Historical Context
The terrorist attacks in the United States marked the beginning of a new era of terrorism. The main trend in suicide terrorism has become reorientation of hatred for political regimes and their leaders and to combat them on ethno-national and religious terrorism. Another feature of terrorism is the use of a new era in its attacks scientific and technological advances that lead to fundamentally different scale of destruction and the number of casualties. Previously, in most high-profile terrorist acts to hundreds of people killed, the United States September 11, 2001 killed about five thousand people. The terrorist attacks of modern times are quite difficult from a technical point of view and require special professional training indicating the new level of organization of terrorist acts.
The world came to understand that terrorism poses a threat anywhere. Henceforth person, regardless of nationality, color, religion in any corner of the world can feel safe. No country (even the most powerful) is unable to defend itself from terrorist attacks. This indicates how the world is vulnerable to terrorism and reaffirms that this issue should be solved together all countries. In no event should terrorists feel that they can bring to their knees the whole world. To achieve this, we shall look for ways to collaborate more effectively around the level of special services. Task ban international terrorism should unite the entire civilized world. An example of this was the creation of an international anti-terrorist coalition led by the United States. More than 100 countries have declared their support in the fight against terrorism.
Terrorist attacks are increasingly aimed at mass casualties, causing the destruction of material and spiritual values (national and universal shrines, sometimes not amenable to recovery), provoking war, distrust and hatred between social, national and religious groups contributing to the emergence and deepening antagonisms, which are rooted in the historical memory of generations.
It is clear that, with the current level of global information, financial, transport and other resources, branched hazardous occupations and life support systems the consequences of possible terrorist attacks could be disastrous. Yesterday's intellectual, technological, informational and financial barriers for the latest suicide is no longer a guaranteed barrier to mastering them and use chemical, biological, radioactive and cyber weapons.
Sharpening of the contradictions associated with systemic crisis in the global community enlivens international terrorism. The gap between the distribution of total wealth (80% accounted for 3 per cent of the Earth and, accordingly, 20% - for the remaining 97 percent) one gives too much, and others doomed to starvation. All this cannot distort the values.
The tragic events of September 11 in the US made the world shudder. Millions of people realized how fragile our civilization is and how everything is interconnected in the world. Terrorism appeared as a universal threat, which has no explicit political face.
We are witnessing the emergence and development of a new global ideology - the ideology of terrorism (violence, which causes massive sense of horror) aimed at the mass destruction of civilized people and socio-economic relations.
National Security vs. Human Rights
Unfortunately, now we have to face the fact that the fear of terrorism that does not match its real danger, and injected either by states or other actors, can lead to undesirable outcomes such as its use in order to get people to willingly adopt counter-terrorism measures, unnecessarily restricting human rights and humanitarian law. Undue fear can strengthen religious or ethnic intolerance. Using the fear of terrorism can also damage international solidarity up to such an extent that it will interfere with cooperation in reducing or preventing terrorism. Fear of terrorism hypertrophies by repeatedly and often exaggerated and even absurd references to the existence of weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of terrorist groups or certain countries, despite the fact that almost all terrorist acts perpetrated by traditional methods. That is why it must be ensured that the actions of states in response to terrorism accurately reflect the real threat to avoid adverse effects and States to refrain from undue fear of terrorism.
According to the recognized international standards, as reflected in particular in Art. 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”. Thus, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen from the USA government suggested the following tasks: maintaining law and order; personal security; ensure internal and external security of the society and the state; creating favorable conditions for economic activities and protection of all forms of ownership; subject to the minimum state standards for basic living standards; cultural development of citizens. It is clear that the essence of the legal limit is prompting citizens to socially beneficial behavior, on the one hand, and the containment of social negative behavior, on the other. There is a specificity of state restrictions of rights and freedoms: the rights are limited in order to prevent illegal encroachments on the full realization of the rights and freedoms of citizens.
However, the above does not mean that States are free in their actions. With the introduction of restrictions during their legislative practice there should not be an abuse of the right as it is. When the right to use the data is restricted in such a way that the person is deprived of his vital rights, it causes damage to the vital interests of the state and its people. In other words, the abuse of rights is unlawful exercise of the right which goes beyond the limits for its implementation. This abuse of the right targets areas in contradiction to its public aim and damage to public and private interests. The USA and its authorities should use the opportunity to use reasonable limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual taking into account the established international standards, especially the traditions, living conditions in the country. The task of the USA, its legislature is to establish the boundaries of subjective rights in order to prevent possible violations of the rights (freedoms) as a result of abuse of the rights of others through the introduction of necessary but legitimate restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
In the USA, the adoptions of 2001 Patriot Act created a new ministry, the Ministry of National Security. The aims of this structure are the secret services, the organization responsible for immigration, border security and customs check. This legislative act gave additional powers to the security forces. Thus, the Act provides almost unlimited opportunities to listen to and record telephone conversations of persons suspected of terrorism, tracking e-mail correspondence on the Internet, financial and cash flow, access to confidential information (bank accounts, credit card numbers). In addition, the authorities were given more opportunities to conduct secret searches in cases where there is reason to suppose that the notification of suspects may adversely affect the investigation. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the period of detention of foreigners suspected of terrorism without charge increased from two to seven days. It should also be noted that the validity of the articles of the Act that provide special services extended rights to preview and telephone surveillance is limited in years (for further extension requires the approval of Congress).
However, on 1 June 2015 some provisions of the Act came to an end. In particular, US can no longer track a certain foreigner who is not involved into any terrorism activity. It cannot monitor specific person in all his or her spheres of life but in telephone and correspondence. The security agencies cannot collect the records of telephone conversations of all people not suspected of any crime committed. Now the financial activities of citizens shall not be tracked in order to establish the economic ties. However, the agencies may finalize the investigations started before the date of the 2001 Patriot Act expiration.
It raises a lot of concerns among the government circles, as well as the security experts. More importantly is the fact that in the time of growing security threats all over the world, politicians try to gain electorate by ‘decreasing’ the level of freedoms and rights restricted and endangered. Of course, nothing prevents them from adopting new legislation on the matter. However, the question of national security remains open while this period of uncertainty.
Conclusion
Thus, there are some difficulties associated with the assessment of the rights of States to derogate from the universally recognized norms of human rights and the question of whether the individual to justify acts of terrorism like retreat. In this regard, the call for the development of guidelines in this area and in other areas related to counter-terrorism measures is vitally needed. Therefore, it is recommend that the international community determines the methods and mechanisms of the development of guidelines on counter-terrorism measures, and consider these guidelines to analyze real or hypothetical danger, the extent to which such a danger threatens the existence of the state, the extent to which the actions in response to acts or threats of terrorism comply strictly necessary, the period of the retreat, as well as reporting and periodic review of all the cases of derogations.
Bibliography
Johnson, Ross. Anti-terrorism and Threat Response: Planning and Implementation. (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2013)
Deflem, Mathieu. The policing of terrorism. Organizational and global perspectives. (New York: Routledge, 2010)
Kraft, Michael, and Marks, Edward. U.S. Government counterterrorism. (CRC Press, 2011)
DeLone, Gregory J. 2007. “Law Enforcement Mission Statements Post September 11." Police Quarterly 10(2)
Kilburn, John C, Jr; Costanza, S.E.; Metchik, Eric and Borgeson, Kevin (2011) "Policing Terror Threats and False Positives: Employing a Signal Detection Model to Examine Changes in National and Local Policing Strategy between 2001-2007" Security Journal 24, 19–36
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)
