There have been numerous attacks around the world that have been driven by extreme radicalization. There are those attacks that shook the world and created concern in people’s minds. One of the terrorism acts that still remain in our minds is the 9-1-1 attack on the United States. These attacks were defining and tragic to the Americans. They were affected in diverse and countless ways (Anonymous, 2013).
In China, 133 people were killed on March 2014 and 141 others injured after they were attacked by eight men and women who used knives in the attack. The latest of these radicalized attacks were carried out of France and Belgium in 2016. Even rather, quiet nations in Africa are not spared by the radical extremism. Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda among other nations have been victims of the attacks. Other attacks that caught the attention of governments around the world were the suicide attacks that were carried out on London in July 2005 and Madrid in 2004. Not only did these attacks catch the attention of governments, they also that of the academic and security sources which Europe now faces a qualitatively terrorism type.
The current terrorism that is defined as ‘new terrorism’ appears to take effect across a large-scale dimension while being more fluid, discrete and unpredictable which is dissimilar to previous attacks. New terrorism is carried out mostly by largely self-governing groups. These groups operate in the absence of institutional schooling and recruitment. They however are a people that share ideological affinity with other large terrorism networks such as Al qaeda, ISIS among other well known terror networks (Anonymous, 2013).
They could also be self sufficient in terms of having their own principles and objectives that direct to their need for radical extremism, and therefore not have any connections to the terrorism networks. Of these groups, Al-qaeda is at the forefront of this trend with its base at the borderline between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This network has rapidly spread almost everywhere around the world. It has branches in North Africa, North Asia and Yemen.
Al-qaeda and many of these radical groups are driven by an extreme Salafi ideology. This ideology is characterized by hostility to Western persuasion and the objective of creating an Islamic caliphate around the world. Their operatives have murdered thousands of people in various countries globally (Anonymous, 2013). As though this is not enough, the group’s enthralling philosophy extends its reach thereby prompting some people that are without its direct command to take brutal action. Al-Qaeda’s threat has proved worldwide, versatile, difficult to track and contain.
ISIS on the other hand controls Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Lybia. Its objective is to eradicate borders that are colonially imposed that divide the Middle East. They also have a goal, which is to establish a theoretical rule before the world comes to an end. They believe that this battle will be fought between Christians and Islamic State Muslims in Dabiq in Syria. For them to win this battle, they believe that the Islamic State must create a government, which should be governed by a political and religious individual who has to be the successor to Mohammad, who is the Islamic prophet.
The Islamic State is also committed to adhering to the takfiri doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Islamic State should clear the world of sinners and apostates. This involves killing large masses of people with the aim of purifying the world. Clearly, these two major terror groups spring from a similar ideological source and have their paths diverged with violence, which is applied on occasions.
This matter raised several concerns on the balance between civil liberties and national security. A Guantanamo Bay detention facility was consequently formed in 2002 by President Bush. Its aim was to hold the detainees of the Afghanistan and Iraqi war. These prisoners were not able to access equal rights as the prisoners of the United States since they were outside the U.S legal jurisdiction.
Terrorism is a phenomenon that is complex and ever changing in its nature. There is a constant evolution in its motivation, financing, attack strategies and attack choices. To counter it, a complex and effective strategy must be applied. Its increasingly transnational nature also demands a criminal justice that is characterized by enhanced cooperation among the nations. This will serve to deny a safe sanctuary to the individuals who commit or even attempt to commit terrorist crimes among other crimes. The criminal justice system is faced with a challenging role of countering terrorism. Currently, many justice systems are good at responding by punishing the perpetrators of terrorism as opposed to preventing them (Husabø, E. & Bruce, I. 2009).
A precautionary criminal justice approach against terrorist brutality demands an inclusive structure of substantive offences, undercover techniques and powers, evidentiary rules as well as cooperation by the international community (Prezelj, I. 2008). The reduction of occurrence and ruthlessness of terrorist violence is achievable by proactively integrative substantial and procedural mechanisms. Criminal justice systems need to dedicate substantial efforts to increasing the effectiveness of their prevention measures on terrorism. This should be particularly through their cooperation at the international point with diverse counter terrorism initiatives (Shemella, P. 2011).
