Compare and Contrast Major Legislation

Major Legislation on the Global War on Terror Student Name University Course Professor Name Date Major Legislation on the Global War on Terror The global war on terror entails international military campaigns that started after the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terror incident in the United States. The initiative involves a coalition led by the United States, comprising both NATO and non-NATO nations, in the campaigns to destroy al-Qaida and other extremist militant groups around the world. Since 9/11, the war on terror has become an organizing principle of America’s defense and foreign policy. The war on terror is unlike other wars, for example, the one against Iraq a decade earlier or the 1999 war over Kosovo. The rationale is that the war on terror often involves different levels of government and military involvement and collaborations among governments. It is a war whose focus keeps shifting and whose dynamics are subject to the conceptualizations of the concept of terror. It is also a war that does not seem to have an end. Central to the global war on terror are several legislations passed to support the government’s efforts to fight terrorism. For example, the USA Patriot Act (2001) expanded the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies, while the Homeland Security Act (2002) created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose role was to coordinate and unify efforts to protect the US from terrorist attacks. The National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) involve provisions that include measures related to counterterrorism operations, military spending, and detainee treatment. Besides the fundamental differences in the purpose, each of these legislations addresses specific aspects of the war on terrorism. This paper analyzes, compares, and contrasts major legislations relating to the global war on terror. The essay presents the issue’s background, followed by a critical review of the literature on the various aspects of these legislations. In short, the paper will critically discuss the NDAA, the USA Patriot Act, and other primary legislation. The essay also presents the role of the FISA court and processes, NSA, and technology. The literature will also cover a commentary on the constitutionality of the selected legislation– the USA Patriot Act (2011). Background and Problem Statement Since 9/11, the US has witnessed the emergence of a counterterrorism war paradigm established to expand the scope and discretion of the executive power. Various legislations have been enacted to support national security interests and anti-terror operational practices. For example, on September 14, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This legislation has been credited for what came to be a multi-continental “perma-war” (Hajjar, 2019). Other scholars believe that such legislation authorizing military use has worsened the situation, which is why the war on terror became a permanent war. For example, the elimination of the Taliban-governed Afghanistan, which was al-Qaida’s physical base, resulted in global jihadists dispersing into cities, making such cities more challenging to secure and govern (Stevenson, 2006). Other scholars believe that the global war on terror has become a post-Cold War fictional narrative that pushes American neocolonialism and fuels the parasitical relationship between Wall Street and the Pentagon. For example, several interventionist practices by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have involved orchestrating coups to protect Western capital, with the primary expense being the countries’ elected governments (Vincent, 2020). These criticisms of government and military practices raise serious questions regarding the efficacy of the legislation on the war on terror. Despite the many shortfalls of the legislation in ensuring national security, not many scholars question the efficacy of the legislation. On the contrary, many scholars question the efficacy of the whole concept of the war on terror, and many believe that the war on terror has failed (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). For this reason, there is a massive gap in literature that is worth exploring. Positive outcomes should accompany the legislation. However, the fact that the US and other countries are still engaged in the war on terror begs the question of how ineffective the legislation has been. Thesis Statement From a Biblical perspective, the war on terror seems to have failed on many occasions to adhere to Christian teachings. For example, the Biblical teaching on the love for enemies, as taught by Jesus in Mathew 5:44, would require the government to seek reconciliation and pursue alternatives to violence, even in the face of terrorism. Such teaching is fundamental because the war on terror has become a war of religion that depicts Islam as a source of extremist terrorism (Maysun, 2023). Such tendencies to link religion with terrorism could explain why the war on terrorism has failed. First, the war on terror pits religions against each other, fanning a confrontation that has no end since it is bound to go on for as long as the religions exist. Second, the war on terror fails to acknowledge and address the root causes of terrorism as it targets religious and other groups using military force where other methodologies may prove more effective. For the above reasons, the Biblical Worldview indicates that the legislation on the war on terror is ineffective and will not result in an end to terrorism. Even though there have been limited successes in the war on terror, for example, preventing major attacks and disrupting terrorist networks, the legislation’s shortcomings will undermine the efforts to end terrorism. For this paper, the selected legislation is the USA Patriot Act. The stand taken is that this legislation is ineffective because it fails to acknowledge the root causes of terror acts and makes American foreign policy a hindrance to world peace and American national security. Literature Review USA Patriot Act The USA Patriot Act (2001) was enacted shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Its primary focus was expanding the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies and facilitating increased information sharing between government agencies. Additionally, the legislation facilitated the monitoring of financial transactions and expanded wiretap authority. These provisions allowed the government to demand electronic communications and facilitated obtaining federal search warrants for suspected terrorists (Delaney, 2020). The USA Patriot Act was an attempt to remove the legal obstacles that federal agencies in the intelligence community had to overcome to share material from criminal investigations with law enforcement officials. As such, the legislation meant that when criminal investigations yield information relating to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, law enforcement was required to share such information with the intelligence community (Garber, 2015). Even though the legislation required information sharing, some scholars, for example, Garber (2015), express concerns that it failed to give incentives for information sharing. Therefore, many incidences have occurred in the US and other countries that could have been prevented through information sharing, including the Boston Marathon bombings. