Counter-Terrorism Strategies Reveal the Limits of Human Rights as a Cosmopolitan Discourse in the Age of Global Terror

Since the start of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, sympathetic race rights were introduced as a formation that exceeded any boundaries, such as religion, gender, ethnicity and caseity, in order to harbor each individual(a). It was an attempt to universalize merciful standards of decency, devotion and dignity, by way of constructing a planetary piecee beings community. It is d unmatched and through this that human rights were able to be qualifyd and recognised as a standard for global order, regulated through inter bailiwick law.The act of terrorist act is non a refreshing cin one casept, and has been responsible for umteen innocent lives over many years, in time not until the attacks on the coupled States, k this instantn as 9/11, has act of act of terrorist act become such a globalized issue. It was through the symbolic destruction of capitalism, twin with the vast media outlets to create witnesses that eachowed for horse opera decree to face a advanced threat of vulnerability. The mass production of human rights misdemeanors accepted at such a seemingly powerful Western country induced a socialisation of consternation, specific bothy regarding the weaknesses in national security measure. act of terrorism, national security, and contend became the dominant chat throughout foreign politics, and governments began to develop look for-terrorism legislation in order to leaven feelings of safety and security, but also to seek retribution against terrorist groups. It is through this ingress of new counter-terrorism legislation that allows the expectations of human rights protection to become conf rehearsed, as call forth security becomes the prime concern.This new legislation becomes a shield to cut through croupe when human rights violations atomic number 18 committed, allowing the res publica to use the premise of counter terrorism as a justification for neglecting what was previously an transnationa lly regularize notion of human rights protection. It then becomes a paradoxical debate of violation and protection, where policies designed to protect society from these human rights violations, not only relate the terrorists whom they ar aimed at, but start to affect the great deal whos rights they aim to protect.Where the notion of human rights is concerned in protecting the individual, counter-terrorism in the period of global terror re-employs these boundaries between the individual in the interest of the reconcile, and disregards human rights. Pojman (2006) call downs that terrorism is a type of violence employed to deliberately fair game non-combatants in a ruthlessly destructive and often random sort in order to support concrete political or religious objectives. Because of its random ature, the act of terrorism destabilizes any notion of a human rights constitution by allowing each individual to be susceptible to its effects. Denying ane their right to life is dep riving them of their most fundamental human right. According to Anthony Giddens (in Pojman), the dissimilitude between what he labels as old-terrorism and new-terrorism lies in its locality in geographic terms, where the first is concerned with nationalist ideology and remained local, and the latter is foc utilize on its global implementation (2006).September 11th became the poster for this new-terrorism, bringing with it the life-threatening realisation that Western Society was not impervious to terrorist regimes. The vulnerability of the United States seemed not to work been considered previously, and the mass murder evoked an intense farming of fear amongst the slew, only to be further manipulated by the media, ca apply governments to engage with new legislation. The notion of prevention was a strong instigator for new strategies, where the landed estate intended to seek out terrorist activity before it happened. solicitudeism uncovers the limits of the human rights system in achieving universal consensus. However the authority of rights is to a greater extent so undermined when counter-terrorist acts violate these virtuous principles in the constant pursuit of their re-avouchment. downstairs the title of counter-terrorism, democratically defined countries are deserting fundamental principles of human rights that were once upheld, such as the premiss of innocence, the right to a fair trial, independence of expression and the right to seek asylum (McCulloch, 2003).The entire premise behind having a universal closure of human rights was to maintain a society in which people could form find to a global utensil of protection and support. However counter-terrorism has dismantled these ideals and replaced them with suspect and presumed guilt. The position of human rights in the international community has been seen as dispensary to the higher priority of achieving security through counter-terrorism.Faced with the exposure of the weakness to its fat herland, the US opted for a military found counter-terrorism approach, resulting in the deployment of military forces into the pump East and Central Asia, initiating