War on Terrorism

Fortune Green-Amakwe

1403277

SC557-7-SP Critical Perspectives on Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism

Pete Fussey

America’s War on Terror

Organized Crime, Terrorism & Security 2014-15

UP:20/04/2015-23:41:10 WM:20/04/2015-23:41:13 M:SC557-7-SP A:14a1 R:1403277 C:5EF61E08B3309D8244BE26FDA3BFD4E6F34D908D

Abstract

After the events of September 11 a miasma of paranoia hung over the skies of the United

States. To the American government, this was an attack on democracy with its promises

of liberty, justice and peace. The Bush Administration declared a War on Terrorism to

render the world unsafe for all who perpetuate such heinous acts. Hereafter, the war on

terror became the justification for the worst forms of aggression and repression by the

United States thus other nations followed suit. In this paper I analyze the criminal nature

of America’s war on terror and it’s implications on human rights, international law and

intergovernmental bodies.

Introduction

Terrorism is often heard in political rhetoric of this turbulent times and the media further

accentuate the phenomena with there theatrical coverage that plays right into the cards of

the terrorists whose sole purpose is to instill fear and invoke a general sense of public

anxiety. Despite the fact that there are more recorded homicide related deaths than

terrorism related deaths (IEP, 2014), the latter gets much more media coverage. This

could stem from the forms in which terrorism manifests – blowing up the world trade

center – and its aims – crippling state sectors or coercing national governments – to

achieve a certain goal. In response to these terrorist threats, governments are often found

guilty of utilizing heavy-handed approaches many experts agree contravene both

domestic and international law. However, to rationalize their actions, national

governments are quick to point out that combatting terrorism is a peculiar problem that


requires exceptional treatment. A perfect example to illustrate with would be the United

States of America who assumed ultimate power after the fall of the Soviet Union. This

paper looks at America’s war on terror as it contravenes both domestic and international

law and questions the capacity and independency of established intergovernmental

bodies.

Turbulent Middle East

Following the tragic events of September 11 was a febrile, paranoid and vindictive

atmosphere that played right into the cards of a right regime whose political gambit has

centered on indirect imperialism. George Bush, flabbergasted and overwhelmed by recent

events that occurred under his watch, pushed for greater powers in congress claiming that

the proposed legislations would bolster states powers “with the goal of preventing further

terrorist activity and prosecuting those suspected of planning, abetting or undertaking it”

(Thomas, Margaret, & Goering, 2004). Congress accorded government sweeping powers

many believed immediately transformed the American nation to a police state.

Desperate to further its influence in the Middle East and “control of region’s energy

resources as well as supply routes of oil and gas” (Rahman, 2010) the United States have

perpetuated the most aggressive acts antithetical to the democratic principles they claim

to espouse. The geopolitical reality of the Middle East has changed since Afghanistan and

subsequently Iraq, got a taste of American military strength. The region has seen no

peace plagued with conflicts; sectarian violence and chaos orchestrated by armed groups

whose inherent existence are resultants of American aggression. Inevitably, the vacuum


of power ensuing the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq,

paved the way for the ascendancy of armed groups espousing extreme Islamic ideologies

and fed up with western hegemonic influence and secular attitudes that to them, were

perverting Islamic nations.

Since the US-led invasion in 2003, nearly half a million people have died from war-

related causes in Iraq (Kerry, 2014); there has been theft and destruction of cultural

heritage, corruption and corporate profiteering throughout occupation and widespread

human rights abuses (Barbara & Walters, 2009). The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled

out of Iraq on December 18th

, 2011 ending nearly nine years of war (Joseph, 2011).

However victory chants were not heard owing to the fact that Iraq was left in a state of

perpetual anarchy. The country is still rife with violence and political instability, swelling

numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons as well as the presence of a weak

government incapable of restoring normalcy to a war torn country.

The new world order became saturated with Islamic revivalism and anti western

sentiment. Armed groups sprung out like weeds across the Middle East and Africa. This

growing Islamic resistance was not just to the physical occupation of territory but also to

growing influence of western policies on the political and social struggles of Islamic

nations. America’s imperialistic intention that was hidden behind a façade of

humanitarian intervention was a ruse that many Muslims were beginning to see through.


Drone wars

State sovereignty has been one of basic tenets of international law since the 17th

century.

