Constitutional Matters Arising when Dealing with Foreign Hostilities - Term Paper Example

Constitutional matters arising when dealing with foreign hostilities (Enter (Enter Constitutional Matters Arising when Dealing with Foreign Hostilities INTRODUCTION The terrorist attacks of 9/11 prompted the subsequent establishment of an Office of Homeland Security, and congressional approval of the Patriot Act. The move by the congress aimed at bolstering the counterterrorism efforts by the US Government. Although some measures received criticisms, such as the controversial Patriot Act of 2001, the measure enhanced ability of the federal government in collecting and analyzing private information that relate to the U.S citizens. Some observers had a feeling that the measure to conduct domestic spying infringed on the civil liberties, while proponents supported the approach taken by congress since it will help on uncovering as well as neutralizing terrorism plots. Various constitutional questions have been raised concerning the US Government’s role in balancing civil liberties while addressing foreign hostilities. The Government of United States of American has undertaken constructive steps in a bid to provide lasting security to the citizens, against foreign acts of terror (Howard, 1992).. However, some actions taken by the government are appropriate while others go too far. This essay is going to discuss Constitutional questions that may arise regarding the U. S. Governments role in balancing civil liberties with the threat of foreign hostilities. Moreover, constitutional context and court cases that rally behind 9/11 attacks will be considered in writing this essay. DISCUSSION There are a number of actions that should be undertaken by the US Government to guarantee security of the citizens. Following the 9/11 attacks against the US, there has been many suggestions on appropriate actions to be undertaken by the US Government to counter terror activities. For instance, there was creation of the homeland security department while the Congress enacted the Patriot Act. Among the favorable measures that should be given first hand priority in combating terrorism include enforcement of domestic spying, partisan works by US citizens, enhancement of military courts, go it alone defense doctrine, trans-border security, secure universal ICT infrastructure as well as Effective and efficient event management. The US president has been given power by the constitution to protect all citizens against national attack. Basing on constitutional acts like the “Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EC)”, warrants for wiretapping are issued (Mullikin & Rahman, 2010). The act allowed for domestic spying aimed at detecting unlawful activities that pose a threat to national security. The law only requires that the law enforcement agents need to have probable cause about a crime to be committed so that wiretap will enable reveal substantial evidence of the crime. Following enactment of the act, tall traceable devices and services like phone calls made by suspects as well as internet websites visited needs spying. Also, the Patriot Act supported domestic spying by the FBI through circumventing court process. In addition, the amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1998 allowed recording of both business records and phone numbers to aid in identifying criminal plots. The US citizens are encouraged to demonstrate partisan works in identifying as well as detecting all suspicious activities that jeopardize national security. US citizens are supposed to work hand in hand with law enforcement units concerned with countering terrorist acts against the nation. The request to have all US citizens participate in counterterrorism acts is supported by the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)” amendment undertaken in 1998 (Mullikin & Rahman, 2010). The law enabled eavesdropping on American citizens to gather intelligent information concerning acts of terrorism. Patriotic citizens are supposed to demonstrate their support to the government in fighting against terrorism by volunteering important information that can help in pinpointing and stopping terrorists. Constitutional acts have permitted citizens to work with law enforcement units like the Homeland Security in combating acts of terrorism. Other constitutional gains allowed the military to detain indefinitely anyone arrested on the American soil for having links with terrorism groups. All suspects of terror attacks are to be detained without trial and then shipped to Guantanamo Bay. Antiterrorism laws enacted during both president Bush and Obama provided a leeway for the military to detain any arrests on the American soil without necessarily conducting trial (Mullikin & Rahman, 2010). The individuals detained without trial are mostly connected with terror groups like Al-Qaida. This measure is important in ensuring that the US Government provides full security to the citizens against terror threats from Islamic terror groups. Opponents of the constitutional changes introducing new laws to deal with terrorism argued that some laws were draconian (Terrorism, 2006). Critics insisted that the law does not fare well with US citizens as it strips them their rights during fight against terrorism, which seem to have no end. The US constitution has given power to the president to act in accordance with the law so as to protect the nation against all acts of terror and attacks targeting the American people. Following 9/11 incidence, the US government prepared the go it alone defense doctrine. The doctrine allowed the US Government to go alone into war against any terror organization or any state threatening the security of the American people. The US government is not supposed to hesitate in responding to acts of terrorism that can jeopardize safety of the American people. The state is justified to act against terrorism so long as it is doing so in self defense. According to Go it alone Doctrine the US government is supposed to counter all forms of violent extremism, to deter as well as defeat all acts of aggression, to strengthen both national and regional securities and finally providing shape to future military. The US government is also supposed to ensure secure universal ICT infrastructure aimed at enhancing wide-ranging trans-border security. Incorporation of Universal ICT infrastructure in the security department is the surest way of promoting safety of the American citizens. Security departments, like the Homeland Security, should be empowered with the latest technology to enable them detect and counter all forms of violent extremism on the American soil. ALL border points of the US should be monitored by use of sophisticated ICT gadgets to enable identification of illegal immigrants as well as smuggling of weapons to the nation. Unless there is no smuggling of weapons and other equipments that can be used to compromise the security of the American people, the US government has to apply all the constitutional mandates it has in protecting the citizens. All events organized in the US should be well managed. Effective screening of the scene should be conducted as well as the people to ensure guarantee safety of the attendants. The Homeland Security should be informed about the event as well as requested to provide security, whenever