The Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security

The Subcommittee on mold of feat of act of terrorism and Homeland surety do a report on Counterterrorism intelligence Capabilities and doing before the 9/11 attack. fit to this report, one of the reasons why this tragedy was non prevented was their little than satisfactory management of resources particularly teaching that could imbibe be utilise to fore strugglen about terrorist intentions. It was reported for example, that the FBI, Homeland Security and the other agencies had precise limited ability to watchlist terrorist suspects be score of their inadequate access to up-to-date data self-collected by the different agencies and resources.In addition, it was found out that the actions of the FBI were more to contendds the investigation of practicable terrorist attacks and less focus was placed on the saloon of much(prenominal). (Report of Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 2002). These features harmed the Intelligence Committees ability to previse doable threats of terrorism. Needless to say, foreknowledge of an attack is necessary for its prevention. This necessitates infiltrating communities specially those with signifi bathroomt Arab populations.Still, it is definitive to none that this percolation is not an act of discrimination sheerly an act creationd on the large(p) probability that those involved in terrorism would snuff it to such nationality. There is a greater probablility that sympathisers and birthers of terrorism would be yen to the members of the Islamic population than other populations of different religions. The situation demands that efforts neer go below borderline if the safety of the population is to be considered. notwithstanding if this infiltration has drawbacks. One, it sacrifices the populations self-sufficiency and privacy.Two, it creates exaggerated fear among the concourse especially if the infiltration is most obvious. To minimize the resultant fear among the commonwealth, i t is necessary that infiltration be done in the most discreet appearance potential. Clearly, barricading the corporation with FBIs would not be unused as this would not solely arrest alarm except would overly harmful to the intelligence we atomic number 18 assay to crumple. This demands the need for informants and hole-and-corner(a) agents in the said community, from the said community and in all parts of the community, including mosques.It is really important that informants who be to be move be selected among those already reinforcement in that population. These battalion are already knowledgeable about their community they know the important people pick out a personal concern over the safety of their community and would be more knowledgeable in finding important reading prone the right directions. This limits the cartridge clip and effort required for information gathering, focusing the officials efforts in the interpretation and analysis of data, which speeds the process of investigation.The result is a more efficient transmission of deeply analyzed information, which is in effect(p) now what is needed in the prevention of terrorism jibe to the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security (2002). But then, using informants, especially if these informants were selected from the resembling community involved would fee-tail precautions. The hazard here broods on the informants loyalty. Since the informant is selected from those already living in that population, it would be wise to assume that his loyalty is not utterly focused to state of fightds the progression of the organisations cause.The possibility that his loyalty would lie towards the side of a guilty individual or the investigated individual, who, like him belongs to the same community cannot be denied. Also it cannot be ascertained whether or not he is in league with the terrorists and is providing them with reports, or probably bound by the same nonsuchs complete ly against the governments. In using informants from the involved community, the in certification lies in the uncertainty of ones role who is pulling the set up and who is the marionette. To manage this danger requires the use of a trusted agent who is beyond the bounds of devotion instilled by community membership.This agent would act as the control, monitoring the local anesthetic informants actions and reporting each act that signals treachery. This way, it is possible to square up the reliability of the reports given, pin quest possible leak in intelligence and prepare information disseminated, to the advantage of the intelligence committee. Definitely, there is more to war morals than preventing needless deaths through terrorism, that is, the need to protect the people has made it to the point that the conversance and privacy of the people are sacrificed.Some convey of protecting the people such as expanded surveillance and seize and interrogate anyone (OConnor, 2006) i s in itself an act that would incise the peoples independence. Infiltrating the community with informants and agents, may also, in a way, harm communitys liberty and privacy but in a relatively less degree compared to other counterterrorism strategies. According to OConnor (2006), counterterrorism strategies involving technology and the use of informants are the most effective in terms of ensuring the peoples safety and at the same time limiting disadvantages in peoples liberty.In any case at this point, all actions aiming to go out people with their deserved safety entail a cost to the peoples civil liberty. 