It meant a “state’s independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign

powers on the one hand and the State’s exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy over its

state territory and inhabitants on the other” (Swartz, 2014). Hardt and Negri (2000) have

argued that the notion of state sovereignty has lost much of its viability in the

contemporary world. A argument that can be proven by the United States audacity to use

force on any country it deems fit.

Against the backdrop of the war on terror, has been soaring dependence on the use of

unmanned defense systems. Pentagon planned to acquire 700 medium- and large-size

drones at a cost of nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years (Peter, 2011). Drones are

arguably a very convenient means of warfare. There is no direct engagement and no risk

of return fire; it’s easily controlled like a video game. This is a phenomenon that gets a

lot of coverage in the news but this kind of warfare is fraught with massive civilian

casualties. Nevertheless, the American government view drone capacities as efficient in

combat and an essential utility in counter insurgency and irregular warfare operations

despite the colossal collateral damage that accompanies it.

U.S. defense and intelligence agencies employ drones for surveillance, reconnaissance

and also engaging terrorists’ positions almost on a daily basis; this happens a lot

especially in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia in Africa. Despicably, when covering these

stories, American national media fail to acknowledge the huge number of civilians caught


in drone strikes; instead, the dead women and children are conveniently labeled

‘suspected terrorists’.

In their attempts to fight terrorism, The United States has become terrorists themselves.

On august 5, 2009, the life of the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud ended

abruptly when an American Predator drone strafed his house in northwest Pakistan.

“Pakistanis typically condemn similar drone strikes due to the civilian casualties they

cause. In Mehsud’s case, it took sixteen strikes, fourteen months and between 207 and

321 additional deaths to finally kill him” (Callam, 2010). The number of civilians caught

in drone strikes has been chafing the international community and non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), calling into question the efficacy of US government’s counter

terrorism strategy. The United States is disregarding international humanitarian law

especially the crucial principle of proportionality that “prescribes that belligerent parties

in war not inflict collateral damage that is excessive in relation to the military advantage

they seek with any hostile action – such as an air strike” (Janina, 2010).

Altogether, not only is the United States’ intrusion in independent states’ sovereignty,

ultra vires, indiscriminate attacks arbitrarily killing civilians is also a violation of Article

6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): “every human

being has the inherent right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”

(Amnesty International, 2013). Residents residing in areas regularly bombed by

American drones, live in a perpetual state of fear and anxiety.

Putting international law aside, releasing hell fire missiles on individuals without absolute

certainty of their identity or regards for surrounding civilians is doubly callous of the

United States and tantamount to the terrorist acts perpetuated by armed terrorist groups.


The inhumanity of terrorists in their attacks – utmost disregard for civilians – is

comparable to the United States’ attack on suspected terrorist positions at the expense of

high civilian toll. Clearly stated in the United Nations Charter in 1945, the best guarantee

for international peace and security is the utmost respect for human rights. If not a

legislative one, a moral imperative the American government has ignored in its global

war on terror

The Surveillance State

Signals intelligence: the surveillance of individuals, organizations and countries is

becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combatting international terrorism and

such methods are generally practicable. The glaring question would be how transparent –

not compromising national security – could these agencies be in a democratic society?

The American people have always been aware of the existence of spooks and security

agents who play very vital roles in ensuring national security. They have been exhausted

by the apocryphal War on Terror; the toll it has taken on their psychological well being

and to an extent, economical. However, they were in for a big surprise with the

revelations of Edward Snowden who subsequently became the most wanted man in

America.

The events that led to the whistle blowing, Snowden’s personality, characteristics or

expertise are beyond the scope of this paper and are extensively covered in myriad

publications. Nevertheless, Snowden’s revelations about the activities of the National

Security Agency (NSA) doubly pertain to the aspects of the War on Terror that is


criminal. The former NSA contractor released thousands of classified documents about

the US and the United Kingdom creating a surveillance monster after the tragic event of

9/11. These top-secret documents revealed the existence of a mass surveillance program

that automatically tracked, monitored and stored emails and text messages of millions of

phone users. It revealed that the program possessed backdoor access to siphon mass

volumes of user data from various popular social media platforms such as Facebook and

Twitter to Tech companies like Microsoft and Apple. Metadata, call registry, itinerary,

name it, it amassed it all. In fact, it is believed that the program was also being used by

the NSA to intercept communications signals of leaders around the world. It was fairly a

totalitarian instrument that rendered every electronic communications permeable to the

prying eyes of the NSA.

