The policy of the United States

This es judge tierce generate the ideas of the role in the midst of margin pledge and counter collaborate of terrorism. The subcategories that will be discussed along facial expression this theory atomic number 18 the lack of border protection, both southwestward of the unify States and north. The policy of the linked States toward immigration will as well as give the musical composition a close-up of the harm unlawful aliens who ar non apprehended will do, non exactly to the status of the economy but to national terrorism . In the emergence of a lax border security measure, finally, the issue of this place with the opportunity that inhabits for terrorists to exploit will too be developed in the report card.In order for a much than substantial argu manpowert to evolve in this paper a brief history with terrorism and border bid will be argued as well as the history of the US patriot make a motion and other issues in the past with the joined States conce rning immigration, irregular aliens, and terrorists. Since the terrorist attacks on family line 11, 2001, there strike been galore(postnominal) another(prenominal) changes in the slipway the joined States governance functions. The scratch line act of alteration to the normal ordinance of conduct was the drafting and passage of the USA PATRIOT hazard.There be many who face this act as a bold defense against the maintenance of terrorism for the Ameri push aside public, save, a growing number of muckle dupe the changes in American govern manpowertal policy and overall attitude towards enemies and assort alike as an affront against proper American values and freedom. As Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter explain, there is a distinct politic to the notion of terrorism. However, these evasive action be not always effective. There are many events of terrorism in the world each year, yet only a handful are regarded with any merit.According to Kydd and Walter, through a well argued and insightful article, it is the trust in the midst of groups that must be destroyed for an extremist attack to be successful. This is the motivation behind the response to the attacks of phratry 11, 2001. On celestial latitude 6, 2001, then attorney General John Ashcroft addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee in acclamation of this act, and its restructuring of the NSA, CIA and FBI. (Ashcroft 524) His rhetoric was patriotic and concise, and his views of the USA PATRIOT act and its changes seemed sincere.This was support with the passage of the fall in Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which paved the road for the nationalist act itself. Eric Rosand wrote some the resolution in 2003. His response to its necessity was ane of sympathy to the government, for having to face such a difficult challenge. However, not every bingle who has commented on the alterations of the US governmental policy has done so with such reverence. David lucre compared the investigat ions into possible terrorist cells in the United States, to the Palmer Raids of 1919 where, following a series of bombings, J.Edgar vacuum-clean led a series of round ups of immigrants a cut across the country and held them without examination or charge in unconscionable conditions, interrogated incommunicado and in almost cases tortured. (529) This attitude has spread throughout the country, as the appearance of indecency has flooded the governments handling of the terrorists investigations. Mary Jacoby brings up the school principal of the legal definition of Detainee. This is in response to the holding of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay army base in Cuba.The prisoners of this facility bring forth been acquired from round the world from the war in Afghanistan, and from arrests done in dozens of countries around the world. However, the problem arises when the soldiers fighting for the Afghan military are brought in as detainees, preferably than prisoners of war. While th e Guantanamo prison has its apologists, such as Charles Krauthammer who states that freeing of these men would be lunacy (537) the fact remains, that in strict terms, the United States is in breech of the Geneva Convention by holding POWs.The United States government however sees this detention as necessary. The United States also enlists other tactics involving border retard. The United States since September 11 has kept a more watchful eye on the Mexican border to ensure that adult trucks are not passing the borders which could hold weapons, but this seems to be the only action officials and military are taking in regards to border engage according to Zagorin (2004) in The Mexican Border Will Get a Closer Look.In this article Zagorin is hard pressed to find any certain action the US is taking in regards to border control and Zagorin sites many examples of how Mexico is making its own efforts to decrease the chances al-Qaeda terrorists coming into the country or passing the country, The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and line facilities on their side of the frontier. another episode has some senior U. S.officials confused the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southerly Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction a senior U. S. law-enforcement official notes that crop dusters can be sued to disperse toxic substance(19). In contrast to the underlie belief of the lax nature in Zagorins article Andreas (2003) holds a very antithetic opinion in his article Perspective.This article gives elaborate about the before and after September 11 border security in the United States dealing with both the Mexican and Canadian border. prior(prenominal) to September 11 the United States focused its energy on deterring the combine of drugs between the borders. Thus the model by which the United States is equipped in handling border security in regards to terrorism is very no vel in material body because their previous focus has been on migrant workers and mint of illegal immigrants rather than to search a crowd and discover a few terrorists (4).Another issue that arises in the approach of the Mexican border is that the south border of the United States received much more trouble than the Canadian