what was known as the War on Terror (Schorlemer, 2003). The invasion of Afghanistan was designed to strengthen state borders from afar by defeating terrorists at their source. However, in order to do so, the US strategy was to utilize violence to secure their human rights. In using violence, they contradicted exactly what they were fighting for.The state of emergency that was declared following 9/11 and the climate of fear fostered by terrorist activity destabilized the notion that all individuals are entitled to rights protection. In a state of war, honouring human rights is uncomplete practically possible nor theoretically required (Luban, 2002). It becomes intrinsic in the system of war that natural rights and civil liberties of populations groundwork be brought to a pick up under the pretence of enhancing stat e security, all the while allowing for the deterioration of fundamental human rights under circumstances of organised violence.The US disregard for immutable to the universal human rights of global citizens can strongly be seen in the military intervention in Afghanistan, and further in the counter-terrorism strategies of rendition, torture and detainment well(p) by the US and their allies in pursuit of security. Under the get of war, the lethal use of force on enemy troops is permissible, and the inadvertent maiming and killing of civilians is seen as collateral damage preferably than victims of atrocities (Luban, 2002). Therefore, by declaration of war, George W. Bush implemented a counter-terrorism strategy, that by virtue of its nature undermines the system of human rights as an internationally enforceable system available to all individuals. This is reinforced by highlighting its illegitimacy in instances of war. As terrorism is not an enemy in the conventional war sense, as it is not a visible and tangible body with a defined territory, the US forces in Afghanistan know relied on using air strikes to attack insurgents, concord to Garlasco (reference).Usual requirement of record or proof before a conviction becomes less regulated or required when at war, with slick intelligence and insufficient evidence adequate as the foundation for follow out (Luban, 2002). In situations of flawed or limited intelligence, it has not been terrorists but civilians that have become victims of air strike assaults, thus having their right to life stolen from them (Garlasco).An drill of this kind of fatal mistake occurred in the Afghani town of Uruzgan in 2002, where faulty intelligence concerning the location of radix fighters led to the execution of a lethal air strike, killing 21 civilians. This problematic endeavour to protect our rights is at that placefore legitimizing civilian casualties as collateral damage of war. Counter-terrorism strategies have justi fy the illegal detainment, torture and rendition of suspected terrorists as a obligatory process in achieving security and paradoxically reasserting the human rights of moral citizens.The slipstream of September 11th brought about the legitimization of human rights violations through new counter-terrorism laws, whereby these violations can most distinctly be witnessed through the treatment of prisoners in the Guantanamo bay laurel Naval Base in Cuba. Democratic rights such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and freedom from torture were all eradicated in the mathematical processs that took place at the base, denying them these basic civil liberties in an sorry pursuit of truth and justice for the violence jawed on American citizens on September 11th.Common practice has been the illegal detention of suspected terrorists, where the rights to imputable process and a fair trial are not upheld. Recently, the evidence against the military has been growing, i ncluding official Pentagon documents, indicating that interrogators consistently employed hard line counter-resistance measures in absolution to induce prisoner co-operation. such measures include sleep deprivation, protract isolation, painful body positions, feigned suffocation, beatings, sexual provocation and displays of contempt for Muslim symbols (Bloche and Marks, 2005).Under the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), an event is considered torture if it satisfies third constitutive elements the infliction of severe mental or physical suffering, for the pass catcher to be perpetrated for a purpose, and for this to occur by way of an official (Hocking and Lewis, 2007). The operation of torture in counter-terrorist tactics echoes the breakdown of moral consensus on the use of torture, with the US disrespect for this international human right setting a negative global standard (Wilson, 2005).Therefore, when another State executes this act of torture, the US and their Western Allies seek their services for interrogating their own suspected terrorists, rather than condemning the act. The US, since September 11th, has engaged in transferring their suspects to other countries, where the torture and exam can be carried out. This instance of rendition mirrors the practices undertaken by the Swedish Government, where they abducted ultra Islamic suspects and transferred