As the leak inundated media, President Obama was very quick to rectify that he was not

privy to the surveillance on foreign leaders but was in complete support of the mass

surveillance of major U.S. Internet service providers which he reiterated were measures

necessary to thwart terrorist attacks, he said, “It is important to recognize that you can not

have 100 percent security and also then 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience”

(Lara & Darlene, 2013). An issue that should be addressed here is that, If Obamas’ claim

of being incognizant of the surveillance monitoring on foreign leaders is genuine, and not

an apt attempt to “contain a full-scale diplomatic crisis over espionage directed at allied

countries” (Paul & Oltermann, 2013) then this should be a clarion call for lawmakers to

address the unhealthy autonomy of intelligence agencies as they are “becoming a state

within a state beyond effective scrutiny and oversight of parliament” (David, 2015).

Nevertheless, Obama’s spiel to quell opposition and convince the American people of the


essentiality of NSA’s program has failed to yield fruits. Critics remain skeptical of the

programs purposes especially as the leaked documents divulge that foreign leaders were

being monitored – even close American allies such as German Chancellor, Angela

Merkel. It is highly plausible that an ulterior motive of the surveillance program hides

behind a smokescreen of national security. The apocryphal war on terror has been perfect

fodder for furthering imperialistic goals of the United States and in the name of fighting

terrorism, Intelligence gathering which is an indispensible factor in ensuring human

security, is otherwise used for political and economic security.

Still in the United States, the NSA is not the only sector of government guilty of overly

intrusive surveillance on citizens after the 9/11 attacks. At the city level, police and law

enforcement increased surveillance on areas they referred to as ‘High risk communities’.

Unfortunately for moderate Muslims living around the world, extremists who adhere to a

literal interpretation of the Qur’an have tainted the religion of Islam. As the September 11

attacks were somewhat religiously inspired, Muslim communities began to bare the

brunt; authorities have intensified the policing of communities predominated by Muslims.

Such over-policing practices have been proven to be counter-productive, and also feed

the propaganda of jihadists who preach that the U.S. Government is at war with Muslims.

The straw that breaks the camels back

As the American people grappled with the reality of living in a surveillance state another

cruel secret is revealed. From his campaigning stages, Barack Obama has always

condemned torture in its entirety and fervently advocated the utmost respect for human


rights all over the world. And to demonstrate this standpoint, at his inception into office,

he signed a series of executive orders abrogating controversial practices inherited from

the Bush’s administration. They included banning torture, shutting down the CIA’s

network of secret prisons, and the closure of the US Guantanamo Bay prison within one

year. Initially, the orders were well received by the human rights communities that spent

the Bush-years fighting those policies. But after a few months into the nascent

administration, the endeavor increasingly became bleak.

Some of these practices had been deeply embedded into detention procedures making it

difficult for government officials to effortlessly dislodge. An example of that is the

extraordinary rendition – a practice in which U.S. forces pick up terrorist suspects from

anywhere in the world and take them to countries with less rigorous regulations for the

humane treatment of prisoners, for interrogation – program, which the Obama

administration maintained would continue in the meantime.

According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international

treaty signed and ratified by the U.S., “state parties have an obligation to take positive

measures to ensure that private persons or entities do no inflict torture or cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment on others within their power” (OHCHR, 2008).

Although the United States is party to this international law, detainees – the U.S. refer to

as ‘non-combatants’ – are illegally held without charges and treated worse than animals

in various detention facilities, calling such methods ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’

necessary to elicit vital information for national security.

In the winter of 2014, the senate intelligence committee released declassified reports

describing methods employed by the CIA during the interrogation of suspected terrorists,


at the wake of the September 11 terror attacks. The reports reveal unimaginable

conditions detainees were subjected to: “rectal feeding without medical necessity, forced

to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to

180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads”

(Oliver, 2014). The report details cases of severe beating, forced nudity, stress

positioning and in an incident, the death of suspected afghan militant Gul Rahman. He

was detained in a CIA prison called the Salt pit in Kabul, Afghanistan. “Inside a chilly

cell, the man was shackled and left half-naked. He was found dead, exposed to the cold,

in the early hours of Nov. 20, 2002” (Adam & Kathy, 2010). This report describes far

more shocking practices than previously disclosed in 2009 when Obama released top-

secret documents that revealed the extent of C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques (Ewen,

2009) in which he ruled out any notion of prosecuting involved CIA operatives who were

only working within the rules set by the Bush Administration.