border, only 334 agents were assigned to the 5,525-mile northern border compared with over 9,000 agents stationed at the 2,062-mile southern edge (4), however, since September 11 there are an equal come up of agents patrolling both borders. Under the Patriot Act, as stated previously, the number of agents reconcile in the Canadian border has tripled in a response to September 11.In an effort to stop terrorism, the US coastguard now stops every sauceboat crossing the Great Lakes as well as escorts large tankers. Thus, Andreas states that these newfangled border securities have merely taken the old ideas of drug employmentking measures and utilise them to terrorism which makes for an increase of difficulty in border control (Andreas, 5). Fernando Reinares famed in his article, The Empire Rarely Strikes Back, that after more than 2400 acts of terrorism against American citizens and interests there have been only three occasions of overt military response.(Reinares 92) However, because of the incredible size and depth of impact of the September eleventh attacks, war became unavoidable. There did arise a problem with the military action, however, as a growing public opinion seemed to point the target ast Islam itself, rather than just Al-Qaeda. This prompted the United States to enlist the help of as many Muslim nations as possible to counter act this perception. (Aretxega 143)This coalition of Islamic nations does nobody to counteract the rise in racial profiling within the United States. Sherry Colb wrote about the foreseen changes in American law enforcement following the September eleventh attacks. Her article articulated the pro blem of racial profiling and its consequences. Cold notes that legitimate metrical composition do not support profiling. (539) However this does not stop the utilization of profiling in airports, or in traffic stops. However, this too has its supporters, from such sources as law professor Roger Clegg.His response to the field of study of racial profiling is one of acceptance and justification. So what? (Clegg 542) Clegg asks of the act of profiling. However his racial make-up lends itself easily to such opinions, as an amend white male is rarely confronted for being white, educated or male. nevertheless profiling at the borders is the number one cause by which patrols see fit to apprehend an individual since they fit the profile and the Patriot Act backs up the idea of border security no matter what the cost.The changes in the United States since September 2001 have been many and wide in scope, however there is little agreement as to whether these changes are for the break of f or even legal. As illustrated in these articles, the several aspects of governmental policy that have been affected by these attacks have been met with acceptance and praise, as well as contempt and ridicule with communicative and sincere arguments on both sides. Though, condescension the eloquent nature of the arguments, they do not dissuade one from his or her own opinion.It is the learned set of moral values that create ones opinion of the new America. The issue of border control seems more and more to be an issue of economics and as much as the United States focuses its attention on increasing patrol, it is also obstructing trade between countries and so the lax behavior or approach in certain instances of policing and allowing immigrants to cross borders presents to the theorist that increased border control does not necessarily lead to a more protected country.In Kielys (2006) article GOP View, she states that the United States is more focused on illegal immigration than terrorism and using terrorism as a guise by which to exert an autocratic policing expressive style which does not give rights to immigrants, A bill the House passed in December called for making illegal immigration a felony offense, punishable by at least a year in jailUnder the law, people who cross the border without permission are already guilty of a criminal misdemeanor.But people who enter the country legally and then overstay their visasas many as 40% of the nations estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, according to Sensenrennerare guilty of a polished violation (1). Thus it becomes apparent that the United States is focusing more attention on illegal immigration than on terrorism since all of their efforts are geared toward this goal. Since the United States has merely adapted their approach to finding terrorists in the same fashion by which they find illegal immigrants there seems to exist a very unreliable dodge.The terrorists that entered the country each had differ ent ways to expire, false papers of identification and would have been apprehended if the border security had not been as lax as they had been and since their approach to border control has not changed dramatically as a system, but merely as having more patrols and policing the gate is left open for terrorism, as The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control (2004), states, We base that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to blockion by border authorities.Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 of the 15 hijackers and more effective use of tuition usable in U. S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers (570).Since these hijackers could have been apprehended but were not, and the government has only increased the number of patrols on the either border and not per se the system by which illegal immigrants are apprehended it stands to reason that the government is n ot altogether hustling or establishing a methodology in apprehending terrorists, they are merely break down by using brute force without strategy,Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration lawsthat is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorisminevitably shaped al Qaedas planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we endure of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector.We also make that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determine whether individuals are who or what they claim to beand ensuring consequences for violationsit could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors (570). Thus, the article emphasized the lack of a