2. In any undertaking, it is very important to stick to the objective. This does not exclude counterterrorism, war against terrorism or any war for that field. The war against terrorism is not an end in itself but manifestly a delegacy to another end which are to protect the peoples rights to safety and to provide, in the long run, freedom. I intend to base my answers on t hese premises.All peoples in the act of terrorism or fighting against the i fills of counterterrorism with the intention of harm would be enemy combatants, without any distinction of citizenship, soldier or non-soldier. This is very different to the status accorded to different people involved in the war on terrorism today where they are classified as enemy combatant, un practice of lawful combatants, prisoners of war or noncombatant, each with different nourishment ideally based on International Standards. Whether or not a terrorist is a citizen of Afghanistan, or a citizen of the united States, anyone captured in the act of terrorist fury is considered a terrorist.Simply being an the Statesn does not excuse nighone from the penalisation accorded to crimes of terrorism and the only possible status, rights and shelter I could afford an American citizen in the act of terrorist madness is that of a criminal charged with terrorism. He will be interrogated, given a trial and puni shed according to law without dis pick up to his rights as human that is without the use of unnecessary twirl. A foreign national askd in terrorism in the United States would be treated in the same way, based on his actions and without regard to his nationality.There would be no more and no less harsh sermon given to a foreign national engaged in terrorism compared to an American counterpart. American national birth should not protect American-born terrorists or fail to protect naturalized citizens (Criticisms of the fight of Terrorism, 2006). In affording rights, status protection and punishment, giving such special considerations would be a question to the evaluator system and to the real intent and objective of this undertaking. Counterterrorism is not a point of nationality and citizenship.Counterterrorism is defending the peoples rights and freedom, a states sovereignty against people who overleap such ideals by instilling fear and uncertainty through violence. threefo ld standards should have no place in the barelyice system. If nationality and citizenship is to be considered, in deciding rights and punishment, then the efforts to realize the underlying goal which is the safety of the people would be for naught. This would not be counterterrorism but a war against a specific community. This can be applied in the case of the American Citizen who fights against American forces.Again, this is beyond the matter of citizenship. If the American citizen fights against the American forces, he is considered as a threat against the realization of the objectives of the war against terrorism, which is to protect the innocent citizens. The American forces would have no reason not to fight back. Torturing any of these subjects would never be dependableified in the context of only when war. I, personally would say that the torture of these subjects would not be necessary. Eliminating terrorism does not entail the necessity to torture any of the perpetrator s of terrorism.Elimination and torture may be analogous in a way that it would excite the wrath of the enemy but they are different in a way that elimination is on the nose what it isthat is, it is supposed to eliminate terrorism by eliminating its perpetrators possibly through reliance and application of nevertheless laws. Torture, on the other hand would only provoke the wrath of the enemy without the assurance of eliminating terrorism resulting in possible retaliation. Surely, the means of saving lives of peoples would not be limited on a torture or no torture system.Solving terrorism with terrorism is not only un dependable but also unwise. 3. Disregarding popular theories on yet war, let me say that a war that is bonny is a matter of perspective. To the leaders, all wars are just as long as it pass ons the ideals and settle they try to protect and achieve. To the US and maybe to some, the war against terrorism is just because its break up is supposedly to protect the lives, safety and liberty of innocent people against terror. To the leaders of the terrorists, they are supposedly protecting a certain ideal.To some, war is a religious undertaking. Terrorism may be an unpopular act to most but to its supporters, terrorism is their means of fighting for their ideals and achieve their purpose, which they personally believe are just whether others agree or not. But to some people especially those affected negatively by this war, this war would never be possibly just. The families left behind by innocent people who died in the 9/11 attack and those civilians who have work victims of bombs would never specify of agreeing to any argument saying that wars could possibly be just.Those who sympathize with these civilians and those who fear the possibility that someday they would become the unknowing victims of war would think the same way. Theorists, most popular of whom, St. appallingine, conceived of criteria that characterize a just war. The just war surmise provided guidelines in determining when a war is just (jus ad bellum), how combatants should fight in war (jus in bello), and when to end a war (Just War, 2006). According to the Jus ad bellum, wars should only be engaged in if there is a just cause.Just cause means that wars should only be engaged in to correct slanderdoings, as an act of defense against threats to freedom, rights and sovereignty. The cause is said to be just if it is an act to resist aggression (Orend, 2005). right intention is also necessary in a just war. winsome in war for material gains is outside the scope of right intention. In general, intention should always be to defend or correct suffered amiss(p) doings (Orend, 2005). The dimension and last resort states that gains should always outweigh the casualties incurred and wars should only be engaged in if all other possible means have been exhausted to no avail.Jus ad bellum also emphasizes the importance of sure authority and the probability o f success. War should only be engaged in if the chance of success is high because doing otherwise would undermine the theory of proportionality, also one criterion in considering