The War against Terrorism Essays

The War against Terrorism Essays The War against Terrorism Essay The War against Terrorism Essay Samuel Huntington1 has been warning against a clash of civilisations for more than a decade and now there seems to have been one, seen most influentially with the twin towers attacks and the London bombings. There has been a knee jerk reaction to attacks such as these by western countries, for example the USA Patriot Act in America. The Patriot Act remains highly disputed2, but America was unified behind their president at the time of proposal and anything he could be seen to do to stop terrorism was embraced. A similar view was taken in the UK and the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was enacted.This act takes a great deal from civil liberties and freedoms, and allows powers contrary to article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A quote taken from the liberty website states that Anti Terrorism measures have done little to ensure that Britain is safe and secure from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the civil liberties of those living in the UK3 and I think this view would be the consensus of the common man if he were told of the possibilities this act permits, for example Lord Hoffman tells us that any man could be detained on the basis of some heated remarks overheard in a pub.The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows the authorities to effect actions that are contrary to the United Kingdoms fundamental beliefs and values. Although the UK does not have a written constitution, it is understood that liberty and freedom of expression are essential elements of a democratic people; the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows a suspected terrorist to be detained indefinitely or placed under house arrest without explaining why or allowing them to contact anyone.It is important to note that the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act was held incompliant with the provisions of Articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as it discriminated against non nationals5. The Home Secretary attacked the decision of the courts and the decision was overruled as it was decided the home secretary was in a better position to decide matters of national security. These actions could undermine the independence of the judiciary. Mr.John Wadham of Liberty stated that the Government can only get away with it [The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001] because theyre using it against foreigners6 I tend to agree with this measure especially when taking into consideration a statement made by CERD7 on 8 March 2002 measures taken in the struggle against terrorism (should) not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The measures taken by the UK clearly do, and the next point exemplifies this.I bring to your attention the recent shooting of suspected terrorist Jean Charles de Menezes, a foreign man currently in the UK. Lethal force was authorised against any suspected terrorists, which not only resulted in the death of a man innocent of these charges, is in direct conflict with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which seeks to protect the lives of everyone; violence should be a last resort, not an option quickly jumped to, and a polic y which allows an innocent man to be shot in the head eight times is one which needs some rethinking.People in London will now not only be scared of terrorist actions, but of the police who now have the permission and means to shoot them if they are suspected as terrorists. The principle of habeas corpus8 is also under threat by The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Although the home office denies it9, the Act clearly conflicts with this treasured part of English law. Although we are presented with the challenge of fighting those who have no respect for our values, we must remain true to those values otherwise there will be nothing left to protect.Lord Hoffman declares in A and Others (2004) that it is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory, and by giving powers such as these given under the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 parliament are doing this. Instead of trying to find the reasons behind terrorism, the government is trying its hardest to stop it. The best method of preventing terrorism would be to first understand why we are the victims of terrorism. Could the source of terrorist attacks be the unfounded, highly controversial war in Iraq?The UK had to derogate in relation to the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The general rule is that where a State decides there is a need for derogation, the courts must not only be convinced of the need for derogation, but also that the derogation was proportionate to the need by not eliminating more individual rights than necessary. In removing the right to freedom by increasing pre trial detention indefinitely it could be said that parliament have acted incompatibly with Human Rights Act 1998 and have reacted too strongly to the terrorist actions, removing more rights than necessary.AV Dicey pronounces that individual rights are the basis not the result of the law of the constitution10 Parliament must deem it necessary to restrict the rights of the few people that are subject to these new powers to protect the rights of the many; specifically, the right to live, and live in peace. I am not saying that we should not question the decisions of parliament as unequivocal and absolute law, however the rights of the citizens of the UK does seem to be what parliament is trying to protect, and we cannot fault them for that.What we can fault them for however, is the rushed implementation of laws which undermine our democratic state by allowing such harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. Although I agree that potential threats should be eliminated, there must be a more civilised way of doing this. At present suspects are not only not told the reason they are being detained, their whole life is under threat; their bank account, job, family and even their home is controlled by the authorities.

Transitive and Intransitive Verbs in German

Transitive and Intransitive Verbs in German When you look at a verb entry in a German-English dictionary, you will always find either a v.t. or v.i. written after the verb. These letters stand for a transitive verb (v.t.) and an intransitive verb (v.i.) and its important that you do not ignore those letters. They  indicate how you can use the verb properly when speaking and writing in German. Transitive (v.t.) Verbs The majority of German verbs are transitive. These types of verbs will always take the accusative case when used in a sentence. This means that the verb needs to be complemented with an object in order to make sense. Du magst ihn.  (You like him.) The sentence would sound incomplete if you said only: Du magst. (You like.) Transitive verbs can be used in the passive voice. The exceptions are  haben (to have), besitzen (to possess), kennen (to know), and wissen (to know). Transitive verbs  are used in the perfect and past perfect tenses (as an active voice) with the helping verb haben. Ich habe ein Geschenk gekauft. (I bought a present.) The nature and meaning of some transitive verbs require that they are complemented with a double accusative in a sentence. These verbs are abfragen (to interrogate), abhà ¶ren (to listen to), kosten (to cost money/something), lehren (to teach), and  nennen (to name). Sie lehrte ihn die Grammatik. (She taught him grammar.) Intransitive (v.i.) Verbs Intransitive verbs are used with less frequency in German, but it is still important to understand them. These types of verbs do not take a direct object and will always take the dative or genitive case when used in a sentence. Sie hilft ihm. (She is helping him.) Intransitive verbs cannot be used in the passive voice. The exception to this rule is when youre using the pronoun  es  in select  circumstances. Es wurde gesungen. (There was singing.) Intransitive verbs that express an action or a change of state will be used in the perfect and past perfect tenses, as well as  futur II with the verb sein. Among these verbs are  gehen  (to go), fallen  (to fall), laufen  (to run, walk), schwimmen (to swim), sinken (to sink), and springen (to jump). Wir sind schnell gelaufen. (We walked fast.) All other intransitive verbs will use haben  as the helping verb. These verbs include  arbeiten (to work), gehorchen (to obey), schauen (to see, look), and warten (to wait).   Er hat mir gehorcht. (He listened to me.) Some Verbs Can Be Both Many verbs can also be both transitive and intransitive. Which you use will depend on the context as we can see in these examples of verb fahren  (to drive): Ich habe das Auto gefahren. (Transitiv) (I drove the car.)Heute morgen bin ich durch die Gegend gefahren. (Intransitiv) I drove through the neighborhood today. To determine whether you are using the transitive or the intransitive form, remember to associate the transitive with a direct object. Are you doing something to something? This will also help you identify those verbs that can be both.