U.S. Government's Methods of Dealing with People Suspected of Terrorist Involvement
The concern of the United States with regards to terror and terrorists activities began way before the 9/11 terrorist incidents. There was the World Trade Center bombings in the 1990s and several attacks on U.S. citizens outside the U.S. Terror and terrorist incidents became a focal point in U.S. government policies immediately preceding the disasters of September 11, 2001. In a sudden change of stance, the government "took off its gloves" and dealt with terrorists in a manner they (the terrorists) understand well - with iron fists!Many citizens hailed the government's efforts stating, "It was high time the terrorists are given a dose of their own medicine!" Others cried "foul" and began reminding the government of human rights, due process and freedom of expression. Suddenly, civil liberties were curtailed in the name of protecting the citizenry from the effects of terrorism. The two opposing fronts are at odds with each other giving viable arguments and stating each of their cases - for and against the U'S government's methods of dealing with people suspected of terrorist involvement.One of the first acts of the government in the aftermath of 9/11 is the approval and implementation of the Patriot Act of 2001 or fully known a
residents or visitors must undergo identification procedures, then so be it because only those who have something to hide or want to do dastardly deeds should really be afraid of this procedure. response to terrorism, a lot of government agencies were transferred to the DHS therefore forming a "one-stop" anti-terrorist shop. This is not to say that human rights should be totally thrown out the window but rather commensurate amount of force and will should face the terror suspects in order to show the terrorist groups that the U. government with regards to people (suspects) involved in terrorist activities are justifiable. Aside from ratifying the Patriot Act, House Resolution 2005 also took effect and stood up the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose major mandate is to prevent terrorist attacks within and reduce the vulnerability to terrorism of the United States. is still a democracy and despite the heavy-handedness of the new policies, suspected terrorists still have and will always have the law to protect them. Had the British government not used extra-ordinary surveillance and investigative measures, they wouldn't have caught the suspected terrorists and these perpetrators would have been successful at exploding U. No matter what the civil libertarians say, the acts of the U. (DHS, 2004)" The new security measures gives the signal to everyone that vigilance and stricter enforcement of security rules are in place, and that this time the United States is serious in abating and responding to terrorist threats. Different times calls for different measures therefore the actions of the U. In spite of the sweeping reforms in the judicial process, citizens should not be too harsh in criticizing the government's effort because the "threats are real" and if the so-called due process of gathering evidence is followed, it might be too late. -bound planes using liquid explosives.
Common topics in this essay:
System DHS,
Trade Center,
Kingdom British,
Terrorism Act,
NRP December,
United DHS,
Security DHS,
,
House Resolution,
Patriot Act,
dhs 2004,
prevent preempt disrupt,
suspected terrorists,
terrorist threats,
law enforcement,
act 2001,
acts government,
terrorist attacks,
patriot act,
response plan,
due process,
|
Acceptance Essays
