Arab Americans

The biggest consideration in any effort to infiltrate the community is the legal and ethical issues that would govern those actions. Immigrants have rights and they must be respected in the country. It’s important that these people would know that the government respects them as persons and as citizens of America. There are constitutional rights that must not be broken; otherwise, no immigrant in the country would ever feel safe. There are already many crimes against their race and I wouldn’t want to add to that list. I believe in getting their trust in order for them to cooperate and become loyal to the country.

Loyalty can’t be bought nor can it be forced. It has to be their decision to express loyalty to a country that treats them well. Ethical issues need also be taken into account. For instance, would it be right for me to tap into people’s conversations even if those persons are exemplary citizens and have been positive contributors to the community? If there are times when it is absolutely necessary to spy on every person in the immigrant population, then, it will be done so long as needless deaths will be prevented. As for sending agents, I believe it is a must to have undercover people among them in order to filter out the rotten tomatoes.

The undercover work’s goal is to identify, without a doubt, who are propagating extremist ideas in the community. Once identified, these people will be given the appropriate punishment under the law. The most important role I could play in the community is to make sure that even the immigrants and the Arab Americans will not become unwitting tools of terrorists. 2. Based on the reading assignments, what status, rights and protections would you afford someone who was an American citizen captured in the United States in the act of terroristic violence?
How about someone who was a foreign national engage in terrorism in the United States? An American citizen fights American forces abroad? A foreign national, but not a member of a nation’s military, fighting American forces abroad? Would torture of any of these subjects ever be justified if it could save lives? American Citizen An American citizen captured in the country committing terroristic violence will be captured and imprisoned under the rules of law. Since it can be considered treason to commit acts of terror in one’s country, then that person will not have the rights of a common prisoner.
Foreign National A foreign national committing terroristic activity in the country will be detained depending on the Attorney General’s mandates, and will be tried either inside the country or outside it. The hearing would likely be before a military tribunal. American Citizen Fighting American Forces Abroad If the American citizen fighting American forces abroad will be captured, he will be treated as a prisoner of war provided that he meets the criteria provided for in the Geneva Convention. He will have the rights of a POW and will be treated accordingly.
Foreign National Fighting American Forces Abroad A foreign national who is not a member of a military unit will be accorded a prisoner of war status until such time that his status will be determined by the appropriate tribunal. If the foreign national turns out to be a terrorist, then, he will be punished the way terrorists should be punished in accordance to law. 3. What are the different perspectives concerning Just War? Can the war on terror be properly characterized as a just war? Under what circumstances would fighting terrorism cease to be just?
Why? The different perspectives of Just War are: • Just War is only permissible as a last resort when all other non-violent means have been exhausted. • A war can only be just if it is conducted by who society deems to have the authority to do so. • Just war happens to remedy the wrong committed against society. • To fight a war that does not have a chance of succeeding is not just. • The ultimate goal of just war is the re-establishment of peace. • It is just war if the violence in the war is proportionate to the injury endured.
• A just war does not target civilians and all efforts must be made so as not to harm civilians. The war on terror can be considered just because the proper authorities are out to get the villains in order to make the society safe for the citizens. Terrorists do not discriminate between military and civilian targets, as such, they must be stopped to avoid the killings of civilians. Fighting terrorism ceases to be just when the country has endangered citizens in the process. For example, if the U. S.
will engage the whole of Afghanistan in war just because the Al Qaeda had its beginnings in that country won’t be just. It’s not fair to generalize that every Afghanistan is a terrorist. Also, war will become unjust if the wrong people are targeted by the authorities. Say for example that every person coming from the Middle East and who looks like Osama bin Laden will be detained by authorities because of how they look, then, that action is not just anymore. It is already a discrimination against individual persons. 4. How serious is the problem of anti-Americanism here at home?
Should people be accountable for inciting violence when they glorify violent acts against America but themselves do not engage in it? What remedies are available to the government, if any, to deal with schools, mosques, and charities that indirectly support terrorism while not actually engaging in it? What should the remedies be? Anti-Americanism in the United States is often on issues that involve the presence of troops in Iraq, the operations in Afghanistan and global warming. Many Americans do not want the American troops to continue being in Iraq.
There are constant protests and demonstrations asking the government for the troops’ withdrawal. At the same time, the government’s campaign in Afghanistan is viewed by many citizens to be unreasonable and should be stopped. Many American Muslims believe that putting all of the blame on Osama bin Laden and his group is not right. There are also a lot of demonstrations and protests calling for the government to do something about global warming. Meanwhile, Pipes (2005) reports that some American Muslim schools have been teaching things that tantamount to being anti-American.
As an example, an American-Muslim student told the Washington Post in 2001 that for him, being American is just about where he was born, and it does not define him. Some schools are also teaching things against the Jews, while promoting the supremacy of Islam. Pipes relates that a textbook in a Muslim school in Virginia has stated that only Islam is the true religion, and all others are false. First graders are easily influenced and reading this text would make them believe that people who are not Muslims are inferior to their race.
The government, especially the education ministry, has to take a direct control over what materials are being taught in schools. The schools must not be allowed to focus too much on religion. There must be a law prohibiting minority schools to engage in activities or teach lessons that would indirectly support and promote terrorism. 5. Give your overall assessment of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Do you think it has contributed to the lack of terror attacks in the United States since 9/11? If you were in Congress, would you vote to renew the act as is?
Would you change anything? Why or why not? Before the USA Patriotic Act was passed into law, electronic surveillance had to undergo a lot of red tape before it can be approved. Sharing of information between intelligence units and law enforcement agencies was very limited because the law does not say to what extent should information be shared. This could have resulted to missed opportunities to prevent acts of terror in the country. When the Patriotic Act was enforced, every ground rule was established on how information will be obtained and shared.
Surveillance of every information, financial or otherwise, became permissible. Even phone conversations can be tapped into. Because of this, the terrorist groups have to devise new ways of communicating, which possibly thwarted further acts of terror after 9/11. In this sense, the Patriotic Act is able to curtail further terroristic activities in the country. There are, however, some parts of the Act that speaks of human rights violations. For instance, indefinite detention of immigrants is not reasonable. It would strike fear in the hearts of those who are being loyal and good citizens of America.
While the innocent would fear the Act, it would make terrorists wary of committing acts of terror. They would have to be very clever to go unnoticed. Overall, the Patriotic Act has served its purpose despite flaws in some of its contents. If I were a member of Congress, I would vote to renew the Patriotic Act. It may not be perfect but it has kept the country relatively free of terror attacks after 9/11. However, there would be some changes on the Act, which addresses controversial issues like indefinite detentions, secret trials, and giving vast powers to the executive branch.
As a democratic country, it is important that the laws of democracy would not be forgotten in the quest to end terrorism. References Ferraro, V. Principles of the Just War. Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar. htm Pipes, D. (2005, March 29). What Are Islamic Schools Teaching? New York Sun. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www. danielpipes. org/article/2489 USA Patriot Act (H. R. 3162). Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www. personalinfomediary. com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text. htm