Political Science

Experts view on terrorism vary however, most view terrorism as the only general characteristic commonly agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence. This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism- war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Terrorist violence may be perpetrated by rebels in opposition to an established social order or it may be inflicted by a state upon its own citizens or those of another state. Further discussion will be addressed concerning terrorism to me, terrorism definitions, and lastly different terroristic criteria.

Being in the military, we use terms such as Asymmetric warfare and low-intensity operations, which stand for tactics that can include terrorism. At its core, the definition of terrorism is not so much a description of a particular kind of violence, like bombing or assassination, but a way to differentiate an act of violence comparative to the speaker, and their point of view. Terrorism as a word in its usual usage has a connotation of evil, indiscriminate violence, or brutality. Terrorism, in my perspective is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society.

One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used. The United States State Department, Department of Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all have different definitions of what constitutes terrorism, broadly reflective of their areas of competence and operation. Some examples include The organized use of violence to attack noncombatants (innocents in a special sense) or their property for political purposes. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Current U.S. national security strategy premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents. United States Department of Defense the calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. British Terrorism Act 2000, defines terrorism so as to include not only attacks on military personnel, but also acts not usually considered violent, such as shutting down a website whose views one dislikes. U.S. Army training manual says Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals that are political or ideological in nature.

The following are some further criteria that are sometimes applied, and the acts they exclude from the definition of terrorism. Many incidents often labeled as terrorist fail one or more criteria. First is target, which commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group. Secondly is objective as the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, andor fear. The intent may be to provoke unequal reactions from states. Lastly is motive which is acts that are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill the bank manager, blow up the vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.

In conclusion, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and even when people agree on a definition of terrorism, they sometimes disagree about whether or not the definition fits a particular incident. In order to understand terrorism, one must assess the different views of what exactly constitutes terrorism. Reaching a general conclusion on the definition of terrorism has generated much debate in the social sciences and internationally. No single definition seems to satisfy the wide interpretation of what specifically is terrorism.

In this article, the author has attempted to explore the literal meanings of terrorism, using a vast variety of references to drive his point. However the question that comes to my mind, is that is such an article actually needed in our body of knowledge Terrorism to me and the rest of the world, especially the numerous civilians that are affected by it every week, is a simple derivative of terror  an act that will strike fear into the hearts of every person that comes into contact with it. Do we really need to get in to the nitty gritty of the definition to properly define the term, so that some unlawful acts are excluded, or should all acts be cloaked under terrorism so that they are equally dealt with. How can a bank robbery not be defined as terrorism because the robbers were after profit Go ask the people inside the bank or the secretary that was held up at gunpoint whether they werent terrified. Go ask them whether a gun held to their head cannot be defined as terrorism. Defining the term will get us nowhere, denying it will.

Terrorism, what is it
Terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)... This is also how the US Department of Defense defines terrorism. Within this definition, there are three key elementsviolence, fear, and intimidationand each element produces terror in its victims. (International Terrorism and Secruity Research) Another definition is terrorism means premeditated politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or agents. This was usually to influence an audience. Terrorism is unlawful use or threat of violence. It is used against people or property to further political or social objectives. The result is to intimidate or coerce a government and individuals or groups modify their behavior or politics.

These are just a few definitions found on the web. As we can see terrorism can mean just about anything. But all these definition seem to have a few things in common, they all start by saying premeditated or calculated which when defined means to plan or intentionally do something, and it always against someone or a group. It is then described by some as both a tactic and strategy a crime and a holy duty a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination We may think that terrorism is new to the world, but it has been among us for a very long time. It is said that it has been around since the beginning of recorded history. And although it is an ancient happening, it is still hard to define.

Terrorism is used against the weak and the strong but is used in an underhanded or undermined way. Look at the way it was used against the US. Everyone that got on those planes or was in those buildings was not expecting it to be their last day. Using terrorism in a way that no one is expecting is a very deceitful, cruel, evil way. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. But this seems to be the only way terrorists know. Harming by blind-side someone is the cowards way.