them to Egypt, where torture under interrogation is considered legal custom (Bloche and Marks, 2005).Counter-terrorism has allowed for the undermining of the toleration of human rights globally. Where western democratic states were formerly viewed as human rights advocates, they now deny this role of leadership in aid of suppressing this culture of fear induced by global terrorism. Counter-terrorism strategies have both enhanced the debasement of human rights in regards to the moral basis for international relations, and allowed for the threat of terrorism to be used by state g overnments to increasingly militarize the communications protocol of law enforcement and increase the surveillance of civilians (McCulloch, 2003).The war on terror has perpetuated a permanent state of emergency with no foreseeable end. Thus in many western countries, the prolonged war against terror is being used politically rather than legally, to justify the permanent restriction of civilian human rights (Zizek). Shielded by the counter-terrorism legislation, states have put into practice new national security laws whilst pre-existing emergency legislation has achieved legitimacy, claiming to be an essential solution to the threat of terrorism (Wilson, 2005).In support of their counter-terrorism strategies employed abroad, states such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US have relied upon internal strategies to curtail the threat of terrorism. Such measures include the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial or judicial review, the change magnit ude surveillance and reduced privacy protections, the dramatic increase in the powers afforded to domestic spy agencies, the right to silence and choice of legal example eradicated completely, and the vastly expanded resources afforded to military and police engaged in homeland security (McCulloch, 2003).The civil and political liberties that were considered so important during the devising of the UDHR, are now ironically being violated by the very people who them in place. The power to detain people will increase state security organizations power to suppress dissent by adding detention to the effectiveness adverse consequences of political opinions that challenge the political status quo (McCulloch, 2003).In time of global terror, the implementation of change magnitude surveillance does not invoke a feeling of security amongst society, but conversely, further extends the culture of fear that occurs through constant intimidation and increasingly inhibited freedoms. The dispens ability of human rights in times of state emergency is revealed when our global principles can be undermined by counter-terrorist strategies so immediately.The principle of counter-terrorism, to enhance state security, has reinforced the rigidity of national borders, by entrenching foreigners and citizenship as acceptable bases for distinction and discrimination and the rejection of humanitarian concerns for individual needs (Mertus and Helsing, 2006). The figure of the refugee as the individual, deprived of citizenship and reliant on the gracility of other states, illustrates this collision between the protection of individual versus the protection of the state (Humphrey, 2002). After the Second World War, the refugee acquired a measure of political import as victims of persecution.However the contemporary threat of terrorism has redefined refugees as victims of an international system of nation states founded on a hierarchy of elimination (Humphrey, 2002). kind of than generou sly extending protection to individuals seeking asylum from persecution, torture and war, counter-terrorism strategies have increased the conditionality in the acceptance of refugees. Boat people arriving on remote areas of the northwestward shoreline of Australia constitute the manifestation of the international refugee crisis in this country.Recent asylum seekers are confined in remote detention centres in economically short(p) island communities to the north of Australia. This criminalization of refugees by the Australian government reflects a rejection of their moral responsibility as human rights guarantors whilst ironically committing human rights violations of their own. The detainment of asylum seekers inflicts a greater degree of suffering on these individuals with detention providing a re-traumatizing milieu that may contribute to the development of mental health problems (Stout, 2002).The political handle employed by the government in relation to boat people stripped the refugee of compassion and their human rights by referring to them as illegals that pay people smugglers (Humphrey, 2002). Thus rather than alleviate the suffering enforce on refugees by virtue of their situation, various States are going to complete lengths to undermine the legitimacy of their asylum claims by making invalid extension judgments.Similar to human rights, the category of refugee is non-racial in theory a state is obliged to extend support and assistance to a refugee without racial selectivity. Australia has a history of denying asylum based on race, such as the exclusion of Chinese immigrants during the 1880s, and