911_Anti_Terrorism_Legistlation

9/11: Anti Terrorism Legislation After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many countries around the world have taken measures to identify, prosecute and punish terrorists. In response to the attacks Canada, The United States and Britain have all formulated their own anti terrorism legislation to ensure the safety of their citizens. Anti terrorism laws and response teams are essential because they will eventually help to put an end to terrorism. Further research into this topic has revealed that anti terrorism policies and procedures can influence the way the world run. In the aftermath of September 11, many nations around the world were forced to deal with the threat of terrorism on their soil which brought terrorism to a whole new level. For this specific reason governments around the world reacted, with harsh anti terrorism legislations, that sometimes denied even the most basic human rights. In Canada it was the Canadian Anti Terrorism Act, in Britain it was the Prevention of Terrorism Act and in the United States it was the Patriot Act. These three anti terrorism acts, along with many other ones around the world, put into perspective the harsh realities of terrorism. The main issues with these three anti terrorism acts are firstly, they are extremely controversial and secondly they are very problematic and even unconstitutional. The acts give the government to much power, allowing them to detain those that are believed to be terrorist without any due process, the right of the government to eavesdrop using running wire taps, reduction in judicial oversight and the roll of parliament or congress. (National Intelligence Agency, 2007) Before anti terrorism can be fully understood terrorism must defined. Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are politically or religiously or ideologically in nature; this is done through intimidation or instilling fear. (9/11 Commission Report, 2004) Terrorism originates back to the European Street Revolutions in the mid nineteenth century and the revolutionary actions and conflicts in Russia and Ireland at the beginning of the twentieth century. Years after this the influence that the proclamation of the Atlantic Charter had on post war anti colonial struggles at the end of the second world war and throughout history these acts would occur over and over again. A prime example of early terrorism influence would be in 1849, when a German man named Karl Heinzen published a book called Der Mord, which in English means murder. (Narco Terrorism, 1990) In this book he provides reason for political murder and terrorism on a worldwide scale. Furthermore during roughly the same time period, an Italian man named Carlo Pisacane was credited for formulating the theory of propaganda by deed. Propaganda by deed is essentially, the effective use of violence to generate publicity for a cause in replacement of previously utilised methods that concentrate on non violent propaganda activities. (Bush At War, 2002) The theory of propaganda by deed is still used in modern forms of terrorism operations around the world. This theory has had great influence on modern day terrorism. Finally, the conflicts in Russia and Ireland at the beginning of the twentieth century have also influenced modern day terrorism greatly. The Russian revolution was a social and economic confusion, to firstly overthrow an autocracy and then also ensure a reasonable social provisional government was put into place. (Narco Terrorism, 1990) As the Bolsheviks gained power, they discovered that the philosophy of the bomb served as a great weapon in overthrowing the middle class. One other example of where theses ideologies have worked was in Cuba, when motivation was used on the people which subsequently allowed the ruling government to be overthrown and for Fidel Castro to take power. (Bush At War, 2002) As previously stated, terrorism has been going on for centuries and therefore there is no quick solution. Stopping terrorism will be a long term solution with many obstacles for governments around the world to overcome. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, Canada took decisive actions and immediately introduced the Canadian Anti Terrorism Act. The anti terrorism act is one of several key pieces of legislation that form the Canadian Governments overall anti terrorism strategy. This legislation takes aim at terrorist and terrorist groups essentially helping the Canadian government to meet the challenges posed by terrorists. (Narco Terrorism, 1990) This piece of legislation was put into effect by Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government. Also around the same time came the, Ad Hoc Cabinet Committee on Public Security and Anti Terrorism. This committee’s job was to essentially help the Canadian government strengthen its policies regarding legislation, regulations and programs set up to fight terrorism. (Narco Terrorism, 1990) Jean Chrétien’s reasoning for setting up this committee was to prevent terrorists from entering Canada, and to protect Canadians from the larger threat, terrorism. The committee was also used to bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. Chrétien also wanted to keep the United States and Canadian boarder secure but still open to trade. He also aimed to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of terrorism. Another way that the Canadian government got involved was by listing its entities. The listing of entities is an extremely public way of identifying a group or individual as being associated with terrorism. The definition of an entity includes a person, group, trust, partnership, fund, unincorporated association or organization. (No End In Site, 2007) Essentially the anti terrorism act provides ways for the government to of Canada to create a list of entities. Interestingly enough, it is not a crime to be listed, although one of the consequences of being listed is that the entities property can be the subject of seizure and restraint and possibly even forfeited. It is also an offence in Canada to knowingly participate in or contribute to any activity of a