Global Terrorism Essay Example for Free

Global Terrorism EssayAs mentioned in the module, countries such(prenominal) 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 about 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 the Statesn president, the United States as a military issue of policy, does not negotiate nor compromise with terrorists Americans leave behind never make concessions to terrorists- to do so would only invite more terrorism- once we head down that street there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent hatful, no end to the bloody ransom all courteousized 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 supernumerary 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 covert 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 place 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, pack the impetus for the terrorists to forward their interests and devise heretofore more horrible schemes like the 9/11, to further advance their cause and humiliate the most powerful rural area in the world.The terrorists have been putting the push on the US since the early 1980s, and the US has been allowing them. The terrorists have som ehow, 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. act to Question No. 2. Definitely, western nations should have acted differently in the face of the Arab embrocate 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 tight in their conviction to protect their respective areas from terrorism.They should have brought the terrori sts before the natural 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 sporty 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, specially 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 diaphragm Eastern regimes against democracy and world peace. Zycher (in Shlaes, 2001) believes that the r eal threat, then and now, is that the U.S. national security policy is being designed based from an erroneous insight regarding oil. If the U. S. , either only when or with its allies, succeeds in breaking free with its anxiety over the phantom oil weapon, it will be in a better position to pass judgment 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 unique(predicate) period of time is unjust. The longer these rights are reduced, the longer justice is denied. Let me, however, support my position with s imilar 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 bear on 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 well-mannered 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 bantam 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 remain practice of any western society (Kennedy, n. d. ).ReferencesAmerican Civil Liberties Union. (2003, March 20). How Patriot Act 2 Would Further Erode the Basic Checks on presidency 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 mull over Shows Americans Unwilling to Trade Civil Liberties for Enhanced Security.Retrieved January 7, 2008, from Michigan State University http//new sroom. 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 grocery store 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. j hunewsletter. com/ media/storage/paper932/news/2004/04/16/News/Panel. Discusses. State. O