now this racial exclusion is being inflicted on individuals of Middle eastern descent based upon them sharing the same ethnicity as Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorist groups.The racial assumptions that acquaint the Afghani or Iraqi race with terrorism have falsely led to the prolonged detainment and refused asylum of Middle Eastern individuals. Thus terror ism has accelerated the shift in global attitudes toward refugees from one of state moral responsibility to the prioritization of state security over pass judgment claims for asylum. Whilst viewed as a strategy of counter-terrorism, enhanced border security and the increased conditionality required for refugees to gain asylum disqualifies human rights as a unify discourse without qualification.The implementation of counter-terrorism strategies by Western nations in reaction to the 9/11 attacks were largely reactionary and centred on enhanced state security to reduce the likelihood of terrorist activity infiltrating national borders. The contemporary manifestation of terrorism represents a clash of civilizations, pitting the culture of Islamic fundamentalism against a Western culture composed of modernity, secularity and democracy (Pojman, 2006). In this clash human rights rests precariously in the middle.On the one hand, terrorism denies victims their rights, yet the enactment of counter-terrorism strategies to delivery these violations paradoxically impedes on the rights of global citizens. The way in which western countries have responded to the threat of terrorism has not only violated principles of human rights and international law but has also proved to be ineffective in combating terrorism. Almost eight years after the proclamation of the global war on terror terrorists are still striking with alarming frequence and ease in our cities Madrid, London, Sharm el Sheikh, Bali and Mumbai represent the more recent and grand acts.If our world is in a state of war, why is it that western forces have not been as successful as past governments in achieving advantage in similar time periods as in past wars (Hocking and Lewis, 2007)? The initiative World War was won in five years and the Nipponese Empire in World War II was defeated in four years following their attack on Pearl Harbour. notwithstanding all the energies and resources deployed to strengthen the Wests War on Terror, global terrorism has not lost its power to recruit combatants and inflict destruction on unsuspecting communities (Hocking and Lewis, 2007).In the context of terrorism, war has turn out to be ineffective as it fails to address the environment with which terrorism has evolved. Terrorist organizations blast in societies that have been marginalized by globalisation and where there are undefended conflicts and few accountability mechanisms for addressing political grievances (Hocking and Lewis, 2007). The feeling of despair and sense of despair rooted in oppression, ignorance, poverty and perceived injustice have been set as causal factors in the development of terrorism. that as the benefits of globalization and modernity have been unequally distributed so have the capabilities of marginalized populations to gain gateway to their human rights. Thus to combat terrorism, the implementation of social and economic indemnity can help to mitigate exclusion and the impact of rapid socio-economic change which foster the grievances which terrorists exploit to gain legitimacy (Hocking and Lewis, 2007). Greater emphasis on counter-terrorism strategies, which address the causal factors of terrorism, will thus increase individual nettle to human rights and diminish their marginalization and global inequality.Terrorism is a political and criminal activity that undermines the foundation of the contemporary human rights system. It rejects the notion that by virtue of every individuals humanness they should have access to a host of civil, political and socio-economic rights. The attack of 9/11 subject security weaknesses of the US, subsequently inducing fear in all western states that they could too be easily targeted by religious extremist factions. Counter-terrorism has aimed to leaven state security often to the detriment of upholding universal principles of human rights.Just as terrorism views all enemy citizens with the same contempt that i s there is no distinction between the president and an average citizen, in many regards counter terrorism makes no distinction between terrorists and civilians in that human rights restrictions are imposed on all individuals in states of emergency. Once relied upon as states of human rights advocacy and leadership, western states have legitimized the rejection of human rights under the pennant of counter-terrorism.The War on Terror, increasing surveillance of citizens, restriction of their constitutional rights and the abandonment of states moral duty toward asylum seekers symbolizes the dispensability and conditionality of universal human rights. The abrogation of human rights underlying contemporary counter-terrorism practices reflects the limits of the human rights system to neglect in times of emergency, fear and vulnerability.