While in the process of stopping terrorism, how will people be affected?
“Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, which grants federal authorities $1 billion to combat terrorism. However, critics argue that the new law unduly expands the federal government’s power and violates citizens’ constitutional rights.
For example, one provision amends the Habeas Corpus Act, a law which became effective in 1867. Habeas corpus petitions involve a review by the courts as to whether prison inmates are unjustly confined. They are often used by inmates on death row. Some lawmakers believe that inmates’ opportunity to appeal the death sentence repeatedly and forestall execution for an extended period of time lessens the threat of punishment. The Anti-Terrorism Act by contrast gives death row inmates only six months to file a petition.
The American Civil Liberties Union believes this provision is a violation of constitutional rights and that prisoners wrongly convicted will not have enough time to overturn the verdicts against them. Supporters of the law say that this provision will eliminate long, costly appeals, which at times run into many years; they argue that speedy executions will be a deterrent to terrorists. The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
An earlier provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act that would have given the federal government power to wiretap suspected terrorist groups’ phones without a warrant was removed from the final bill, following objections from both Democrats and Republicans. The Act would have allowed the information obtained in this way to be used in court. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) said: “We do not need to give our government vast new powers.” Members of civil liberties groups agreed, saying that this provision would have violated people’s right to privacy. Other lawmakers argued that tragedies such as the Oklahoma City bombing make it essential that the federal government be allowed to monitor militia groups more closely.” (“Domestic Terrorism, Close up Foundation, Online”)
Is pushing an old lady off train platforms, an act of terrorism? The victim is an innocent wrinkled-up aged woman and the person pushing her is a “terrorist” to the victim’s family. Others might think of the person as a cruel maniac. Therefore, it is essential that one puts into consideration the thoughts of others before defining terrorism.
Bibliography
Aol and encyclopedias and many other sources listed within report
319