In the War on Terrorism, it seems the democratic principles of liberty and justice are

tacitly ignored. The worst human rights violations are being carried out on inmates

suspected of being terrorists. It is important to note that these heinous violations of

human rights still occur in the present administration. Though, Obama vehemently denies

his administrations’ countenance to torture, promising to run the most transparent white

house in history with swift and certain justice for captured terrorists, quite the opposite

seems to be happening. There are still thousands of U.S. detainees protractedly held in

military prisons around the world and denied access to lawyers and human right groups.

In fact, recent findings affirm the existence of a CIA black site replica, situated in

Chicago, operating “an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans


unable to be found by family or attorneys…” (Spencer, 2015) “perhaps finally bringing

home, so to speak, James Madison's great caution against foreign military entanglements:

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of

tyranny at home” (Aleksandar & Dickson, 2011).

Foreign policy

The war on terrorism has been adopted by other national governments when deemed fit

and utilized as a justification for brutal aggression on forms of dissent. America’s nation-

child, Israel, has analyzed the heavy-handed and unsanctioned invasion by the American

military and seen it as a befitting tactic to be employed on Palestinians who resist the

occupation of their lands.

Since the 1981 Memorandum of Understanding on strategic cooperation and the Reagan

administration’s designation of Israel, in late 1987, as ‘a major non-NATO ally’ (Helena,

1989) both countries have had very strong diplomatic ties. Successive regimes have

maintained this cooperation for strategic reasons. The United States have perceived Israel

as an indispensible ally, vital for maintaining and securing U.S. interest in a region prone

to volatility while Israel can be assured that the veto welding powers of the U.S. in the

United Nations Security council would preempt any opposition or boycott of the Israeli

nation. This partisan relationship between the hegemonic US and comparatively small

Israel has bolstered the Middle Eastern nation, given it the audacity to flagrantly violate

international law with “the claims of possessing the right of preemptive strikes for


bringing freedom…” (Rahman, 2010) and the right to defend its territory against armed

groups who threaten Israel’s safety and territorial integrity.

Since the 1967 six-day war in which the Palestinian territories were captured by Israel,

massive protests have intermittently erupted across the occupied territories. Millions of

Palestinians stage peaceful protests demanding an end to the Israeli occupation and the

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) often confronts this uprising with brutal aggression.

Although it is explicitly written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “ All

human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, recent events in the occupied

Palestine territories clearly illustrates that liberty has been denied to the people of

Palestine. Generations of Palestinians have had no experience other than the Israeli

occupation. ”The human suffering of the land, sea and air blockade imposed on the 1.75

million Palestinians living in one of the most densely populated and impoverished areas

of the world has been devastating” (UNHR, 2013). Compounding the plights of the

Palestinian people and flagrantly violating Geneva Conventions, Israel inflicts collective

punishment by demolishing the houses of families whose member partakes in violent

protests; in some cases the Israeli government went as far as deporting Palestinians from

their own land. Israel’s recent violation is the continuous construction of illegal

settlements in the occupied territories.

This sordid attitude of Israel towards Palestine is quite similar to apartheid system that

occurred in South Africa in which the black population were deliberately marginalised

and oppressed. With anger and resentment festering over the unending tyranny, a form of

militant resistance grew. An Islamic armed group emerged, stating there primary

objective as the destruction of the state of Israel. It is important to know that Hamas is


designated a terrorist organisation by countries such as Israel – perceiving Hamas as a

threat to its existence, the US, Japan and EU. Since 2005, Israel has conducted 3 military

incursions in the dense Gaza strip with the objective of neutralising the capabilities of

Hamas. Each successive campaign caused massive civilian casualties than the previous.

The most recent of the Israeli invasion was in July 2014, codenamed “Protective Edge”.

The 52 days war resulted in 2127 deaths in Gaza and 72 deaths in Israel (Elihu, Talkya,

Alex, & Tamar, 2015), 75% were civilians. Israel was condemned by the international

community for not adhering to International Humanitarian Law by acting proportionately

to avoid civilian casualties. In the name of fighting terrorists, Israel disregarded the

precarious circumstance of Gaza, knowing fully well that a ground assault would

inevitably result to high civilian casualties.

