Countering Domestic Terrorism in the United States

Countering domestic terrorism in the United States Introduction Given the magnitude of the previous terrorism events and the effects that terrorism has had on people, the government's priority is supposed to be on early intervention. There should be an initiative to increase patterns of the administrative measures introduced with the stated intention of preventing terrorist acts. States have a positive duty to protect people within their jurisdiction. The protection mechanisms are supposed to be more proactive as opposed to simply waiting for the terrorism acts and striving to mitigate the same. There should be an emphasis on allowing States to restrict certain fundamental freedoms, take measures to disrupt terrorist networks, and prevent terrorist acts from materializing (Mirza & Verdier, 2014). There is a need for early interventions that will prevent terrorist acts from taking place, rather than merely responding after the event.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

Background Generally, the people of the United States have been very susceptible to domestic terrorism. There has been an array of terrorism attacks, and the effects of the attacks tend to be fatal. According to the data from the center for strategic international strategic studies, there have been about 893 terrorist plots and attacks in the United States between January 1994 and May 2020. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two-thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020 (Bardwell & Iqbal, 2021). It is also projected that the level of terrorism attacks may increase as time goes by, and such factors always determine it as elections or any activity that involves the mainstream people of the U.S. As such, all people are likely to be affected, irrespective of their races, gender, social class, and political affiliation. Businesses are likely to incur even more losses, and the entire economy may be brought to a standstill. As such, this will definitely affect everyone. Some of the causes of terrorism entail the perceptions of deprivation and inequality, especially amongst culturally defined groups. This can lead to civil violence, of which terrorism may be a part. Terrorism represents social control from below, as attacks are directed upon targets symbolizing central government or a superior community (Lundberg, 2016). Terrorism in one country can spill over into neighboring areas. Mass media can influence the patterns of terrorism by enhancing agenda setting, increasing lethality, and expanding the transnational character. These are just some factors that make terrorism very rampant in the U.S. Side A As a result of the high prevalence and dangers brought about by terrorism, there is always the need to embrace preventive measures to save the people and the country at large from all the adverse effects that are likely to bring the country’s foundations down. The paper affirms that

preventive measures can go a long way in preventing the terrorism activities that have taken root in the U.S. One of the measures that are likely to be very effective entails immigration detention, expulsions, and deportation. Foreigners living within the jurisdiction may not have all the same political rights as citizens, but they lose none of their basic human rights, and in that regard, they must benefit from exactly the same protections as everyone else (Bardwell & Iqbal, 2021). There are also administrative detentions, which prioritize the detention of someone perceived to pose a security threat rather than waiting to punish the wrongdoer after the act. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that most states rely on administrative detention as a preventive measure instead of seeing the measure as exceptional and temporary and necessarily linked to a genuine emergency. The administrate detentions are supposed to include imprisonments and forms of house arrests, movement restrictions, and many other ways that are likely to lead to loss of liberty. Another measure in this category entails control orders. This administrative measure imposes a range of restrictions on an individual's activities but falls short of full detention or expulsion (Sageman, 2017). This helps prevent terrorism at a very early stage.

Side B Despite the benefits of the above prevention measures, some contrary opinions about the same also exist. Foreigners living within the jurisdiction may not have all the same political rights as citizens, but they lose none of their basic human rights, and in that regard, they must benefit from exactly the same protections as everyone else (Espinoza & Afxentiou, 2018). For instance, taking the initiative such as expulsion or deportation, the measures may seem disproportionate and discriminatory. It tends to be disproportionate because it has lifelong consequences, and it often entails the separation of an individual from his or her family and enforces uprooting from his environment. It is also discriminatory because the state cannot use

these procedures against its nationals who may have committed the same breach of the law.

There is also a sense in which administrative detentions appear not to be proper from various perspectives, as they may lead to human rights violations. There have been numerous cases whereby aspects such as torture, disappearances, and extra-judicial executions have occurred under the auspices of administrative detention. Even though the permitted grounds for detention are only supposed to be preventive, detention powers are sometimes used for investigative purposes. The detainees are even sometimes denied access to lawyers on the basis that they have not been accused of anything yet. Therefore, they are denied the very fundamental right of having access to a constitutional lawyer. Control orders also have their limitations in the manner in which they are administered. Initially, there have been issues regarding the real or potential cumulative effect on individuals. These include: living somewhere different from where they used to live; having their residence subject to frequent searches, which are done at any time of the day or night by a designated officer and without a special authorization of a court; having their movement restricted for many hours a day; limited to a certain area; and severely limited in terms of who can be met (Bardwell & Iqbal, 2021).

Possible Solutions The preventive measures mentioned above can go a long way in preventing terrorism and safeguarding people’s lives. These measures include control orders, deportation, and administrative detentions. Most of the challenges that are discussed above can be addressed through policy. Since many of them are human rights issues, there is a need to address the same by ensuring that human rights are not breached. The strategies should be applied in tandem with the human rights standards (Bardwell & Iqbal, 2021). If well implemented, the chances are high

that terrorism will be combated in good time, and we will not have frequent terrorist attacks as it has always been.

Conclusion From the above discussion, there is a need to ensure that the United States embraces early interventions that will prevent terrorist acts from taking place as opposed to merely responding after the event. All people are likely to be affected, irrespective of their race, gender, social class, and political affiliation. Some measures are likely to help, such as immigration detention, expulsions, and deportation and control orders tailored toward earlier containment measures immediately the red flags are raised.

The aggressive prevention measures discussed above aspire to put terrorism attacks to an end. The government should empower its security agencies, such as the security and intelligence service department, to ensure that prevention measures are amicably put in place. However, some concerns have been raised, most of which are related to human rights. These concerns can be addressed through policy.

References Bardwell, H., & Iqbal, M. (2021). The economic impact of terrorism from 2000 to 2018. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 27(2), 227-261. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/peps-2020-0031/html Espinoza, M., & Afxentiou, A. (2018). Editors’ introduction: drones and state terrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 11(2), 295-300. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17539153.2018.1456727 Lundberg, R. (2016). A multi-attribute approach to assess homeland security risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1200649 Mirza, D., & Verdier, T. (2014). Are lives a substitute for livelihoods? Terrorism, security, and U.S. bilateral imports. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(6), 943-975. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002713487312 Sageman, M. (2017). Misunderstanding terrorism. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://books.google.com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=FEj3DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=terrorism+in+the+U.S&ots=bg n2XoZwAI&sig=kpv39cYpru9VXcDdIKBwiGAA-zs