Terrorism may have many different, but the mean is still the same. It is a mean and evil way for someone to gain control over a nation or individuals by creating fear. It is a way for someone to change the way people live by bring doubt and fear in to their lives. Terrorism is not a new thing of hate it is an old way of hatred that has tried to keep people locked in fear. And the only way to stop them is to keep living as if they never happened. The pain hurt of their actions will live on, but we can not let them win by giving up. Loving, living and being happy are always the sweetest revenge.

The author provides some clever insights into the history of the terror phobia that arrests the world in our times. With countries like the United States forming global coalitions and increasing troop presence in other rogue states, her argument may come as a surprise to the think tanks in Washington. The dilemma that has plagued most of the world this time around is how does one stop all this madness Also is their really any one way to stop them Whereas governments across the globe are scrambling to increase security measures in potential threat zones, and countries are partnering to share any shred of intelligence that may help in destabilizing the global terror network, what are the masses supposed to do to protect themselves An honest answer will be  nothing.  There are two options that we can go with. Firstly we can go up in arms, fortify our houses and neighbourhoods and join the witch hunt, and ultimately clash with everyone who may look suspicious to us. The more intelligent option is to go about our lives as usual.  One must understand as the author so correctly argues, that the basic objective of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of the victims. If we cower down, they have won. If we let them get to us, they have won and their objective has been achieved. If we stop coming on the streets and start hiding in corners they have been successful. If we stop enjoying our life, going out, spending money, it will bring down our economy and they will have achieved what they had planned since the outset. However, if we go about our normal lives in the freedom that is meant for us we will win. If we are brave enough, we will love one another, and we will overcome.

Terrorism has many different definitions. The Department of Justice says it means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The Department of States definition is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets and The Department of Defense states that it is the use or threat of violence intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals. All definitions of terrorism have similar meanings and generally all use the same wording violence, fear, influence, attack and civilians (Terrorism, n.d., para 1-2) Despite there being many definitions, no act of terrorism is random (Prince-Gibson, 2008). To many people, terrorism and insurgency are often synonymous. To distinguish between terrorism and insurgency, you have to look at the goals for each. The main goal for insurgency is to challenge the existing government for partial or full control of territories whereas terrorists usually dont attempt to control certain locations because it makes them easier to locate. While insurgency does sometimes use terroristic actions to attain what they want, their main goal is not invoke fear by the use or threat of violence.

There are many different kinds of terrorism ecoterrorism, cyberterrorism, state terrorism, international terrorism and many more. However, state terrorism and international terrorism seem to draw the most concern (Rourke and Boyer, 2008). State terrorism is terrorism controlled, funded or preformed by an established country. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein are just a few world leaders that have tried to control, suppress or exterminate population under their control (Terrorism, n.d., para 38). International terrorism is terrorism that transcends the boundaries of countries. Al Qaeda is the most known of international countries, spanning all oceans and reaching all continents. While these two forms of terrorism seem very different, they can (and sometimes do) cross over and become one. The lines of state terrorism and international terrorism are thin.

Although there are many differing ideas about what terrorism is, the elements and behaviors attached to each are very similar. Generally, they are all political, psychological, dynamic, deliberate and extensive. For the most part, terrorist acts are political in nature or aim to result in political change. Their threats are psychological in nature and must be coercive. If the perceived threat of violence isnt credible, than the terrorist has nothing to enforce their intended effects. Terrorism acts are always deliberate and extensive. It might take years to plan one attack but, for the terrorist, if the intended purpose is met it was worth the time.

I believe that terrorism is all of those things. Ask ten people and youll more than likely get ten different answers. Ask an Al Qaeda member and they would not say that they were terrorists. Instead theyd describe themselves as freedom fighters or legal combatants fighting for a legitimate cause. At the end of the day, every person fighting is doing so for one reason their beliefs.

The author of this article has very ably brought together the varying themes of terrorist together to create an interesting insight that explains the core of all terrorism  beliefs. Whereas it may be true that all terrorists explain themselves with this singular notion, it definitely does not solve anything. The clash of beliefs is something that has been a long time coming, and although it has been studied a number of times, no research article has really provided a viable solution that has been implemented. Some critics of religion tend to say that beliefs systems and organized religion are actually the reason that many people fight today, and thus the world is in the shape that it is in. Countries like Iran tend to see the United States as the Great Satan as well. However one thing that all people of religion tend to forget, whether they are heads of state, common masses or even academics, is the singular statement that lies at the core of all religions and belief systems. Brotherhood, friendship, loves and cooperation - these are the themes that are common across every religion. Serving humanity is something that needs to tie us all together when everything else divides us. It is only this spirit that can unite us and improve the world at large.

