such terrorist acts. This was the kind of reaction that the Al Qaeda were hoping for from the US after the premeditated attacks of 11 September. The response of the US government was one that was carefully articulated and one which the Al Qaeda could not have foreseen. The US along with its allies rallied troops to Afghanistan and launched an operation to completely wipe out those responsible for the terrorist attacks.
b. The state of emergency & the state of exception.
The state of exception over time has come to mean the response of a state when it is confronted by a corporeal threat and responds in a manner that would not otherwise be acceptable or reasonable in normal times. The emergency that the state confronted with is considered threatening …show more content…
Bush to use ‘necessary and appropriate force against all nations, organizations or persons, he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’ The US acted in a manner that made the attack not only a national calamity but an international one as well, one that pressured its allies into making exceptions to their own constitutional and international commitments. The US Constitution prohibits the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus unless the emergency is so severe that it warrants the suspension of the same in the interest of public safety. This points towards the indirect admittance that there may be times when it is possible for Courts to not be able to review the legality or illegality of detention caused by the Executive’s act. The balance of power still seems to weigh heavily on the side of the executive as opposed to the Congress and the courts only having limited jurisdiction to adjudge a dispute, if any still largely …show more content…
The way international terrorism was perceived has drastically changed after the catastrophic events of 11 September 2001. The attacks on the US heralded in a new era in armed conflicts and the war against terrorism was to be one of the most significant struggles of the twenty-first century. The UN Security Council made the proclamation that the attacks on the US posed a threat not only to the nation alone but to international peace and security too. This UN body called upon Member States to not only intensify but also amplify their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks, including, denying safe haven to those who finance, plan or support terrorist attacks. Most Governments the world over paid heed to the UN call and enacted legislation specifically aimed at fighting international terrorism. Regrettably, a majority of the antiterrorism laws that were enacted post 9/11 curtailed both civil liberties and human rights. While it is established that there cannot be an infallible outline for effective and constitutionally acceptable counterterrorism measures, most experts such as Policy-makers, academics and lawyers agree that any operation against terrorism, in order to be effective, has to firmly abide by liberal democratic principles and the rule of law. A respect for the tenets of human rights as well as the minimal and proportionate use of
b. The state of emergency & the state of exception.
The state of exception over time has come to mean the response of a state when it is confronted by a corporeal threat and responds in a manner that would not otherwise be acceptable or reasonable in normal times. The emergency that the state confronted with is considered threatening …show more content…
Bush to use ‘necessary and appropriate force against all nations, organizations or persons, he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’ The US acted in a manner that made the attack not only a national calamity but an international one as well, one that pressured its allies into making exceptions to their own constitutional and international commitments. The US Constitution prohibits the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus unless the emergency is so severe that it warrants the suspension of the same in the interest of public safety. This points towards the indirect admittance that there may be times when it is possible for Courts to not be able to review the legality or illegality of detention caused by the Executive’s act. The balance of power still seems to weigh heavily on the side of the executive as opposed to the Congress and the courts only having limited jurisdiction to adjudge a dispute, if any still largely …show more content…
The way international terrorism was perceived has drastically changed after the catastrophic events of 11 September 2001. The attacks on the US heralded in a new era in armed conflicts and the war against terrorism was to be one of the most significant struggles of the twenty-first century. The UN Security Council made the proclamation that the attacks on the US posed a threat not only to the nation alone but to international peace and security too. This UN body called upon Member States to not only intensify but also amplify their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks, including, denying safe haven to those who finance, plan or support terrorist attacks. Most Governments the world over paid heed to the UN call and enacted legislation specifically aimed at fighting international terrorism. Regrettably, a majority of the antiterrorism laws that were enacted post 9/11 curtailed both civil liberties and human rights. While it is established that there cannot be an infallible outline for effective and constitutionally acceptable counterterrorism measures, most experts such as Policy-makers, academics and lawyers agree that any operation against terrorism, in order to be effective, has to firmly abide by liberal democratic principles and the rule of law. A respect for the tenets of human rights as well as the minimal and proportionate use of