terrorist group whether it is a direct contribution or not. The participation is only an offence if its purpose is to enhance the ability of any terrorist group or carry out a terrorist act. (9/11 Commission Report, 2004) Also following the attacks of 9/11 in New York City, the British took quick action and drafted up their own anti terrorism act. Britain’s was named the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This legislation allowed the home secretary to impose control orders on people who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. (National Intelligence Agency, 2007) Although only a year had passed since Britain had passed permanent terrorism legislation, this one was passed because a High Court Judge had issued a declaration stating that section 3 of the act was incompatible with the right to a fair trail under section 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. (National Intelligence Agency, 2007) This new and improved act was also passed to increase the powers to deal with individuals suspected of planning or assisting terrorist attacks within the United Kingdom. Finally, the last major post 9/11 response was the United States of America. The United States Patriot Act was drafted on September 26, 2001, and is a statue that was enacted by the United States government under George W. Bush. (Bush At War, 2002) The act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies across the United States to search telephone, email, medical, financial and other records. These new powers, particularly for law enforcement and immigration authorities to detain and deport suspected terrorists. This legislation also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities that can be included under the term terrorism. (No End In Site, 2007) Furthermore there have been multiple revisions and changes to United States laws as a result of the Patriot Act. Many Americans still see many faults within the Patriots Act even after multiple revisions. The American Civil Liberties Union even claimed that the Patriots Act was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to spy on Americans. (Bush At War, 2002) Contrary to what the Civil Liberties Union thinks, roving wiretaps allow the FBI to follow terrorists. Some terrorists have enough training to evade surveillance. In order to track these terrorists, federal agents need to use roving wiretaps in order to follow them. Essentially, this leads to more terrorists being caught and less terrorist activities within the United States. Regardless of what the Civil Liberties Union thinks, obtaining personal records is unconstitutional because it allows the government to get hold of certain records, if needed, to aid in an investigation. They say it violates the First and Fourth Amendment by infringing upon freedom of speech and conducting searches without a warrant. (Bush At War, 2002) However, in matters concerning national security, the government should be able conducted these searches even though it violates the First Amendment. By using “roving wiretaps” and searching through business records held by third parties, federal agents are able to catch terrorists. Political Parties make many crucial decisions when it comes to legislation or anti terrorism legislation in this case. Firstly, the political spectrum needs to be understood and is defined as, a way of modeling different political positions by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolizing independent political dimensions. (Bush At War, 2002) When thinking of a political spectrum most often the terms left and right wing come to mind. Left and right wing refer to political affiliations which began at the end of the eighteenth century during the French Revolution, they originally referred to seating arrangements in the legislative in France. Traditionally the aristocracy sat on the right of the speaker and the commoners sat on the left, hence the term right wing and left wing politics. (Unholy War, 2002) Within the political spectrum there are five main philosophies, left liberal, right conservative, authoritarian, libertarian, and moderate. The first, left liberals believe in governing themselves on personal matters, but they want government to control economics. The left liberals want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality. The opposite of the left liberals is the right conservatives. This group believes in free markets with government putting a check on personal freedom. (Unholy War, 2002) Right conservatives prefer self government on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. The next group is the libertarians. The libertarians want little government help or control. Libertarians are self governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe the governments only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity. The opposite of the libertarian is the authoritarian. Authoritarians believe that government should have control, that people should get equality through government. Authoritarians want government to advance society and individuals through expert central planning. They often doubt whether self government is practical. Left authoritarians are also called socialists, while fascists are right authoritarians. The last main group and probably the largest are the moderates. The moderates are the mediators, and they often accept new ideas about how things should be run. Moderates favour selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many moderates feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty. (Unholy War, 2002) These five elements essentially make up the ideological spectrum and make it sound fairly simple. In the Canadian Government anti terrorism is interpreted differently depending on the political party. The three main political parties in Canada are the Liberals, Conservatives and the New Democratic Party. In relation to the political spectrum the Liberals sit on the middle left, the NDP in the middle and the Conservative Party sits on the middle right. Throughout history the Liberal Party has been soft on big issues, but at the same time seem to always have something to