Formulating foreign policy decisions are by far the most complex decisions that an executive head of a country has to take because the effects of any foreign policy decision have a short term and a long term component, which can result in a multitude of negative or positive outcomes. It therefore becomes extremely important that the decision making process is well balanced and logical. At the apex, any decision making body necessarily has to consist of a group of people where decisions are usually arrived at through consensus and due deliberation. However, a decision making process can get afflicted by groupthink which is defined as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Such a definition obviously has immediate negative connotations though social scientists routinely complain that groupthink is a poorly specified and largely untested theory. This essay examines the effects of groupthink theory on foreign policy decision making process and argues that groupthink does not necessarily produce negative outcome by referring to two specific incidents namely The Bay of Pigs incident and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.  

Groupthink has several distinct characteristics. A group may develop illusions of invulnerability that may catalyse unwarranted risk taking. A group over time automatically feels protective towards the decisions it evolves and this might trigger a need to rationalise warnings given by others to the groups decisions. Unquestioned belief in morality of the group may also become a focus point where rational dissent becomes stifled. A group may also resort to rationalising that those opposed to its wisdom are weak, evil, unpatriotic, biased or even stupid. Under such circumstances, every member of the group may subconsciously be under social pressure not to be disloyal to the group by voicing an opposing view and thus results in self censorship. In every group, there could be members who act as keepers of the faith who interject to preserve the groups majority view. In highly complex and difficult situations, groupthink has shown to be even more accentuated due to the high stakes involved as also the personalities of the leaders involved. Sometimes a leader who displays authoritarian traits may simply force everyone to instinctively toe the line. On the other hand, a leader who is too accommodative may allow one or more dominant subordinate a greater voice in the decision. This becomes truer when decisions requiring a nation to go to war or launch an offensive are at stake where seeming weak is not the best face to show. Groupthink also becomes heightened if most of the members of the group come from the same ethnic, religious, educational or ideological background. The more numerous the characteristics described above in a group, the greater are the chances of groupthink resulting in a disastrous decision. This truism is exemplified by the Bay of Pigs incident.

Groupthink manifested clearly in the Bay of Pigs incident, the abortive attempt spear headed by the CIA to overthrow Fidel Castro of Cuba through landing Cuban exiles in Southern Cuba with support from the U.S. government in April 1961. President Kennedy had assembled a formidable team of advisors, some the best and the brightest brains in the country and yet he took a highly questionable foreign policy decision which ended in abject failure. In fact Kennedy was later to introspect as to how could I have been so stupid as to let them go ahead. One of the variations to traditional groupthink theory is that the Kennedy team of advisors suffered from a new group syndrome. Kennedys team was fairly new and had not had the time to develop group cohesiveness leading to magnification of personal inadequacies and fears precluding an objective assessment of the problem at hand.  The decision to launch the operation was taken just three months after assuming presidency. Kennedy flush with electoral victory was mindful of the right wing community that wished the President to act tough on Communists especially those flourishing in Americas backyard. Kennedys own need in this regard percolated to his advisors. To maintain secrecy, the entire decision making processes were limited to a very small group keeping the governments Latin America experts out of the loop. Secretary of Defence Robert Mc Namara was too involved in Pentagon administrative matters to pay close attention to this primarily CIA driven plan. The core group that did deliberate on the plan was a homogenous group of almost same educational, religious and ethnic backgrounds and were mostly males. The group also displayed loyalty to the Presidents idea and rejected contrarians views to the plan as articulated by Senator Fullbright in one of the meetings (Hart, Stern,  Sundelius, p. 174). When the plan was put to an informal voice vote, Kennedy himself interjected any member who tried to put forth a more nuanced view of the operation. When that happened, most members of the group naturally voted for the motion so as to conform to the groups thinking and not be singled out as the traitor or the undesirable. Kennedy also gave the CIA greater voice in meetings that subconsciously reinforced the acceptability of the plan. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also did not voice any real opposition to the plan probably not wanting to counter the CIA and what increasingly seemed to be the Presidents idea.Thus the decision to embark on the plan got reinforced over time to a limit that not one dissenting voice was recorded from the entire group when the final decision was being made. This is one example where groupthink led to disastrous results.