the need arises. Since safety of the people should be guarded at all cost, most actions by the Government are appropriate while others go too far. For instance, government competence in dealing with terrorism attacks is appropriate to guarantee safety of the people. Following 9/11 attacks on the US, the all law enforcement units had to exercise their competence by remaining vigilant all the time. The competence of the government is demonstrated through effective collection of intelligent information concerning criminal activities (Schmidt. , Shelley & Bardes, 2009). After collecting intelligent information identifying terrorism threats, the government has to act swiftly by neutralizing terrorism threats before they occur. Basing on the constitutional Acts, all those individuals connected with either planning or aiding terrorists should be detained in the military courts as farther investigations take place. The situation should be dealt with accordingly to ensure that security and safety of the people is guaranteed. Basing on the social contract theory, the US government has got the duty to protect the entire country. The citizens have a constitutional right of protection against all forms of aggression that can threaten safety of their life. Property and liberty rights of all citizens need to be fully protected by the government against all activities that organized either in the US or from other countries. The US government has been given authority by the constitution to take all appropriate measures aimed at identifying and neutralizing terrorism activities. By accepting state governance, citizens surrendered their life and property to be taken care of by the government. Occurrence of terror activities, like 9/11 attack on the US; have forced the US Government to enact constitutional acts while amending others to counter terror activities against the US citizens. While fighting against terrorism, Core ethical values and officer behavior have been the building blocks in ensuring reliable safety and security of the citizens. Available ethics should ensure that police officers and the military fighting terror groups are well equipped to counter any acts of terrorism. For instance, there has been great achievement by Homeland Security department as a result of the police unit abiding by key ethical issues while using appropriate equipments in responding to terror threats. Collection of intelligent information to identify terrorists and acts of terror is being conducted in an ethical manner. However, there have been instances where activities by Homeland Security have been criticized by activists. The police have been accused of going too far in a bid to detect and neutralize terrorism. For instance, wiretapping has been opposed by many activists. The act of wiretapping as well as domestic spying infringe on the personal rights as enshrined in the bill of rights. By recording phone numbers, phone calls made and internet site visited by an individual infringes on the concerned person’s privacy. Although supported by constitutional acts, domestic spying and wiretapping goes too far to infringe on ones privacy. The issue of racial profiling while responding to terror threats has received many criticisms from rights activists. Police officers and the military are receiving constant criticisms due to their behavior of linking people of Asian origin with terrorism. Other complaints have been from American blacks. American blacks have complaint of police mistreatment due to their color. Although police officers have defended themselves by claiming that many black people exhibit aggression, constitutional rights of the black people have been infringed. The constitution promises equal treatment against the law, for every American citizen. There is no article that labels a given community as a threat to national security. Values, prejudices and attitudes that police officers demonstrate towards some races should conform to the stipulated procedures and standards of conducting surveillance as well as collection intelligent information. Police officers should be viewed in the right perspective to facilitate collaboration by the community in the fight against terrorism. Proper administrative process is key in ensuring safety of the US citizens against terrorist attacks. Administrative practices of the Homeland Security have to be conducted in a manner that allows police officers to detect and neutralize all possible terror activities. All administrative practices should, however, be conducted in accordance with constitutional acts detailing ways of dealing with terror activities. Although racial profiling is being discouraged when detecting and neutralizing terrorism, there has been a number of suspicion activities confirming existence of terror groups among Asian nations. Most of terrorist groups are not only recognized by some Asian nations but funded too. For instance following 9/11 attack on the US, there emerged evidence linking Iran with the attack. In The Havlish v. Iran case, Havlish lawyers collected and presented evidence linking Iran with the terrorist group of Hezbollah. Although there was substantial believe that Al-Qaida carried out the attack, the terrorist group has enjoyed enormous support from Hezbollah. Hezbollah had been provided material support to Al-Qaida, which can be believed to have aided the attack against the US. The American government had to trade carefully with any country supporting terror groups, who are capable of disrupting safety and security of the people. Another court case in connection with 9/11 attack on the US is the BBC court case. Mr. Tony Rooke’s had argued that World Trade Center came down as an act of controlled demolition thereby refusing to pay License fee, since BBC had not revealed the truth about 9/11 attacks. Although he presented his evidence of footage to the court, judges did not find a reasonable case in his evidence. He was therefore received conditional discharge of six months upon which he had to pay prosecution costs. The BBC court case demonstrates the seriousness regarding acts of terror. Although the attack happened in the US, foreign media as well as citizens were also concerned. The US government should not relent in the fight against terrorism. CONCLUSSION Finally, Terrorist attacks have to be stopped by the government at whatever cost. The government should give utmost importance to the citizens’ security. The government should take necessary actions, in accordance with the constitution, to safeguard the life and property of all citizens. Actions like competency on the governments side, law enforcers like police, racial profiling, privacy issues, administrative culture and core ethical values must be used effectively to curb terrorist acts in the country. Bibliography Arwen Mullikin and Syed (Shawon) M. Rahman.(2010). The ethical dilemma of the usa government wiretapping. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), Vol.2, No.4, 32-39 Howard, L. (1992). Terrorism: Roots, impact, responses. New York: Praeger. Schmidt, S. W., Shelley, M. C., &Bardes, B. A. (2009).American government and politics today, 2009-2010 edition. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Terrorism: Protection of witnesses and collaborators of justice. (2006). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Read More