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) The term “NDAA” refers to a group of federal laws in the United States that outline the DOD’s yearly budget and spending. The House and Senate Committees on Armed Services (HASC and SASC) each year introduce and report on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The statute establishes guidelines and approves funding for Department of Defense (DOD) operations and DOE national security initiatives. Congress passed an NDAA for the 62nd year in a row with the 2023 NDAA (McGarry, 2023). Since the global war on terror began, NDAA acts have often included measures relating to counterterrorism operations, detainee treatment, and military spending, majorly in regions affected by terror threats. NDAA often interacts with other legislations related to the war on terror. Most notably, the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) has supported various military actions and counterterrorism operations. The NDAA often includes provisions for authorizing the use of military force against terror groups. Sometimes, the AUMF has been used to place conditions on NDAA. For example, the AUMF prohibited funds from the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA from being used for military actions against Iran without authorization from Congress (Swan, 2019). Essentially, the NDAA is legislation that supports the war on terror by ensuring the necessary appropriations for the DOD in the fight against terrorism. Other Legislation Several other laws are crucial to the worldwide fight against terrorism. An example is the AUMF, which was central in the invasion of Afghanistan (Swan, 2019). The AUMF grants the president broad authority to use military force against the 9/11 perpetrators. Since its enactment, this legislation has been used multiple times as a legal justification for military and counterterrorism operations. Another legislation is the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). To manage the homeland security activities, this department brings together 22 different government departments and organizations. Its initial counterterror mission was to combat international terrorism, especially Al-Qaida, the group responsible for 9/11 (Dahl, 2021). Other legislations include the Protect America Act (2007), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (first enacted in 1978), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008). These legislations offer guidelines for the government and agencies to follow in the fight against terrorism. Role of FISA Court and Process FISA was enacted in 1978 but was highly modified after 9/11. FISA was an attempt by Congress to ensure that foreign agents’ surveillance did not unduly infringe on the First Amendment rights of American citizens. The justification is that Congress did not intend for FISA to make it easier to monitor American individuals’ legitimate actions, even when such activities were carried out in secret and on behalf of a foreign nation CITATION Gol191 \l 1033 (Goldenziel, 2019). Therefore, the main role of the FISA court and process is to review and approve or deny applications for warrants authorizing electronic surveillance, physical search, and other initiatives targeting foreign powers and agents and individuals suspected of international terrorism or espionage. FISA created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), whose job was to examine government requests for permission to spy abroad for intelligence purposes. Even while the court’s decisions and activities may have an impact on American people’s civil liberties and privacy, they are frequently kept under wraps CITATION Chi211 \l 1033 (Chin, 2021). However, it can be argued that the court and process ensure that lawful citizens and actions are not subjected to surveillance, thereby ensuring the protection of the privacy rights of all Americans. Role of NSA The National Security Agency (NSA) plays a central role in the war on terror. Essentially, the NSA is the primary signals intelligence (SIGINT) agency tasked with collecting, analyzing, and disseminating foreign information and intelligence related to national security. Therefore, the NSA is responsible for surveillance and monitoring, signals intelligence collection, counterterrorism analysis, and supporting military operations. However, the NSA has been criticized occasionally for its metadata collection programs, which often include phone records of American citizens CITATION Kil17 \l 1033 (Kilroy, 2017). Targeted killing is another use of the NSA’s worldwide metadata monitoring program, which provides information on CIA and JSOC targets. For instance, the CIA and the military can carry out drone attacks and night raids thanks to the SIM card or device geolocation data of a suspected terrorist CITATION Haj19 \l 1033 (Hajjar, 2019). Despite the controversies, the NSA has been crucial in the war on terror. Technologies Employed to Further the Legislation The war on terror is a multifaceted practice that requires intelligence gathering and analysis to inform decisions by various law enforcement or intelligence agencies. It means that information is one of the most essential tools. The NSA has designed several domestic and foreign intelligence collection programs, including those involving telephone metadata. In the process, various technologies are used, including electronics and radar. The use of advanced technologies often raises legal concerns due to the implications of the USA Patriot Act and other legislation; for example, the USA Freedom Act was meant to address the use of technology domestically in the war on terror (Kilroy, 2017). Lethal drone technologies have also been used to strike suspected terrorist targets (Hajjar, 2019). Other technologies that support the USA Patriot Act include those facilitating surveillance, wiretaps, and monitoring financial transactions. Role of Indefinite Detention Indefinite detention is another controversial subject associated with the USA Patriot Act and related legislation. Since 9/11, the USA Patriot Act has allowed law enforcement agencies to target individuals suspected of terrorism, including the individuals indefinitely detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is a US naval base (Lutz & Ulmschneider, 2019). Under the USA Patriot Act, al-Qaida and individuals associated with other terror groups have been arrested and detained indefinitely. There are also cases of American citizens subjected to the same treatment under the pretext of being suspected terrorists or being considered threats to national security. Indefinite detention is often used as a deterrence since detained individuals cannot engage in terrorist a...