As these events unravel, the US publicly condemns Israel’s disregard for civilians but

contradictorily restocks their dwindling ammunition (Paul & Harriet, 2014) thus

sustaining the campaign. When such double standards are questioned, the U.S affirms

Israel’s right to self-defence and illustrates its fervent support for the nation by vetoing

any bid for Palestinian statehood brought before the United Nations Security Council.

These policies are often the harbingers of American adversaries. They give credence to

the narratives of Jihadists that America is at war with the Muslims.

The Future of International Law and United nations

It is important to understand that the United States invasion of Afghanistan to topple the

Taliban regime that was harboring Al Qaeda – the orchestrators of the bloody September


11 Attacks – was legally backed by the unanimous support of the United Nations and all

relevant stakeholders. But the following proposal, for a direct military action in Iraq for

allegations of Saddam Hussein’s government possessing “weapons of mass destruction

(WMD) that might eventually be used against the United States, either directly or through

terrorist networks” (Ronald & Raymond, 2005) was met with significant opposition.

This proposal contravened article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, “all Members shall

refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial

integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with

the Purposes of the United Nations” (UN, 1945), thus with the remits of ensuring

international peace and security, it was imperative the United Nations Security Council

pre-empted this simmering issue from escalating into an armed conflict and proceeded by

giving no legal authorisation for such an invasion that had no reasonable justification.

The fact that firm opposition and disagreement of the Security Council – the apex

decision maker of security matters on the international level – could not militate against

the US invasion of a sovereign nation portends an ominous future for the international

community. Not only does it call into question, the capacity of the United Nations to

uphold international law and maintain peace and security, it portrays that “the world’s

superpowers have invariably written their own rules; others go along because they have

no choice” (Lichtenberg, 2004). On the former, similar arguments have been made on the

inability of the United Nations to prevent the Bosnia conflict, the Rwandan genocide as

well as the Kosovo conflict. With a no-so-good track record, how can the international

community continue to depend on the United Nations as a competent mediator for peace

and security? Furthermore, this unilateralism has rung the death bell of international law.


In other words, international law that was once sacrosanct has been proven by the United

States, that it could be flouted with impunity, a trend other nations can follow.

Subservient judiciary institutions

So it is now glaringly clear that the US violated international law by invading Iraq, yet as

thousands of Iraqis continue to die and survivors suffer penury, no one has been

subpoenaed for this fragrant abuse of power. The war crimes committed by the US falls

within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) whose remit is to

persecute persons warranted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide when

state judiciaries fail to do so. Nevertheless, the ICC is yet to arraign George Bush and his

pro-Iraq-invasion cohorts and many would wonder why, but President Barack Obama

helps us to answer that question with an excerpt from his 2010 National Security

Strategy:

“From Nuremberg to Yugoslavia to Liberia, the United States has seen that the end of

impunity and the promotion of justice are not just moral imperatives; they are stabilizing

forces in international affairs. The United States is thus working to strengthen national

justice systems and is maintaining our support for ad hoc international tribunals and

hybrid courts, those who intentionally target innocent civilians must be held accountable

… we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are

supporting the ICC's prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interests and values,

consistent with the requirements of U.S. law” ( National Security Strategy, 2010).


Many would agree that the US policy towards the ICC has been an ambivalent one, since

the Clinton Administration reluctantly signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000,

only for it to be oddly unsigned by the bush administration by May 2002. Yet as a non-

member, it is surprising that the US still steers the ICC towards American interest, more

surprising is the manner in which Obama explicitly states it, bereft of diplomatic

languages that sound equivocal to conceal that the ICC has been a tool for advancing US

interests.

It would be quite difficult for the ICC to debunk notions of its obsequiousness towards

the west as its track record of cases pretty much affirms it. Since its inception in 1998, the

ICC has easily indicted Africans for crimes against humanity. According to its website,

about 9 cases are currently before the ICC and all are against Africans. Amongst this

cases are indictments of (ex) Presidents, they include Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta, – whose

charges were recently dropped – Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi –

who was bombarded by NATO forces and eventually killed October, 2011 – and Ivory

Coast’s Laurent Gbagbo. They all had strained ties with the west. However this is not to

say that these individuals were unjustly indicted, but if similar crimes against humanity

were perpetuated in other continents – like the stark case of Iraq – why haven’t the

perpetrators been brought to book.

