The War on Terror Has Contributed To Abuse of Human Rights

The War on Terror Has Contributed To Abuse of Human Rights

Introduction

While nations have been combating terrorism for decades; the global war on terrorism is considered to be a recent endeavor. After the terrorist attack, on the US on September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush decided to use his position and the wave of nationalism that resulted after the attack; to start what he called the "War on Terror". Bush decided to adopt the Marcus Cicero philosophy of war that suggests the only acceptable war is one of justified vengeance and self defense (Ethics, 2009).

This war began as a supposed attempt to seek out and bring justice to those believed to be the instigators of the attack and their leader Osama bin Laden. These goals were quickly forgotten then quickly transformed into: bring democracy to Middle Eastern countries, destroy terrorist networks there, overthrow and capture Saddam Hussein, and unofficially a lot of money. It is now 8 years later and what has been accomplished so far?

The international community is still fighting global terrorism; a pseudo democracy has been introduced to a few Middle Eastern countries (sort of); thousands of casualties; billions of dollars spent by the many; billions made by the few, and perhaps the greatest effect is how this war has influenced human rights and civil liberties on a global scale. This is perhaps one of the tragic consequences of this war and has created such a profound effect that is changed how nations of the world interact with each other. Exactly what effects the global war on terrorism has had on human rights and civil liberties requires a thorough examination, and will be better understood if both human rights and civil liberties are explored separately.

Discussion

Civil Liberties

The term civil liberties are one of those terms that the public at large does not fully understand; so to remedy this perhaps it is best to analyze it first. If one were to ask a person walking down the street what they thought liberty meant, you would receive a response of either a puzzled look, or an answer of right(s) and/or freedoms. It is one of those phrases that most people know is important, but very rarely know what it is referring to. Often when one hears the word liberty; it is in reference to some freedom for the people, so the latter answer is not far from the true meaning. The problem that arises is that freedom implies that anything can be done; such as screaming fire in a movie theater, or trying to take a gun on a plane (Hardin, 2004).

Therefore, liberty must refer to a more realistic definition of freedom; one that includes society and those people whom reside in it. Meaning liberty must be freedom within reason; freedom within boundaries; still freedom but taking into consideration the rest of society and acknowledging their freedoms. So while, one may have the freedom to scream fire in a movie theater ...