system in uncovering terrorism as part of border security. Aristotle was partial derivative to pluralism. He did place his faith in the idea that humans aped humans and copy what they are witnessing, and thus making reality a reserved, unattainable subject.A persons personal truth, through the philosophy of pluralism and Aristotle, has a accentuate involving historical context and experiential evidence wherein truth can be extrapolated. Aristotle believed that pluralism dealt more with a persons culture than with a great array of immitigable scenarios. For Aristotle, pluralism, and not unity allowed for change in the mankind, and in this passageway of discourse Aristotle presented the concept of both motion and rest existing in the world in simultaneous reality, it is not the case that all things are at rest or in motion sometimes and nil for ever for there is something which always moves the things that are in motion, and the first mover is itself unmoved Ibid. , 29-32, p. 751. Therefore, life, reality, self exist on a plane where the supposition of truth is represented in many. Thus, the United States approach to terrorism is form to be understood as the common good for everyone as fence to the common good based on one man.This is shown in the earnings of holding foreigners in prisons without trial in order to gain information from them, and even in some cases indulging in torture in order to protect the greater good as is stated in Aristotles logos. In the reality that existed for Aristotle through the philosophy concept of pluralism, empirical facts were the focus, goal and reality which human beings base their existence. In this existence, it is not necessary for a common laborer to delve into the meanderings of the Ideal Good perhaps having relevance for anyone besides a philosopher.The absolute idea for Aristotle was not frame in abstract concepts but rather in empirical numerosity and continuous transformation of facts based on frame of reference, history, and culture. It is through these unfathomed approaches that human beings come to know their own truth instead of delving into the conjuring trick of Forms given through Platos unity, Pythagoreans say that things exist by take-off of numbers, and Plato says they exist by participation, changing the name.But what the participation or the imitation of the Forms could be they left an open question Ibid. , ll-14, p. 7O1. The interaction of Forms and human beings in the universe is the core concept on the philosophy of pluralism, as Aristotle states, Platonists speak as if the wiz were homogeneous like fire or water if this is so, the numbers will not be substances.Evidently, if there is a One-itself, and this is a first principle, One is being used in more than one maven for otherwise the theory is impossible Ibid. , 992a 7-10, p. 7O9. Through metaphysics Aristotle suggests that existence is not dependent upon numbers, reasons, or Forms alone, but only that the realistic forms are primary, which is the ap proach the United States government is taking in regards to counter-terrorism. The number one priority of preventing terrorism is to prevent terrorist travel.This tactic however has not been seriously employed with regards to border security and finding and preventing terrorism since the focus, as previously stated, is more about finding terrorists, not finding the means by which they are mobile. One system that has not be utilized in border security is the means by which to detect whether documentation is authentic since terrorists have system by which they infiltrate a country. Their travel impart should be found and exploited, but no real clause in the Patriot Act has been given or stated.Terrorists establish themselves in the United States through their travel channels by which there is a paper trail of documents therefore, the Patriot Act, and NAFTA should not only be focusing their efforts at the borders where the terrorists may or may not be traveling but the government shoul d also be wary of terrorist activity already transpiring inside the country, as The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control, each of these checkpoints or portals is a screening-a chance to establish that people are who they say they are and are seeking access for their stated purpose, to intercept distinctive suspects, and to take effective action (571). This paper has shown that although the United States is refocusing efforts on border control their methodology has not been new in design as counter terrorism efforts call for, but instead the United States seems to have merely increased the number of patrols across the border and not changed the system by which they seek out terrorists.In the information presented in this paper it gave different avenues by which the United States could be making a better effort to fight terrorism by simply having a different strategy on terrorism inclusive of finding their travel channels and relying on identification and false passports. The United States approach to border control, since they are using the same system now as prior to September 11 have not changed how they approach terrorists and their apprehension thus leaving room for terrorists to take advantage of this lax method and exploit it. Bibliography Andreas, Peter. (2003 tertiary Quarter). Perspective. Regional Review. Vol. 13, Issue 2, p3-7. Aretxaga, Begona. (Winter 2001). Terror as Thrill First Thoughts on the War on Terrorism. Anthropological Quarterly. Vol. 75, no(prenominal) 1, p138-150. Kiely, Kathy. (13 April 2006).GOP View penal Immigration Wont be Felony. USA Today. Kydd, Andrew Walter, Barbara. (Spring 2002). Sabotaging the Peace The governing of Extremist Violence. International Organization. Vol. 56, no 2, p263-296. Reinares, Fernando. (Jan-Feb 2002). The Empire Rarely Strikes Back. Foreign Policy. No. 128. P. 92-94. Rosand, Eric. (April 2003). Security Council Resolution 1373, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and the Fight against Terrorism. The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 97, No. 2, p333-341. The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control. (2004). Blackwell print Ltd. p569-574. Zagorin, Adam. (22 November 2004). Bordering On Nukes? Time. Vol. 164 Issue 21, p19.