The fact that the US refuses to be accountable before the ICC by not being signatory to

the Roman Statute raises question on its true position on ensuring international peace and

justice. Furthermore if, the hyperpower – a nation with great economic and military


strength – (United States) has control over supposedly independent judiciary bodies, like

the ICC, this renders the US above the law and a threat to all sovereign states.

Conclusion

This paper empathically refused to address the alternate narrative; the narrative that

would countenance that certain drastic measures are necessary to contain the peculiar

problem of terrorism. On the premise of democracy, there should be no justification for

any form of repression in meeting an end. The war on terrorism was initially portrayed as

a fight to defend democracy, but has thus far been used to restrict civil liberties and

contravene domestic and international laws. There is definitely a threat of terrorism but

that does not justify the undemocratic measures that are adopted to tackle it. Ingrained in

America’s war on terrorism is the marginalization of human rights and a sudden

transformation from victim to aggressor. Authorizing indefinite detention without charge,

“ together with the designation of the Guantanamo detainees as ‘non-combatants’, rather

than ‘prisoners of war’ under the Geneva conventions, have raised doubts the capacity of

the U.S to promote human and civil rights while fighting terrorism” (Thomas, Margaret,

& Goering, 2004).

In addition, although “keeping key practices in the shadows, it is argued, is a necessary

condition for sustaining the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures” (Martin &

Thiel, 2011), recent events indicate that these intelligence agencies have the “tendency to

cross the boundaries of legitimacy and actively circumvent aspects of human rights”

(Thiel, 2009). Many people have become increasingly concerned about the overreach of


surveillance and its lack of accountability; the oversight mechanisms are weak and

ineffective thus long fought for freedoms are being eroded in the name safety and

security.

Furthermore, One thing for sure is that the war on terror has exerted colossal damage on

economical, political and security stability of the Middle East, which has reverberated

over the world today. The security climate – the emergence of non-state actors with

extreme exegesis of religion – has inadvertently impelled national governments to divert

“ resources normally allocated to social programmes and development assistance to the

security sector affecting the economic, social and cultural rights of many” (OHCHR,

2008)

For the international community, the war on terror has tainted the image of the US who is

now looked at with great suspicion in all matters of security and human rights. Her

domestic and foreign policies with regards to terrorism and international security, which

is keenly watched by many nations, has set a bad precedent with severe implications. It

has “renewed a sharply ideological vision of national security and a sense among some

that human rights could be ignored in its defense” (Thomas, Margaret, & Goering, 2004)

The war has become the new paradigm for legit aggression by many other nations: Israel

continues to bombard Palestinians in Gaza with impunity. The recent case of Aljazeera

correspondents imprisoned in Egypt for more than a year placed the spotlight on rising

journalist persecutions on the grounds of combatting terrorism. Malaysia passed a new

Prevention of Terrorism act which accord government authorities power to detain

terrorism suspects without charge (theguardian, 2015) joining the growing list of

countries whose counter terrorism measure are blows to democracy.


The real question that begs answering would be how to make hyperpowers accountable

before the law. International law has unfairly had its influence disproportionately strong

on the weakest countries. The US has become more unilateral and unaccountable before

international law. It is necessary to establish stronger intergovernmental institutions

resistant to clout in other to effectively prevent conflicts from occurring in the first place

and oversee the use and abuse of power by states.

Taking a pessimistic stance, the war on terrorism has been spread to all nooks and cranny

of the world, thus this battle, reiterated by several national governments, is likely to be

sempiternal especially if reductionistic approaches continue to be adapted to the very

complex phenomenon of terrorism. However, the onus is on policy makers, analysts,

sociologists and thinkers to impose pressure for the change of this status quo and force

governments to develop effective counter terrorism strategies void of human rights

infringements.


Works Cited

National Security Strategy. (2010, May). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from whitehouse.gov:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

Adam, G., & Kathy, G. (2010, March 28). Death shed light on CIA 'Salt Pit' near Kabul.

Retrieved March 20, 2015, from nbcnews:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36071994/ns/us_news-security/t/death-shed-light-cia-salt-

pit-near-kabul/#.VQx2mRCsUT-

Aleksandar, J., & Dickson, T. (2011, December 19). A Year Of Living Lawless .

Retrieved March 20, 2015, from swans.com:

http://www.swans.com/library/art17/ajokic09.html

Amnesty International. (2013). "Will I be Next"? US Drone Strikes In Pakistan. Amnesty

International. London: Amnesty International Publications.