This has brought about additional stress, which is being placed on the already limited capacity of a number of criminal justice systems and perchance deteriorated or compromised their functioning ability within the indispensable rule of law and human rights principles. Member states have requested the United Nations to enhance their criminal justice capacity to respond to terrorism. The United Nations has responded to these requests. UNODC is one of the United Nations major contributor of technical assistance in this matter. Its Terrorism Prevention Branch is responsible for providing it with specialized services to reinforce the international authorized administration against terrorism (Dandurand, Y. (2009).
Apart from this, UNODC can draw on its specialized technical competence on the prevention of crime, criminal justice and issues of the rule of law. It can also draw on its wealth of experience in endorsing and facilitating international cooperation in matters of crime. Kofi Annan made a speech to the Counter Terrorism Committee of the Security Council in March 2003 (Dandurand, Y. (2009). In his speech, the then Secretary General put emphasis on the need to develop an international programme of action that should be founded on concrete commitment to upholding the rule of law.
He also noted that terrorism involves the calculated application of violence. This is in violation of the law. He therefore emphasized on what our response to terrorism should be, which should be to make certain rules of law. Kofi Annan’s report to the Security Council is a model that lies at the core mission of the United Nations. Since it is now notable of how terrorism threatens both the rule of law and essential freedom of citizens and societies as a whole, it would be important for nations to cooperate in counterterrorism activities in one voice (Dandurand, Y. (2009).
In addition to the international fight on terrorism, some nations have taken to different ways to counter terrorism. After the 9-1-1, the United States took to wiretapping its citizens in their investigations of terrorist activity. Electronic surveillance was also incorporated, which was eased by Congress through the Foreign Intelligence Service. Some people viewed this as the law that was needed to combat terrorism. Others viewed this act as a violation to the individual liberties of the citizens of the United States ( Morgan, M. 2009).
France on the other hand has come up with anti terrorist measures to curb the issue after being the main nation that has produced the most jihadists. In 2014, the nation came up with the new counterterror legislation. This was due to the rise of ISIS and the concern over radical French Muslims that swelled its ranks. The measures included a fine of upto 150,000 euros and a maximum of 10 years in prison on any individual found in the possession of harmful substances or objects (Ferber A and Wehner, P 2015). These substances and objects include explosives or weapons. Anyone who is also caught consulting terrorist websites or even receiving terrorist training is not exempted from the new counterterror legislation.
Israel is another nation that has faced terrorist acts from the never ending wars such as the Gaza War. A number of terrorist laws have been introduced to curb this menace. One law by the Knesset is to prevent the release of Palestine prisoners, who are convicted of murder under extraordinary severe circumstances. This is in relation to any future political agreement of prisoner swap. Unlawful combatants and Israeli detainees who are suspected of security offenses are liable to be barred from seeing a lawyer for 21 days. At the end of it all, what matters is that nations do what they can to keep their citizens safe. Nations have to come up with national and international judicial systems that will aid in fighting radical extremism.
References
Dandurand, Y. (2009). Criminal justice responses to terrorism. United Nations New York https://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Handbook_on_Criminal_Justice_Responses_to_Terrorism_en.pdf
Ferber A and Wehner, P (2015). How France and Other Countries Around the World Treat Terrorists, The War on Terror is being fought across the globe without a fixed set of rules. Haaretz assesses seven countries' treatment of terror suspects. http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.634334
Husabø, E. & Bruce, I. (2009). Fighting terrorism through multilevel criminal legislation Security Council Resolution 1373, the EU framework decision on combating terrorism and their implementation in Nordic, Dutch and German criminal law. Leiden Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Morgan, M. (2009). The impact of 9/11 on religion and philosophy the day that changed everything. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
n.a. (2013). The global regime for terrorism. Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/global-regime-terrorism/p25729
Prezelj, I. (2008). The fight against terrorism and crisis management in the Western Balkans. Amsterdam, Netherlands Washington, DC: IOS Press.
Shemella, P. (2011). Fighting back what governments can do about terrorism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
