Heinous Acts Of Terrorism: Hamdi V. Rumsfeld

863 Words2 Pages

Acts of terrorism vary in scale and amount of destruction. For many people still today the memory of 9/11 still drags on and this has a major effect on the way process people feel just be followed in seeking justice for these heinous acts. As I stated previously, over 2,977 people were victim to the acts of a terrorist organization. Al-Qaida, the organization responsible had a long history of committing such acts but none had been on a scale this large and in a western country. The organization was founded between 1988 and 1989 and its intent was to promote the use of Jihad as a tactic to create profound global instability and allow the implementation of sharia law. In a case similar to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld a former …show more content…

He found that the U.S could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war. The decision was then revered by an appellate court citing several reasons for the decision. One of those reasons was that military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they were approved by congress. The entire case was essentially based on the constitutionality of the military courts. So it certainly seems that if there is any way to fight terrorism then it would be to follow some form of uniformed military code. For the many people that feel that terrorism is an act of war, they see no other was to handle these situations than with the same force that we treat acts of war. Classifying terrorism as an act of war has more implications than just what to do with alleged terror suspects; it also determines how U.S foreign policy is implemented. Those that classify terrorism as an act of war generally support the types of operations that were carried out during the Afghan War. Classifying terrorism as anything different would mean a new strategy to the Middle East and our “War on …show more content…

What if somehow we could handle the problem of terrorism by creating a new level category? We could use the principal of legal epoche to create a better fitting definition to allow for justice to take its course. This is the position that I have on the issue because I believe the range and scope of terrorism is so vast that it can’t be classified as simply war or simply crime. My proposal is based on the idea that all terrorism is not created equal. For crimes involving larger terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida have the right to due process. All terror suspect, no matter what size of crime committed must go before a military commission to challenge their status as an enemy combatant, if they have been given this status. All alleged terrorists have the right to representation. It is important in a common law system to not place things in a procrustean bed. I feel that creating a more neutral ground on the issue of terrorism is the best way to go. One of Al-Qaida’s listed goals that set gave a sense of alarm to me was they plan to provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by provoking them with a massive attack. If this is one of their alleged goals are we not falling right to the whim of this terrorist group? Another stated goal is that when the economy of the U.S and Western nations finally collapses, they infiltrate the system with Sharia Law influence. I’m certainly

More about Heinous Acts Of Terrorism: Hamdi V. Rumsfeld

Open Document