Should Certain Tactics Be Permitted in Preventing Future Attacks?

Introduction

Terrorism is a contentious issue that is raising concern in the United States and other countries across the world. The United States has always been in the frontline to prevent terrorism activities although September 11 attack was a big blow to the country. The September 11 attack was a surprise to America because it occurred at a time when no one expected it. Sadly there were thousands of people who died after an American Airline crashed into the World Trade Center (WTC). Other planes also crashed away from the WTC and killed several people. The terrorists had accomplished their mission although the globe stood transfixed. This incident triggered America’s anger against Al Qaeda terrorist network which was held responsible for what happened. By that time the Bush administration was in power and so decisive measures were taken against the suspected terrorist. Thus, the Bush administration was determined to get hold of those who organized and attacked the United States. As a result, the Bush Administration executed a military campaign against perpetrators of terrorism. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to discuss whether certain tactics should be permitted in preventing future attacks. In particular, this paper will address the Abu Ghraib tactic that was used by America. This paper also addresses ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice.

Main Body

Following the September attack, America was in great determination to hunt down those who were responsible for the terrorism. The Bush administration was not at rest before it could deal with the Al Qaeda terrorist network which was a prime suspect of the attack. In this case, America executed aggressive militarism against Muslims and Arabs who went through much hostility. For instance, America used inhuman tactics such as the bombing of Arabs and Muslims without any mercy (Pollock 90). America also used tactics similar to Abu Ghraib on some Afghanistan detainees who were guilty of terrorism activities. According to this tactic, criminals are usually stripped naked while they are exposed to different kinds of torture (Pollock 52). This tactic is mainly used to punish and to get more information from criminals. Purposely, America applied the Abu Ghraib tactic to deal with the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Consequently, this raised so many controversial issues concerning the inhumanities performed by America. The Abu Ghraib was an abuse against several detainees who were charged with terrorism.

Carrying out such a tactic was against American law yet the Bush Administration went ahead and ignored the rules (Pollock 74). Ideally, using the Abu Ghraib was not a justified action because it is unethical. Such tactics should not be used. Instead, other tactics can be applied without using inhuman approaches. In as much as a country may want to deal with terrorists, it is better to apply ethically right tactics. Applying inhuman tactics is unethical because it exposes criminals to very harsh conditions. Furthermore, this promotes more conflicts between countries which may end up attacking each other always (Pollock 78). For example, citizens of a particular country may not be pleased with how their fellow citizens are treated and so they can organize more terrorism attacks on their rivals.

Conclusion

Preventing future terrorist attacks can be done in a more justified way rather than using inhuman tactics. It would be more ethical for a country to follow the law as it seeks criminal justice. One way of preventing a future terrorist attack is by holding discussions between the administrations of rival countries.

Works Cited

Pollock Joycelyn. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. US: Wadsworth Publishing, 2008. Print.