As mentioned in the module, countries such as Italy, France, Greece and the United States, at one time or another, gave in to terrorists in what was aptly termed as “political concessions”. It is, however, my personal opinion that it was the United States who suffered the most from the ramifications of such concessions, setting the climax that culminated in the attack at the World Trade Center. From the very words of an American president, the United States as a matter of policy, does not negotiate nor compromise with terrorists :
“Americans will never make concessions to terrorists- to do so would only invite more terrorism- once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized people must pay” (Reagan, 1985).
The US Senate (1999) also declared that “…making concessions to terrorists is deplorable”. As history would recount, however, it was the same president who covertly authorized weapons sales to Iran to free American hostages held by a terrorist organization in Lebanon, against the opposition of the then Secretaries of State and Defense (Burns, 2002).
In fact, this was the first of a series of many clandestine dealings of the US government with terrorist groups of different countries, in defense of what we call democracy and innocent people. While the US is hailed as a super power by practically all governments in world, the terrorists gained tremendous emotional advantage by forcing a super power in numerous instances to concede to their demands. This, somehow, drove the impetus for the terrorists to forward their interests and devise even more horrible schemes like the 9/11, to further advance their cause and humiliate the most powerful nation in the world.
The Term Paper on United States War Americans World
Social Change in the United States During World War II As the possibility of a second World War arose people began to form opinions on the United States' role in Europe. The general population disagreed on whether or not to get involved in the conflict with Germany. Some people believed in interventionism, the theory that the United States should do everything it could to support Britain without ...
The terrorists have been putting the pressure on the US since the early 1980s, and the US has been allowing them. The terrorists have somehow, mastered their craft in the long run and the 9/11 attack was just an icing on the cake. Staerk (2007) contends that the only response to terrorism that legislators thought of was “to give more power to the state, and once given, that power will be hard to take back”. Thus, the terrorists were not only successful at humiliating a world power. They were also successful at creating impediments for democracy.
Answer to Question No. 2. Definitely, western nations should have acted differently in the face of the Arab oil embargo. Their actions signified their helplessness and their acknowledgment of the importance of Arab oil. This might have even helped in advancing the interests of terrorism further since incarcerated terrorists then were freed for fear of reprisal, in terms of the new weapon which emerged during the mid 70s – oil. Western nations should have been more steadfast in their conviction to protect their respective areas from terrorism.
They should have brought the terrorists before the law and convicted them based on the crimes they perpetrated and not in terms of how their respective governments put pressure on the prosecuting countries. Western nations should have realized by now that the vaunted oil of the Arab world during the 70s is not that valuable a commodity now in the light of noticeable changes in the map of world oil supply since then, with important new sources of supply coming on stream from the North Sea, Mexico, China, Alaska, and Russia (Perry, 2001).
Western nations, particularly the United States should have foreseen that the Arab oil embargo then was a bluff. Shlaes (2001) shares the same opinion and calls the US stance during the mid 1970s as “old-fashioned oil diplomacy”. Shlaes considers it a greater danger for such “old-fashioned oil diplomacy” to hinder the U. S. and its allies from combating the threat posed by many Middle Eastern regimes against democracy and world peace. Zycher (in Shlaes, 2001) believes that the real threat, then and now, is that the U.
The Term Paper on Terrorists Used Terrorism As A Tool In Pursuit Terrorist Political Today
Partha rei - as it was stated by the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus of Ephesus (sixth and fifth centuries B. C. ) - everything flows, everything changes. Change in the contemporary world is an extremely fast process. Nothing remains the same as it was in the past. In political science especially, some notions (e. g. sovereignty) demand redefinition. The changing nature of all things also includes ...
S. national security policy is being designed based from an erroneous insight regarding oil. If the U. S. , either alone or with its allies, succeeds in breaking free with its anxiety over the phantom oil weapon, it will be in a better position to evaluate whether to go easy or take action in chasing and destroying the terrorists. Answer to Question No. 3. I am going to start my argument with a quote from British statesman William Gladstone that “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
Hence, my personal position with respect to this query is : “under no circumstances should the rights of citizens be curtailed”, even in the name of so called “general welfare”. Since the rights of citizens, especially the civil liberties, are mandated by the constitution, reducing these rights even only for a specific period of time is unjust. The longer these rights are reduced, the longer justice is denied. Let me, however, support my position with similar positions from the authorities in the field.
David Cole (in Soto, 2007), a law professor, believes that denying anyone his basic human rights is wrong and that it undermines the legitimacy of an otherwise legitimate effort. Davis and Silver (2002) disclosed that even though 84 percent of Americans are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about a future terrorist attack on the United States, a majority of them are unwilling to relinquish civil liberties in exchange for enhanced security. Majority of the respondents were generally unwilling to bestow the government broader powers to combat terrorism if those powers meant limiting traditional constitutional protections.
The American Civil Liberties Union (2003) stressed that anti-terrorism policies that infringe on basic rights whether ethnically-based roundups of innocent persons, or intrusive surveillance of peaceful political activists – not only make America less free, but more vulnerable to terrorism. And finally, from two great US statesmen : “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Franklin, n. d. ); likewise, “The enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and abiding practice of any western society” (Kennedy, n. d. ).
The Term Paper on Liberty in the history of America
Liberty is defined as the manner in which one or groups of people or organism are let free from oppression, starvation, slavery or disturbance of what ever kind. However, there are different definitions and perspectives of the term as used by different personalities, communities, and groups of people. In the history of America, liberty has been used differently to express different ideas. If you ...
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2003, March 20).
How “Patriot Act 2” Would Further Erode the Basic Checks on Government Power That Keep America Safe and Free . Retrieved January 7, 2008, from http://www. aclu. org/safefree/general/ 17346leg20030320. html. Burns, A. (2002).
No Concessions to Terrorists = Arms for Hostages. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from The Truth is Stranger than Fiction: http://teaching. arts. usyd. edu. au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/IranContra/Design/Iran. htm. Davis, D. , & Silver, B. (2002, April 23).
MSU Study Shows Americans Unwilling to Trade Civil Liberties for Enhanced Security.
Retrieved January 7, 2008, from Michigan State University: http://newsroom. msu. edu/site/indexer/471/content. htm. Franklin, B. (2006).
Civil Rights. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from Culture of Peace Iniitiative: http://www. cultureofpeace. org/quotes/civilrights-quotes. htm Perry, G. L. (2001, October 24).
The War on Terrorism, the World Oil Market and the U. S. Economy. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from Brookings: http://www. brookings. edu/papers/2001/1024terrorism_perry. aspx. Reagan, R. (1985, June 18).
No Concessions to Terrorists = Arms for Hostages.
Retrieved January 6, 2008, from The Truth is Stranger than Fiction: http://teaching. arts. usyd. edu. au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/IranContra/Design/Iran. htm Shlaes, A. (2001, December 6).
Threat of an oil embargo on the U. S. is a bluff. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from Jewish World Review: http://www. jewishworldreview. com/ cols/shlaes120601. asp. Soto, A. (2007, December 6).
Panel discusses state of civil liberties. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from The John Hopkins News-Letter: http://media. www. jhunewsletter. com/ media/storage/paper932/news/2004/04/16/News/Panel. Discusses. State. O
