Assess The Difference Between Terrorism And Terrorism Offences

Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not

Brian Jenkins (1998) offers a practical solution to the problem: terrorists are not typical criminals. They commit crimes for political purposes. When captured by security forces, they are not usually prosecuted as terrorists but charged with the crimes they commit. Terrorists strike targets for political purposes in a given situation, using crime as an incidental tactic. When terrorists cross national boundaries, they become international terrorists. Furthermore, terrorists are not exceptionally creative; they use a limited array of weapons and tactics.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

Terrorism, a word most people fear, but so often misinterpret. The textbook definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. But how does that compare to domestic terrorism? Domestic terrorism or “homegrown terrorism” can be defined as “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens”. Throughout the years, America as a nation has experienced quite a few occurrences of both types. An early example of homegrown terrorism would be the Haymarket Affair which occurred May 4, 1886 where in Chicago’s Haymarket Square, labor protesters detonated a bomb during a rally. Chicago police then responded by firing

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

The terms terrorism and domestic terrorism are very similar concepts. There are, however, slight differences in each. Entities that are apart of the Government have slightly different ways of explaining what they believe to be the correct definition of terrorism and domestic terrorism. In this paper the author will offer definitions of the two terms and state which one they agree with the most. The author will also state how the two terms are best differentiated.

The premise of terrorism has expedited the initiation of integral changes to the legal system, reducing the rule of law and eroding established civil liberties and legal protections. The counter-terrorism measures introduced in Australia confer a power to compel submission to interrogation, a power to detain and interrogate without charge, and a power of preventative detention. In doing so these laws jeopardise the rule of law, expand executive power, diminish existing rights, endanger the separation of powers, and undermine judicial procedures. Further the legislative definition of ‘terrorism’ provides for the

Terrorism has never been in the States; only in third world countries. Since 9/11-2001 is has been a reality and ongoing nightmare and hit close to home. The attack on the World Trade Centers in New York was a wakeup call. United States has been on high alert ever since, waiting for the next possible Terrorists attack. This paper will explain why terrorism is a law enforcement concern as well as how terrorism is considered a crime. At last the paper will state some recommendations that the American Criminal Justice should do, to better prepare for future crimes.

Hello, I respect your view but I want to give you another viewpoint. From what I have discovered terrorism has been in existence for ages, and is still relatively difficult to define by most people. Terrorism is defined as “using force to influence or change a political decision” (Dictionary, 2015). Through the word terror is clear when it becomes applied to acts, or acts it becomes confusing. After looking up the definition terrorism would in tales, crime of holy duty, or political tactic or strategy, an inexcusable abomination, or justified reaction to oppression. In both cases the Elf, Boston bombing or terrorist, however one may choose to evaluate the evidence. In Rachels and Rachel to do, we can be consists it states “In reasoning about

To fit the foreign terror narrative, crimes fall under different perspectives according to religious affiliations, social status, or race. When assigning legal accusations to members of American society, the charges against murderers translate into terrorism or hate crimes. In these cases, terrorism is more directly correlated to foreigners or those of the Muslim faith; in contrast, similar misconduct portrayed by caucasians pertains to the less stigmatized indictment of hate crime. In 2015, the news was flooded with horrific accounts of a mass killing in Charleston, South Carolina. According to CNN, “Roof, a white supremacist, said he killed the nine attendees of a Bible study at the church because he wanted to start a race war. He was convicted

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

The true danger of the Anti-Terrorism Act is not that it fails to stop the terrorists, but that it potentially casts innocents as terrorists. Captured within the broad definition are participants in anti-government protests, wildcat strikes, and certain religious and charitable groups. While these activities may be violent and illegal, it is a dangerous exaggeration to call it ‘terrorism’. Lawyers could also be seen as providing help to accused terrorists through their expertise (CBA, 2005, p. 11). As well, the definition of terrorism has a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and political dissent (ICLMG, 2004, p.28). The political environment is increasing hostile to public expressions of political dissatisfaction. The right to political dissent is particularly essential in a democratic state because public approval is what establishes the power of the government, and dissent reflects dissatisfaction to the actions of the elected government. The role and power of the citizen in a democracy has been reduced in the fear of terrorism when political dissent is restricted.

In this assignment I am discussing the Cardholder’s Information at Citigroup Hacked case study questions from chapter 13 of the Business and Society text. These questions are for the written week 5 assignment of the MBA 520 Leadership & Business Ethics in the Global Environment class. In this paper I will “apply ethical reasoning and create solutions to case study”. The emphasis of the Cardholder’s Information at Citigroup Hacked case study is managing technology and innovation.

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.