War on Terrorism
WAR ON TERROR
Brief discussion on the “War on Terror”
“WAR ON TERRORISM” means war against terrorist worldwide. The attack of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City was the start of the campaign against terrorism. The War on Terror was the response of the Bush administration to that barbaric act of Sept. 11 committed by the Jimaa Islamia with a clear agenda to eradicate and eliminate all terrorists’ acts and bring order and justice through the enactment of a domestic and international law on terror. A campaign was initiated with various groups such as military, political, religious and civil society ostensibly to “curb the spread of terrorism”. Though the phrase “WAR ON TERRORISM” was thought to be as an act of justice, however it brings both benefits and threats because it would violate the human rights as critics argue. Is it necessary to wage war against this terrorist? Is it worth to be wage? Do these terrorists tell us something that is worth to be heard? Or they just want to spread chaos around the globe? Does the ANTI-TERRORISM LAW OR HUMAN SECURITY ACT really promote justice and security around the world? Or is it just another threat to spread more and more chaos and fear? Here the issue invites discussion. For the Bush administration, of course it IS necessary to pursue a course of action in response to the attack. It is a way to counteract an enemy who execute the first-strike attack, the Bush administration of course be compellent against the latter. However, the major issue or criticism here is the justification of a pre-emptive war; the invasion of Iraq as to prevent another terrorist attack from the country. The Bush administration has undermined the international law, violated the U.N charter and the Nuremberg principles; Principle VI category (a), (b) & (c), Crimes against peace, War crimes, Crimes against humanity, as guilty to be war aggressor, which is considered to be a war crime. Even though the
Brief discussion on the “War on Terror”
“WAR ON TERRORISM” means war against terrorist worldwide. The attack of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City was the start of the campaign against terrorism. The War on Terror was the response of the Bush administration to that barbaric act of Sept. 11 committed by the Jimaa Islamia with a clear agenda to eradicate and eliminate all terrorists’ acts and bring order and justice through the enactment of a domestic and international law on terror. A campaign was initiated with various groups such as military, political, religious and civil society ostensibly to “curb the spread of terrorism”. Though the phrase “WAR ON TERRORISM” was thought to be as an act of justice, however it brings both benefits and threats because it would violate the human rights as critics argue. Is it necessary to wage war against this terrorist? Is it worth to be wage? Do these terrorists tell us something that is worth to be heard? Or they just want to spread chaos around the globe? Does the ANTI-TERRORISM LAW OR HUMAN SECURITY ACT really promote justice and security around the world? Or is it just another threat to spread more and more chaos and fear? Here the issue invites discussion. For the Bush administration, of course it IS necessary to pursue a course of action in response to the attack. It is a way to counteract an enemy who execute the first-strike attack, the Bush administration of course be compellent against the latter. However, the major issue or criticism here is the justification of a pre-emptive war; the invasion of Iraq as to prevent another terrorist attack from the country. The Bush administration has undermined the international law, violated the U.N charter and the Nuremberg principles; Principle VI category (a), (b) & (c), Crimes against peace, War crimes, Crimes against humanity, as guilty to be war aggressor, which is considered to be a war crime. Even though the