Racial been rising, especially towards people of Middle Eastern

Racial profiling focuses on race,
ethnicity, and national origin, and not the behaviors of an individual or
individuals.  Since the events of 9/11,
the United States has made tremendous strides in improving the social and
economic sustainability in our country from any and all threats, with the bulk
of improvement towards fighting the war on terrorism, and is continuing to
improve till this day.  But, since the
events of 9/11, racial profiling has been rising, especially towards people of
Middle Eastern descent, because of the war on terror.  Racial profiling is an ineffective measure
for preventing terrorism.  There are
solutions to correct this flaw through reconstructing training and implementing
policies for all law enforcement agencies, but its within the government itself
to correct this matter.

 

 

Conclusion:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

The authority comes from the Department of Homeland Security and
also from the President of the United States.  They use this to describe those who should
have an extra eye on them at all times.  The
just cause is those who targets of terrorist attacks just sitting back are
doing nothing is not an option.  The main
intention is to provide the citizens of the United States a feeling of calm where
they do not have to look behind their shoulder when entering an airport or even
a restaurant.  “While Augustine supposes
that there may be divinely ordained wars, he retains the Roman Just War
principles: (1) There must be a just cause; (2) Wars must be declared and
carried out by proper authority; and (3) The final objective must always be
peace”(Christopher, 3rd ed).  

“Discrimination:
The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Innocent,
nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.”

“Proportionality:  the
use of force in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be
measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and limited by
Just Intention.”

“Right intention:  Even
if we have just cause, we cannot use it as a cloak for other aims.  For example, it would be impermissible to use
our legitimate claim of just cause for attacking Al Qaida (as a war of
self-defense or law enforcement) as a cloak to hide another intention, say, the
eradication of the opium trade.”

 “Just cause:  Defense against aggression represents the
paradigm of just cause to use force. 
When one nation invades another, unprovoked, absent an offense to be
redressed, the invaded nation can use force to defend itself.”

Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello are the two main categories, the
first is how to properly determine when to enter a war and the other is how to
properly act once you are actively involved in the war.  Jus Ad Bellum has four criteria’s that must
be followed before an initiation of deadly force, just authority, just cause,
just intention, and last resort.  Jus In
Bello follows three criteria after the war is started and combat has started,
proportionality, discrimination, and responsibility. 

The Just War Theory is the backbone as to why, when, and how we
eventually become combatant and initiate or respond to unwarranted threats to
our country. The just war theory has a set of policies that it must follow to
be just when and before engaging in war of any kind.

 

 

Analyze the topic, drawing on the stated ethical and homeland security
implications, justifying/not justifying its use through the Just War Theory
(this should be as objective as possible—it is not an opinion piece):

 

 

 

Through the
Patriot Act, a “Special Registration.” Was created, that required thousands of
Middle Eastern men and young males with Visas from Middle Eastern countries to
report to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) for questioning, photographing
and fingerprinting.  If they did not
report and comply, they will face prosecution and deportation. 

There are
rules in place that curtail the use of profiling, but as of now law enforcement
agents will still be allowed to consider race and ethnicity when stopping
certain individuals at airports, border crossings and immigration checkpoints. Since the attacks of
9/11, the government and the Department of Homeland
Security has been focusing more on creating and developing ways to counter
terrorism.  The demands from the people for
a better and safer neighborhood brought about the need for law enforcement to
use racial profiling to help with the War on Terror.  The saying of “flying while brown” spins on
“driving while black”, is used in behalf of the amount of Middle Easterners
flying and walking compared to the number of Middle Easterners stopped,
searched and detained since 9/11.  During
his Presidency; President George W. Bush stated that “we must be mindful that
as we seek to win the war that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the
respect they deserve.” 

