also strengthens the fact that surveillance is not beneficial for the United States. While others may believe that government surveillance helps society in becoming a safer place, the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that surveillance has proven itself to have no critical use in matters of the country’s
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
“One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter (Barash 2014: 174).” This one statement explains every war to ever be fought and also the delicate subject of terrorism. The line between who is the bad guy and the good guy will always be difficult to draw because everyone fights for a different reason. In this same sense every “terrorist” has his or her own story. Rarely can one blaring reason can be found to explain why attacks happen. Every soldier has a different reason for fighting, no matter what side of the front they are on. The same is true of terrorists. People the Western world may hold up as a hero the Eastern may condemn as the worst kind of terrorist, we know the opposite is true. Many people the West proclaim to be terrorists
During the 21st Century acts of domestic and international terrorism have significantly increased. Thus the international community of nations has the challenge to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime. The challenge at present is for the international community of nations to adopt a common approach to the treatment of terrorism as an international crime (Lawless, 2008). In fact, terrorism is an international crime it requires the international community to act in the prevention of terrorism and the sanction of individuals perpetrating acts of terrorism(Lawless, 2008). The September 2011 attack on the United States has presented an opportunity for the internationalist forces to come to the forefront of the global political agenda. ...
What is “terrorism”? Terrorism is a hotly contested term that is subjected to the reader’s political alignments. Most readers can agree that “terrorism” is a form of political action through violence that seeks to instill fear into a population, but defining “terrorism” becomes more complicated when being applied to groups and organizations. Lisa Stampnitzky’s “Can Terrorism Be Defined?” addresses this issue by drawing three important questions from the difficulty of defining “terrorism”: first, who is the enemy? Second, when is violence legitimate? Third, what is political? These three questions are instrumental in understanding terrorism while also understanding why certain groups are labeled terrorists and why others are not. This bias of
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Zarakol, A. (2011). What makes terrorism modern? terrorism, legitimacy, and the international system. Review of International Studies, 37(5), 2311-2336. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510001518
Defining terrorism has remained a highly contentious terrain with even International organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations finding it extremely difficult to build and develop a consensus upon .But different scholars have attempted to define this concept:
The quest to establish a universal definition of terrorism is entangled in questions of law, history, philosophy, morality, and religion by nature, a subjective one that eludes large-scale consensus. Terrorism is defined differently by different countries, nations and even department’s federal or state law enforcement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (NIJ).
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
In early 1974, the Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, invited the Palestinian Liberation Organization to attend the General Assembly gathering on November 13, 1974, and in doing so gave legitimacy to the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a governing body. In Yasser Arafat’s speech to the General Assembly, he thanked the United Nations for recognizing his organization and its legitimacy. When Arafat addressed the General Assembly, he made the argument that the actions taken by his government were not acts of terrorism, but these were acts of revolution and their purpose was to regain control of Palestine’s occupied original territory. The problem we confront is, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism and the international community should be able to come up with one. The major hurdle in defining is the states’ ideas of what terrorism is.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.