On the other hand the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 shows how groupthink can produce positive results. The dilatory statements of Egyptian President Nasser and the equally alarming posturing of Arab states surrounding Israel prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War strengthened the belief of Israelis that the Arab states were bent on destroying Israel. The closure of Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping by Egypt and the massing of Arab forces on Israels borders forced a groupthink amongst the Israeli planners that Israel needed to carry out a pre-emptive strike to neutralise the Arab threat. Within the Israeli group, the forceful voice of Yitzhak Rabin, the Commander in Chief rallied the rest of the group into a high risk option of striking pre-emptively. The political members wanted the Israeli Defence Forces to wait for the outcome of a meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Eban and President Johnson of the United States. Rabin explains in his memoirs that the Israeli Armed forces view was that what is the point of waiting any longer Weve already forfeited the advantage of strategic surprise. If we continue to wait, we run the risk of losing even the advantage of tactical surprise. That would be the worst situation imaginable. What are we waiting for. The political members of the group were not easily swayed by this exhortation and a voice vote ended in a stalemate. Rabin persisted and finally won the argument leading to the Six Day war which was a stupendous success for the Israelis in the short term. This was a classical example of groupthink as other members of the Israeli cabinet who were sceptical of possible Egyptian attack nonetheless went through with the decision lest they were labelled as weak, unpatriotic or indecisive. Thus in this case groupthink produced positive results while in the Bay of Pigs case groupthink resulted in a disaster.

In conclusion, it can emphasised that foreign policy decision making process whether in America or Israel or elsewhere in the world necessarily has to be taken by the executive where there always will exist a group that takes the decision. Group dynamics posit that dangers posed by groupthink will remain wherein decisions may be taken without proper evaluation of all options. In the Bay of Pigs case, the group deciding was relatively new, lacked cohesion and was dominated by one member, the CIA with others deferring to the perceived approval of the President. This led the Kennedy administration to launch the operation with disastrous results. In the case of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was considerable opposition to launching the war by the political members who wished to exhaust all political options before deciding to go to war. In this case, groupthink was forced by a forceful personality, Yitzhak Rabin who had the support of the entire Israeli Armed Forces behind him. Groupthink here was more balanced because the Israeli Armed forces had completely analysed the adversarys strengths and weaknesses and had a well developed plan unlike the Bay of Pigs incident where the Joint Chiefs of Staff had played only a marginal role leaving operational planning in the hands of the CIA. Groupthink can therefore result in positive or negative outcomes depending upon how well the group is able to resolve its inner dynamics and arrive at a more considered decision before implementing the same.

The issue of the role of religion in current European affairs comes to a head every time there is an incident such as the recent headscarf debate. That incident was more about political rather than just a religious problem but it leads to the uncertainty about the place religion has in a post-modern, secular Europe.

Religion has a far greater impact on present-day European identity than is either acknowledged or given credit for. The evidence to prove this statement is not difficult to come by. The European Union has so far failed to provide a basis for a common identity among the member states. Schlesinger and Foret write the putative Eurodemocracy is still hunting for its principles and conditions of existence. Given this lack of unity, it is inevitable that a shared religious identity should become the basis for communal identity.

It is the expression of religion rather than just a system of values which has created this importance of religion in the European mind. Challand argues in a 2009 article that religion was not a significant concern in Europe before 1980. He gives evidence for this by saying that the number of articles published in journals and newspapers combining the words religion with Europe increased steadily over the decade from 1980 to 1990. There are two conclusions to be drawn here the first is that the place of religion in Europe had become a debatable topic long before the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001 the second is that religion became a mounting concern in the European mind as the rates of non-Christian immigrants to the European Union increased. The mention of migrants immediately brings to mind the presence of a Muslim population within Europe and the place Islam can be expected to have within a secular Europe.