a war as a just war (Orend, 2005). In engaging in a just war, combatants are expected to act in a way that violence and casualties are restrained and attempts to recognize human rights of some(prenominal) allies and enemies are made.According to the Jus in bello, combatants of a just war are expected to hold the principle of discrimination in which war is directed only to the perpetrators of wrong and decidedly not to civilians. Similar to the Jus ad bellum, in the Jus in bello, proportionality is expected. In this case, the force to be implemented must be justify when compared to the problem that occurred and the possible good outcome. The more civilian casualties, the more the war being waged are questionable (Just War, 2006).The Jus in bello also preaches the use of minimum force, respect for prisoner s of war, and derides the use of torture (Orend, 2005). In the same way, in the just war theory, wars should be terminated only with just cause if both parties are willing to negotiate and violations made by the aggressor have already been recognized and vindicated right intention, discrimination, proportionality and public settlement and authority (Orend, 2005). Fighting terrorism would cease to be just if it has woolly-headed the purpose and ideals which are its foundations.That is, if fighting terrorism has become a mere machination for purposes other than the ideals it stands for. Fighting terrorism would cease to be just if it resorted to unnecessary ways if it violates human rights if it in itself resorted to terrorism which is the exact ideal it is supposed to stand against. Fighting terrorism would cease to be just if it has become an act against the principles proposed by the just war theory. Others assert that the front end of any civilian deaths would define an unjust war (Bell, 2006).If all these would kick downstairs wars as unjust, then the impossibility of a just war is definite especially when applied to the war on terrorism. Still, criticisms of the just war theory stresses the inapplicability of the just war theory in the pay real wars, such as todays war on terrorism which is original one. When fighting terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda, the conventional guidelines for war become obsolete. Therefore, just war has to be redefined (Bell, 2006). 4. Schools, colleges, universities, the press and some institutions have the bureau to carry out or instill ideas among the people.Unfortunately for the government, these institutions are the breeding instal of radical ideas, some, supporting terrorism and most of which pertaining to anti-militaristic views attacking any actions involving the war against terrorism, inspiring terrorist support. People who incite violence when they glorify gaga acts against America may be responsible, corrob oratively for such acts because of the inspiration they give. They are so in forthwith accountable but they should not be punished unless they themselves engage in violent acts directly.America, as it professes, hold most deeply their contend for freedom and democracy, and part of this freedom and democracy that they allow their people is the freedom to express ones insights, beliefs and emotions. If a person feels like glorifying violent acts against America, if that person feels that in himself, he is against the beliefs and ideals that America stands for, then he or she is free to communicate, glorify or say anything about it whether or not it inspires violent acts among others. He should be free to say everything as long as he does not directly engage in such violence.It is, after all, his right. Now this freedom allowed to citizens is exactly what attains it difficult for the government to deal with schools, mosques and charities that indirectly support terrorism because imp osing sanctions on such indirect actions would undermine the liberty that they strive to protect. The only thing the government can do is to make parallel actions that would negate the actions of the supporters of terrorism. If there are local institutions that support terrorism, then they would have to use their power to tap what easy resources they have, to negate such support and ideals.They have to make an effort to promote their ideas and market it, indirectly targeting the ideas of the supporters of terrorism and at the same time, indirectly fashioning an effort to reach out and win the key supporters of terrorism. Part of the war against terrorism is to put out ideas that make possible the perpetuation of support of terrorism and not the people who support these ideas (if they do not directly engage in terrorism). In this case the war against terrorism is simply not a guns and bombs war, but also a challenge to make some people realize the correctness of the ideas imposed.I f the ideas that support terrorism take down from ideas imposed by some institutions, then actions should be targeted toward making fibrous institutions publicly support ideas like the governments. Or better yet, inculcate anti-terrorist ideas to the institutions that support terrorism. In a way, this would be propagating anti-terrorist ideas as well as killing ideas that support terrorism. 