Terror laws discussion essay paper.
Terror Laws
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
Terror Laws
The war on terrorism has been going for numerous years, but success is not near. This fact is caused by the difference in terrorism laws and policies across multiple countries. Each country seems to stay independent and act on autonomy while dealing with terrorist threats. Some of the existing laws are very contrasting, and this propagates the flow of criminal money and other types of tools like guns. The United States of America has been the country that has always advocated for cohesion in the war against terrorism and asked other countries to have a formal model of operation and procedures when dealing with terrorists (Svedin, 2012). However, some countries are against this idea because they face lesser threats or want to remain independent. This trend expands the security gap that exists, and critics argue that terrorists are manipulating this gap. They argue that the terrorist threat has never been this profound.
The counter-terrorism laws of England are different from the American counter-terrorism laws. America focuses on the preventive measures that seem extreme, while England advocates for the upholding of the rule of law and human rights. America advocates for the apprehension of terrorist suspects then collecting evidence to either prove or disapprove terrorism association while England gathers enough information to prosecute a terrorist before an arrest (De Goede, 2008). America scrutinizes the finances and tracks the activities of a suspect on a more extensive scope while England views this as the breach of privacy. While upholding the rule of law, England does not torture terrorist suspects, and investigations are done by a discrete team, while America is known for using inhuman ways to coerce suspects to divulge information. Terrorism laws that America prioritizes are not fundamental in other countries, and this factor impedes collaboration. In the end, American counter-terrorism efforts cannot be enforced outside its jurisdiction unless there are proper checks and balances. Forcefully implementing American laws or other policies outside America causes friction between countries and stalls peace efforts advocated by the body of the United Nations.
References
De Goede, M. (2008). The politics of preemption and the war on terror in Europe. European journal of international relations, 14(1), 161-185.
Svedin, L. (2012). Accountability in Crises and Public Trust in Governing Institutions. Routledge.