We have seen the most recent terrorist attacks in Paris performed by the terrorist organization called the “ISIS,” and this is the perfect scenario to define terrorism as an act of war, or as a crime, or both. However, terrorism is a controversial definition that could mean different things to the parties involved in that act either directly or indirectly. If we consider terrorism to be a crime, then this terrorists can be trialed in the domestic law, but these attacks are sometimes dismissed as isolated events in the international law grounds. On the other hand, if we categorize terrorism as being an act of war, then we assume that such conflict is between two nations not between a nation and an organization such as the ISIS. Then again, in
…show more content…
Any judge in the U.S. court will continue arguing that it is not an act of war, it is a federal crime as pointed out in the U.S. code. But let’s analyze the case of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. President George W. Bush requested to extradite Osama bin Laden so he could be charged, prosecuted, and tried in a federal district court in the United States ground. This 9/11 attacks should have been more like a domestic law issue, but President Bush involved the military and used their power against the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda making it more like a war. To understand what an act of war is, we use the legal definition provided by uslegal.com, “An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances. According to this legal definition, then 9/11 attacks categorize terrorism as an act of war. But other people will argue that this wasn’t a war between a specific country against another country, it was a war against an individual or a terrorist organization. Meaning that this will again fall in the category of a federal crime, but here I can say that the 9/11 attacks were treated as both a crime and an act of
Any judge in the U.S. court will continue arguing that it is not an act of war, it is a federal crime as pointed out in the U.S. code. But let’s analyze the case of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. President George W. Bush requested to extradite Osama bin Laden so he could be charged, prosecuted, and tried in a federal district court in the United States ground. This 9/11 attacks should have been more like a domestic law issue, but President Bush involved the military and used their power against the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda making it more like a war. To understand what an act of war is, we use the legal definition provided by uslegal.com, “An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances. According to this legal definition, then 9/11 attacks categorize terrorism as an act of war. But other people will argue that this wasn’t a war between a specific country against another country, it was a war against an individual or a terrorist organization. Meaning that this will again fall in the category of a federal crime, but here I can say that the 9/11 attacks were treated as both a crime and an act of