5. The fight against terrorism is now the first and prevailing priority of the segment of Justice. (US Department of Justice, 2004). Following this is the revision of the US nationalist act, which expands the power of Intelligence Officials in gathering information. In general, the briny purpose of this expansion is for a more efficient targeting and prevention of terrorism by revising previous acts that limited the governments ability to gather and use information and provide sanctions to terrorists. The revisions include a freer access to information, allowing information sharing among gov ernment agencies, strengthening criminal laws against terrorism and updating the law to reflect new technology (US Department of Justice, 2004).All these revisions are said to be required to eliminate hindrances to the investigation of terrorist acts. The main purpose of this revision is to provide a more efficient means of using critical information especially those related to terrorism. Prior to the approval of the USA nationalist function was a report submitted by the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security in 2002, analyzing the possible causes of failure to prevent the 9/11 attack.The main points of the report is the mismanagement of intelligence caused mostly by certain restrictions in the law prior to the 9/11 attack, and the need for certain revisions to bind the present need regarding terrorism (Report of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 2002). Apparently, the revisions in the US Patriot make for are the response. Undeniably, the revisions in the US Patriot flirt are a significant incapacitation of terrorist plans and are a great advancement, although not absolute, in terms of reducing the number of terrorist attacks and thus, ensuring the safety of the people.This has been turn up by situations exemplified in a report by the US Department of Justice in 2004 en ennobled, Report from the Field The US Patriot strike at Work. The US Patriot Act has temporarily slowed and probably prevented some(prenominal) acts of terrorism, thus improving the perceive safety of the population. But this advantage comes with the expense of increase deprivation of civil liberty. The Act could definitely justify secret wiretaps, increase arrests even at a lower threshold of evidence, increased secret access to personal accounts, records, technological usage, mails and conversations (OConnor, 2006).The not so a few(prenominal) accounts of erroneous arrests that have been recorded since the approval of the US Patriot Act confirm this (Cr iticisms of the War on Terrorism, 2006). Critics of Militarism and the US Patriot Act, and the proponents of civic liberty agree that it is better to think before doing anything drastic (OConnor, 2006). Those for the Patriot Act agree that in the war against terrorism, time is of the essence as a moment of hesitation could disastrously spell doom (Department of Justice, 2004).Another point to be considered in the US Patriot Act is the span of time when provide of the Act would still be deemed effective in preventing terrorism and ensuring the peoples safety. Anyone make by a perceived moral cause would not be stopped by simple revisions of laws, or more appropriately, by laws per se. And this is exactly what characterizes the terrorists in question their motivation to terrorize is beyond any sensual or material cause they are motivated by their perceived definition of morality and justice.Soon, they will find a loophole in the laws that are presently slowing them down, and contin ue towards their goals. The question now is would the government foresee possible threats that are beyond the treatment of laws? And if they do, how would they handle and prevent these possible threats? Would it spell more demands on the peoples civic liberty in win over for the more extensive need for safety? And if they do, what if the bombs and terrorist attacks are mere guises to take on our attention from how they are working on their real targetthe peoples libertythe ideal the state is trying to protect.Because if you are a terrorist, what better way to attack than attacking the foundation of your enemies framework. Is it not possible that the state is unknowingly working towards the achievement of the enemies real goal? Although the approval of the Act has provided the government with better capability to reduce threats of terrorism, it is still very important, especially with the world-wide movement of priorities, that such questions be given consideration and other threa ts to the peoples security continue to be studied, understood and monitored (Report of Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 2002).Given the present circumstances when the safety of the peoples is at risk, the US Patriot Act seems to be working satisfactorily in terms of preventing terrorist attacks. It would not be wise to change the provisions of the Act if the objective is to ensure the peoples safety. But it would be nice to be hopeful that there would someday be a proposal that would ensure the peoples safety without sacrificing the peoples liberty. At present, all we can do is choose the lesser evil, and think of ways to eliminate evil as a choice.References Anti-Americanism. (2006, princely 5). In Wikipedia, The excuse Encyclopedia. Retrieved 0202, August 6, 2006, from http//en. wikipedia. org/w/index. php? title=AntiAmericanism &oldid=67844288. Bell, D. (2006). Can the War be Just? Or What is Just War Good For? In Crosscurrents Magazine. Retrieved August 6, 2006 , from http//www. crosscurrents. org/Bellspring2006. pdf Criticisms of the War on Terrorism. (2006, August 4).In Wikipedia, The giving Encyclopedia. Retrieved 0203, August 6, 2006, from http//en. wikipedia. org/w/index. php? title=Criticisms_of_the_War_on_Terrorism&oldid=67579159. Just War. (2006, August 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 0202, August 6, 2006, from http//en. wikipedia. org/w/index. php? title=Just_War&oldid=67920472. OConnor, T. (2006, June 6). Civic Liberties in internal Terrorism. In Megalinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved August 6, 2006, from http//faculty. ncwc. edu/toconnor/429/429lect19. htm. Orend, B. (2005). War. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved August 6, 2006, from http//plato. stanford. edu/archives/win2005/entries/war. Report of Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, House eonian Select Committee on Intelligence on Counterterrorism Intelligence Capabilities and Performance Prior to 9-11 (2002, July). In Fe deration of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program. Retrieved August 6, 2006 from http//www. fas. org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/hpsci_ths0702. html. US Department of Justice (2004, July). Report from the Field The US Patriot Act at Work.