It seems to me that whether or not terrorism is an act of war or a crime is not so much a definition, but rather a policy decision and depends on the factors involved. The first issue in deciding whether terrorism is an act of war or a crime is the lack of a concrete definition for terrorism. Internationally and domestically there are varying definitions for terrorism; however, some sort of base exists for knowing when terrorism occurs and that is, it is often some violent act against innocence to coerce or push some sort of belief. The other issue is in regards to the reaction to terrorism. If terrorism is a crime then we should be seeking those who are guilty and trying them in court but if it is an act of war, then a state has the right to defend itself and retaliate.
What makes the decision challenging is that terrorism often can be categorized as a crime and an act of war. After a terrorist attack occurs, often both reprehensions occur. For instance, this occurred in regards to the September 11th attacks in the United States. The United States has tried over 500 individuals with terrorism related charges in federal courts since the attacks and has also launched a “war on terror.” To be more specific, after the attacks the United …show more content…
However, in our history wars have been acknowledged despite the existence of states and civil wars are also acknowledged as legitimate wars even though they are not between states (Morris). But this is a subtle argument. According to US Code, an act of war means “any act occurring in the course of declared war, armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations, or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.” Furthermore, we can acknowledge a war in history despite the existence of states and acknowledge a civil war, but an act of war is an aggressive initiation from a state 's
What makes the decision challenging is that terrorism often can be categorized as a crime and an act of war. After a terrorist attack occurs, often both reprehensions occur. For instance, this occurred in regards to the September 11th attacks in the United States. The United States has tried over 500 individuals with terrorism related charges in federal courts since the attacks and has also launched a “war on terror.” To be more specific, after the attacks the United …show more content…
However, in our history wars have been acknowledged despite the existence of states and civil wars are also acknowledged as legitimate wars even though they are not between states (Morris). But this is a subtle argument. According to US Code, an act of war means “any act occurring in the course of declared war, armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations, or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.” Furthermore, we can acknowledge a war in history despite the existence of states and acknowledge a civil war, but an act of war is an aggressive initiation from a state 's