However, the successful solution of the problem under current conditions is not possible within traditional approaches to forecasting threats in general, and to ensure the proper level of domestic security in particular. It is well known that in the process of further globalization and military dominance of the information component in the structure of modern civilization, and constantly significantly complicated by the content and nature of war. Naturally, this fact will cause significant changes in approaches to the armed defense of the state 's national interests in the international arena. The main specific feature of domestic terrorism is the focus on the political system of the country, its law enforcement, public security, personal rights and freedoms of citizens. In general, this kind of terrorism is the major threat primarily to the constitutional order of the country.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows U.S. intelligence agencies to acquire foreign intelligence information by monitoring foreign persons in the USA and abroad. This act ensures that intelligence agencies can respond in time to terminate a security threat. The most important part of this act, the Section 702 forbids deliberate monitoring of US citizens and their communication. Technically NSA has been violating this act ever since it has been enacted in 2008 because, as we know, they have been monitoring all US citizenry. NSA hides the fact that they are monitoring on US citizens without the warrant as they find some connection between the person monitored and some illegal activity to justify their monitoring.
It was mainly used as a method to suppress the Freedom Movement. Several freedom fighters, including Tilak, and Gandhi have been jailed under this law. Nehru himself criticised the law, saying “that particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” The sedition law is a draconian law in that it does not require the speaker to incite violence against the state. It simply requires that they “excite disaffection,” a term which the statute specifies “includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity,” extremely vague terms.
The government is showing society that unlawful acts are acceptable and will be tolerated and that is ridiculously disgusting. Terrorists are not receiving the accurate punishments for their behavior, from the government. The CNN article, US Terrorist Attack Fast Facts, claimed how from 1978-1995, there was a so-called “Unabomber” that was held responsible for a string of mail bombings, resulting in the deaths of three people and the injuries of many others. These bombings are classified as terror cases; however, this “Unabomber” was not sentenced to execution. Instead, he was
Trevor Coulombe 26/9/15 Should civil liberties be suspended during national emergency? In the UK citizens are given several different civil liberties: the right to life; freedom of expression; freedom of religion and conscience; freedom of movement; freedom of association; the right to protest; freedom from arbitrary arrest; freedom from torture; the right to fair trial; political rights and property rights. In looking at these civil liberties a paradox is presented. The paradox is that acts of terror thrive in the freedom of democracies. This is to say that when the people are given the freedom of association, expression and movement, this will condone acts of violence, designed to destabilise or destroy State structures.
In 2003 the US military relied on the confession taken from Sheikh al-Libi in which it was claimed that Iraq supplied both chemical and biological weapons to Al Qaeda. This testimony was used in the month leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Later al-Libi retracted his statement saying that he did so in order to make the torture stop. This is a clear example of the ineffectiveness of torture and the bad consequences it can often produce. The CIA had forgotten its own conclusion, sent to congress in 1989, that ‘inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.’ (Helgerson,
However, Frederick’s plea was automatically denied, and he was sent off with the maximum sentence of 8 years. It was from his involvement and experience in this particular case (along with his Stanford Prison Experiment study) that Philip Zimbardo wrote his book “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil”. The significance of the events that occurred at the Abu Ghraib Prison is evident as Zimbardo goes on to mention his realization that the happenings are directly parallel to the results found during the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). He points out that just like the unprepared US Military personnel in Abu Ghraib, the students chosen to play the roles of guards in the SPE were forced to operate the
According to Beckett, Programs such as Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) have the mission and authority to locate and deport unauthorized workers, immigration suspect that violated the law and people who are a threat to public safety. If ICE has the authority to arrest any suspect who is violating the law, than immigration raid should be morally correct, but what if ICE is violating the law too, is it still correct to continue immigration raids? ICE is taking advantage of their authority by extending jail stays. A recent study shows that people with ICE detainer request staid longer in jail (46.3 days more) than those without detainers. According to the constitution of the United States of America, the fourth teen amendment talks about
This adaptation causes the Thai legal system to have different defamation laws for ordinary people and for the head of the state, aka King Rama VI, the current king of Thailand. The first similarity is that both laws are existed to protect a person from defamation whether the accusation is true or false. According to Section 326 of the Thai Criminal Code, defamation is defined as “an act of imputing anything about the third party in a manner which is aimed to impair the person’s reputation or place the person in contempt or hatred by others.” The same goes to the Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, lese majeste, containing the clause “The king shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the king to any sort of accusation or action and whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent shall
The direct result of this was the allocation of more powers to Parliament, which went ahead to limit the use of treason trials for political vendetta. Despite the best efforts of the reformers to try and bring change to the treason law in the subsequent years, a serious breakthrough was hard to come by. However, after several trials, the Treason Act of 1696 was finally enacted bringing with it a raft of change; the main one being that defendants now had a right to be
In conjunction with the above mentioned acts of terror, The Patriot Act section 215 that was passed in congress in 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attach reads. The section 215 reads, access to record items under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. The foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 reads, prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. When comparing the two acts against the fourth Amendment it is a violation of American’s privacy. The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure in terms of preventing terrorism? We have studied in the past readings about misuse of intelligence gathering agencies on US citizens. Operation CHAOS was directed at anti-war protesters. This is not the agenda today of domestic security; the aim is to prevent terrorism. Lawfully speaking, the FISA court which we have read about provides a legal framework to conduct intelligence gathering on US persons.
The question posed in today’s reading was whether an embedded agent should have carried out the assassination of a government official in order to further an espionage investigation. Admiral Turner pulled the plug on the investigation by not green-lighting the hit.1 While I agree with him in this case, there are more factors at play here than the mere legality of the agent’s pending act (assassination), or even the life of the government official weighed against the value of the investigation. Whether or not Admiral Turner made the “right” call comes down to a question of rational response to a moral imperative, which is where things get sticky, especially when authors start using phrases like “any means necessary” when commenting on the proposed