say about the environment, healthcare, taxes or education. The Liberal’s also have a history of boosting the economy and the Liberal Party believes in, Equal rights for gays and lesbians, decriminalization of marijuana, investing in alternative energy, better housing policies for the poor, raising the minimum wage, standing up for Canadian sovereignty and human rights, continue subsidizing the oil industry until the time comes when hydrogen fuel-cell cars are more viable, but at the same time investing in creating an hydrogen fuel infrastructure across Canada so that Canadians can refuel easily, balancing the economy and the environment, and maintaining and increasing funding for education and healthcare. (Online News hour, 2009) The Conservative Party on the other hand is a fairly new party based on the values of the Reform Party of Canada, the Alliance Party and the old Progressive Conservatives. Although their values have changed overtime they still stand for privatization of healthcare, and selling water rights to international companies, and decreasing non European immigration. They also strongly believe in raising taxes for the poor and lowering them for the rich, and increasing funding for the military. (Online News hour, 2009) Lastly, the New Democratic Party, listens to the people and helps out the poor, essentially they give the people what they want, not what is best for the country or economy. The NDP also believes in equal rights for gays, decriminalization of marijuana, investing in alternative energy, and better housing for the poor, raising the minimum wage, cutting off trade with countries that use sweatshops, and cutting military spending, and increasing peace keeping operations. (Online News hour, 2009) Finally, an excellent example that justifies the Anti Terror Act of 2001 violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms even after the multiple revisions. On October 25, 2006, An Ontario judge killed part of the Anti-terrorism Act, but legal experts were divided on whether it will make successful prosecutions more difficult. Justice Douglas Rutherford of Ontario Superior Court ruled that a section of the Anti-terrorism Act that defines "terrorism" violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (CBC News In Depth, 2007)) The first person to be charged under the act was Mohammad Monin Khawaja, although this ruling does not mean he will be freed. Khawaja has been in custody since he was arrested by police in March of 2004 in connection with seven criminal charges related to allegations he took part in and helped an extremist organization in Britain. Khawaja who is a software developer, who was living in the Ottawa area, was expected to face a trial in January of the following year. Rutherford decided to sever a section in the law that defines ideological, religious or political motivations for criminal acts. The rest of the law remains in place. "Motive, used as an essential element for a crime, is foreign to criminal law, humanitarian law, and the law regarding crimes against humanity," (CBC News In Depth, 2007)) Rutherford said in his judgment. "While the hate motive may be an aggravating factor at sentencing, in the traditional criminal law, motive — the reasons 'why' someone commits a criminal act — neither establishes nor excuses a crime." Said Justice Douglas Rutherford. (CBC News In Depth, 2007) Lastly, to understand terrorism it is important to understand where it came from and why it happens. It has already been discussed above, where it came from, now we need to understand why it happens. For many years terrorism has not been fully understood, although it has always been believed that terrorists are just average people who take desperate measures to fix their current situation. There are many theories floating around about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. One theory is that the American Government knew about the attack in advance, that they allowed the attack to take place even though they knew about it. They also believe that the government made it easier for the terrorists so that the attack could take place smoothly. (Bush At War, 2002) Obviously the government would not harm their citizens for no reason. The conspiracy theorists believe that the attack was carried out by the United States government to increase support for a war in the Middle East. They believe that government officials knew about the danger, but believed that letting happen would let them invade other countries in the Middle East (National Intelligence Agency, 2007). Although many people believe different things, the attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, were a tragedy. One positive thing that came out of the attack is the unity that developed as around the world. For example, a commercial was even made that shows a row of houses, it then cuts to a scene of the same houses, only this time every house has an American flag hanging in their front yard, then, "After 9/11" appears. (No End in Site, 2007) It seems terrorism will always be in the world in someway. Once Osama Bin Laden has died or been caught there will certainly be another person like him, just like Hitler. It seems that the main reason for terrorism and war in this world are opposing beliefs when it comes to religion. While there will always be different religions in the world, we must find a way to overcome that and unite as a planet. Until we can do this there will always be suffering and violence in the world. Works Cited 9/11 Commission Report. 1. New York: Norton & Company, 2004. “CBC News In Depth: Canadian Security.” CBC.ca 2007. CBC 6 April 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/> Ehrenfeld, Rachel. Narco Terrorism. New York: Basic Books, 1990. Esposito, John L. Unholy War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam MacNeil, . “Online News hour. Top Story – Life After 9/11.” PBS. 2009. PBS. 6 April, 2009. . “No End In Site” . . 2007. . 6 April, 2009 National Intelligence Agency, “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead.” (2007): . Woodward, Bob. Bush At War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002.