Barbara, H., & Walters, R. (2009). Criminology and The War on Terror. The British

Journal of Criminlogy (5), 603 - 608.

Callam, A. (2010). Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Retrieved March 15,

2015, from iar-gwu.org: http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144

David, M. (2015, February 24). Spy Cables. Aljazeera.

Elihu, R., Talkya, M., Alex, B., & Tamar, P. (2015, January 30). Retrieved March 22,

2015, from israelbehindthenews.com: http://israelbehindthenews.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/02/Gaza-Protective-Edge-Final.pdf

Ewen, M. (2009, April 16). Obama releases Bush torture memos. Retrieved March 20,

2015, from theguardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-

bush-administration


Helena, C. (1989). The U.S.-Israeli Relationship in the Reagan Era. The Journal of

Conflict Studies , 9 (2).

IEP. (2014). GLobal Terrorism Index. Institute for economics & peace . Institute for

economics & peace .

Janina, D. (2010). Applying the Principle of Proportionality in Combat Operations.

Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict. University of Oxford .

Joseph, L. (2011, December 18). Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war. Retrieved

March 14, 2015, from reuters.com: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-

withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218

Kerry, S. (2014, January 23). Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,00 Since Start Of U.S.-Led

Invasion, New Study Says . Retrieved March 12, 2015, from Huffingtonpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

Lara, J., & Darlene, S. (2013, July 08). Obama Defends NSA, Says America Has To Make

Choices Between Privacy and Security . Retrieved March 19, 2015, from Huffingtonpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-defends-nsa_n_3406448.html

Lichtenberg, J. (2004). Pre-emption and exceptionalism in U.S. foreign policy . In W.

Thomas, C. Margaret, & J. Goering (Eds.), Wars on Terrorism and Iraq (pp. 61-72).

Routledge.

Louise, S. (2010). Human Trafficking. New York, US: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, I., & Thiel, D. (2011). Policing Terror. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of

Policing (pp. 553-579). Taylor & Francis.

OHCHR. (2008). Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights . Geneva : United Nations.


Oliver, L. (2014, December 9). How thw CIA tortured its detainees. Retrieved March 20,

2015, from theguardian : http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-

methods-waterboarding-sleep-deprivation

Paul, L., & Harriet, S. (2014, July 31). US condemns shelling of UN school in Gaza but

restocks Israeli ammunition. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from theguardian.com:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/us-firm-condemnation-shelling-un-

school-gaza

Paul, L., & Oltermann, P. (2013, October 27). NSA denies discussing Merkel phone

surveillance with Obama. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from theguardian :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/barack-obama-nsa-angela-merkel-

germany

Peter, F. (2011, December 23). Rise of the drone: From Calif. garage to multibillion-

dollar defense industry. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from washingtonpost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/rise-of-the-drone-from-calif-

garage-to-multibillion-dollar-defense-industry/2011/12/22/gIQACG8UEP_story.html

Rahman, K. (2010). Contemporary Middle East Global Politics and Regional Issues.

Policy Perspectives , 7 (1), 1-3.

Ronald, K., & Raymond, M. (2005, April 19). War, Aggression And State Crime. British

Journal of Criminology , 449.

Spencer, A. (2015, February 24). The dissapeared: Chicago police detain Americans at

abuse-laden 'black site'. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from theguardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-

black-site


Swartz, N. (2014). State Sovereignty and Environmental Law. European Journal of

Business and Social Sciences , III (8), 34-44.

theguardian. (2015, April 7). Malaysia passes new detention without trial law, raising

human rights fears. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from theguardian.com:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/malaysia-passes-tough-new-terrorism-

law-raising-human-rights-fears

Thiel, D. (2009). Policing Terrorism: A Review of the Evidence . The Police Foundation.

Thomas, W., Margaret, C., & Goering, J. (2004). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq. New

York, U.S.A: Routledge.

UN. (1945). United Nations Charter. Charter of The United Nations. San Francisco:

United Nations.

UNHR. (2013, June 14). Collective punisment in Gaza must end: Israel's blockade enters

its 7th year - UN Special Rapporteur. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from ohchr.org:

http://www.ohchr.org/en/newsevents/pages/displaynews.aspx?newsid=13455&langid=e


Documents

War on Terrorism