 

 

Analyze the ethical implications from the official Government
perspective of Homeland Security:

 

 

Racial profiling has become a highly viewed topic of
discussion and debate.  It is seen and viewed
by the government; directed at a suspect or suspects because of their race and
ethnic origins, whether intentional or because of the large numbers of contacts
based upon other related reasons.  The
4th Amendment states; analysis, objective factors measure whether law
enforcement action is constitutional, and according to the 14th Amendment, the
challenges to the practice are assessed under the customary strict scrutiny
test for racial classifications.  The
events of 9/11 put the nation in fear and caused panic and chaos throughout the
country.  In response to the attacks the
government put into practice; laws for law agencies to protect against
terrorist acts.  In the weeks following
9/11, federal, state and local law enforcement agents worked around the clock
to investigate those responsible for the most sinful crime on American Soil and
to assess our state of vulnerability to further acts of terrorism.  Racial profiling became the top focus and
concentration of surveillance methods, which involved land, sea, and air.  No longer could a person of Middle Eastern,
Islamic, Muslim decent, or ethnicity similar to those enter the United States
without a very watchful eye watching their every move, this technique and type
of surveillance helps keep and separate the majority of the threat at bay.  Immediately law officials focused special
investigative efforts upon foreign nationals from Middle Eastern
countries.  In December 2001, federal
investigators began interviewing more than 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who
entered the United States within the last 2 years from countries that were
linked to terrorism.  They have also
contacted more than 200 colleges and universities to gain information about
students from these countries, asking questions about what country are they
from? What are their majors? And how often are they in class?  They have also scheduled interviews and
showed up unannounced in order to question them.  Along with Racial Profiling, the Patriot Act
has also come into question, about how it violates the privacy act of
individuals.  The Act are laws referring
to foreign intelligence surveillance, wiretaps and interception of electronic
communications, laws relating to the gathering of documentary evidence, and DNA
and immigration laws.  Pretty much the
Act makes it easy for federal agents to obtain wiretaps on multiple electronic
devices, and acquire electronic and supporting evidence from sources like internet
service providers and from cable and telephone companies.  This lead to question of the governments
overall intent of how some viewed it has singling out a certain demographic,
which caused concern, that lead to some state officials to question it as well,
citing concerns over racial profiling, whereas some have opposed co-operation
with federal agencies stating that there methods seem to violate state and
local laws. 

 

 

 

Racial Profiling in
the War on Terrorism

Racial profiling focuses on race,
ethnicity, and national origin, and not the behaviors of an individual or
individuals.  Since the events of 9/11,
the United States has made tremendous strides in improving the social and
economic sustainability in our country from any and all threats, with the bulk
of improvement towards fighting the war on terrorism, and is continuing to
improve till this day.  But, since the
events of 9/11, racial profiling has been rising, especially towards people of
Middle Eastern descent, because of the war on terror.  Racial profiling is an ineffective measure
for preventing terrorism.  There are
solutions to correct this flaw through reconstructing training and implementing
policies for all law enforcement agencies, but its within the government itself
to correct this matter.

 

 

Conclusion:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

The authority comes from the Department of Homeland Security and
also from the President of the United States.  They use this to describe those who should
have an extra eye on them at all times.  The
just cause is those who targets of terrorist attacks just sitting back are
doing nothing is not an option.  The main
intention is to provide the citizens of the United States a feeling of calm where
they do not have to look behind their shoulder when entering an airport or even
a restaurant.  “While Augustine supposes
that there may be divinely ordained wars, he retains the Roman Just War
principles: (1) There must be a just cause; (2) Wars must be declared and
carried out by proper authority; and (3) The final objective must always be
peace”(Christopher, 3rd ed).  

“Discrimination:
The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Innocent,
nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.”

“Proportionality:  the
use of force in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be
measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and limited by
Just Intention.”

“Right intention:  Even
if we have just cause, we cannot use it as a cloak for other aims.  For example, it would be impermissible to use
our legitimate claim of just cause for attacking Al Qaida (as a war of
self-defense or law enforcement) as a cloak to hide another intention, say, the
eradication of the opium trade.”

 “Just cause:  Defense against aggression represents the
paradigm of just cause to use force. 
When one nation invades another, unprovoked, absent an offense to be
redressed, the invaded nation can use force to defend itself.”

Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello are the two main categories, the
first is how to properly determine when to enter a war and the other is how to
properly act once you are actively involved in the war.  Jus Ad Bellum has four criteria’s that must
be followed before an initiation of deadly force, just authority, just cause,
just intention, and last resort.  Jus In
Bello follows three criteria after the war is started and combat has started,
proportionality, discrimination, and responsibility. 

The Just War Theory is the backbone as to why, when, and how we
eventually become combatant and initiate or respond to unwarranted threats to
our country. The just war theory has a set of policies that it must follow to
be just when and before engaging in war of any kind.

 

 

Analyze the topic, drawing on the stated ethical and homeland security
implications, justifying/not justifying its use through the Just War Theory
(this should be as objective as possible—it is not an opinion piece):

 

 

 

Through the
Patriot Act, a “Special Registration.” Was created, that required thousands of
Middle Eastern men and young males with Visas from Middle Eastern countries to
report to U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) for questioning, photographing
and fingerprinting.  If they did not
report and comply, they will face prosecution and deportation. 

There are
rules in place that curtail the use of profiling, but as of now law enforcement
agents will still be allowed to consider race and ethnicity when stopping
certain individuals at airports, border crossings and immigration checkpoints. Since the attacks of
9/11, the government and the Department of Homeland
Security has been focusing more on creating and developing ways to counter
terrorism.  The demands from the people for
a better and safer neighborhood brought about the need for law enforcement to
use racial profiling to help with the War on Terror.  The saying of “flying while brown” spins on
“driving while black”, is used in behalf of the amount of Middle Easterners
flying and walking compared to the number of Middle Easterners stopped,
searched and detained since 9/11.  During
his Presidency; President George W. Bush stated that “we must be mindful that
as we seek to win the war that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the
respect they deserve.” 

 

 

Analyze the ethical implications from the official Government
perspective of Homeland Security:

 

 

Racial profiling has become a highly viewed topic of
discussion and debate.  It is seen and viewed
by the government; directed at a suspect or suspects because of their race and
ethnic origins, whether intentional or because of the large numbers of contacts
based upon other related reasons.  The
4th Amendment states; analysis, objective factors measure whether law
enforcement action is constitutional, and according to the 14th Amendment, the
challenges to the practice are assessed under the customary strict scrutiny
test for racial classifications.  The
events of 9/11 put the nation in fear and caused panic and chaos throughout the
country.  In response to the attacks the
government put into practice; laws for law agencies to protect against
terrorist acts.  In the weeks following
9/11, federal, state and local law enforcement agents worked around the clock
to investigate those responsible for the most sinful crime on American Soil and
to assess our state of vulnerability to further acts of terrorism.  Racial profiling became the top focus and
concentration of surveillance methods, which involved land, sea, and air.  No longer could a person of Middle Eastern,
Islamic, Muslim decent, or ethnicity similar to those enter the United States
without a very watchful eye watching their every move, this technique and type
of surveillance helps keep and separate the majority of the threat at bay.  Immediately law officials focused special
investigative efforts upon foreign nationals from Middle Eastern
countries.  In December 2001, federal
investigators began interviewing more than 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who
entered the United States within the last 2 years from countries that were
linked to terrorism.  They have also
contacted more than 200 colleges and universities to gain information about
students from these countries, asking questions about what country are they
from? What are their majors? And how often are they in class?  They have also scheduled interviews and
showed up unannounced in order to question them.  Along with Racial Profiling, the Patriot Act
has also come into question, about how it violates the privacy act of
individuals.  The Act are laws referring
to foreign intelligence surveillance, wiretaps and interception of electronic
communications, laws relating to the gathering of documentary evidence, and DNA
and immigration laws.  Pretty much the
Act makes it easy for federal agents to obtain wiretaps on multiple electronic
devices, and acquire electronic and supporting evidence from sources like internet
service providers and from cable and telephone companies.  This lead to question of the governments
overall intent of how some viewed it has singling out a certain demographic,
which caused concern, that lead to some state officials to question it as well,
citing concerns over racial profiling, whereas some have opposed co-operation
with federal agencies stating that there methods seem to violate state and
local laws. 

 

 

 

Racial Profiling in
the War on Terrorism

x

Hi!
I'm Elaine!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out