It cannot be denied that the European Union has painlessly absorbed Catholic, Protestant, Christian Orthodox and any number of other faiths, so why should the concept of Islam within the European Union cause such dread  To answer this question one needs to question the secularity of Europe itself.
Casanova  writes  western European societies are deeply secular societies and havedifficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in  collective group identities. He adds Muslim-organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety concerning the role of religion in the public sphere. This opinion implies that it is the presence of a collective Muslim mindset as well as the actions of the people having that mindset which raises the issue of religion in secular European thoughts. This statement may be accurate in saying that the public display of religious sentiment makes Europeans uneasy, but is false in suggesting that secular Europe has completely cut off its ties to its religious heritage.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes about pockets of Muslims living across Europe who choose to confine themselves to their own rituals rather than blending within the community of their adopted country.  in the town of Evry, south of Parissupermarkets stopped selling pork and alcoholic beverages and ritual seep slaughter has become an official activity because Muslims constitute two thirds of the total population. The anxiety caused by the creation within the European Union of such Islamic states, along with the pictures of Muslim youths becoming trained terrorists has led to a reversal to Judeo-Christian values in a number of European states. Nowhere is this clearer than in the more than 50 year old problem of Turkeys admission to the European Union. Challand writes  simplistic argumentsabout an alleged Islamic threat take the upper hand and the fact tat Turkey fulfils most of the criteria to enter the EU are ignored. The idea of allowing a Muslim country, even one as sincerely secular as Turkey to enter the fold of the EU clearly goes against some buried Judeo-Christian feelings. The basis of this thinking is the same one that leads migrants to clump together with others of the religion, even though they may not belong to the same nation. Schlesinger and Foret write religion can play a role in cultural defense by providing resources with which to protect national, ethnic, local or group cultures.

It is not correct to say that a sharing of Judeo-Christian values can create an automatic connection with a European identity, nor is it correct to claim that not having a Christian past bars a state from becoming a member of the European Union. The point is to acknowledge that a lack of religious feeling is extremely unlikely, even in so-called secular groups like the EU.

Romano Prodi suggested that  the traditional logic of liberalism isno longer enough to meet concerns and fears regarding ones own identity in the era of globalization. Europe has to come out from behind the veil of secularism and confront its own religious identity as well as the role of religion within its union.

Part 1
Richard Clarke made several attempts to persuade the White House to focus more attention on the Al Qaeda threat but he proved unsuccessful in influencing shifts in counterterrorism measures during the Bush administration. When President George W. Bush  assumed the highest office of the country, he inherited the still-pending issue of the USS Cole, which in Clarkes viewpoint galvanizes the observation that al Qaeda remains to be the most dangerous threat to U.S. national security.  Clarke and colleagues from the counterterrorism unit were dismayed that no military response was initiated during the Clinton administration, one colleague even retorting Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention (911 Commission, 2004, p. 196). As early as January 2000, Clarke gave briefings to Condoleezza Rice, her deputy Hadley, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Colin Powell that warning the global adaptability of al Qaedas network. Thereafter, Clark, through Rice, made several attempts to seek an audience with the new President in an effort to persuade the new administration to make terrorism a high priority. He submitted a comprehensive memorandum entitled Strategy for Eliminating the Terrorist Threats from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida Status and Prospects concluding that we urgently need a Principals level review on the al Qida network (911 Commission, 2004, p. 201).  In a memo dated January 25, Clarke made a recommendation to Rice that the U.S. should come up with a proper response to the Cole attack at a time, place, and manner of our own choosing (911 Commission, 2004, p. 202). George Tenet briefed Bush on the USS Cole attack sometime in January 2000 making a preliminary assessment that ties al Qaeda directly to the attack but finding insubstantial evidence to find bin Laden as the mastermind. Despite repeated efforts, pleas from Clarke and Tenet seemed to have fallen into deaf ears. The Bush administration was largely indifferent, complacent, and blithe despite several warnings and alarms sent not only by Clarke but by other officials of the counterterrorism unit. The  Bush administrations priorities lie elsewhere, particular, on China, missile defense, Middle East peace process, and the Persian Gulf (911 Commission, 2004, p. 199). Clarke made a last-minute attempt to brief the President on August 6, 2001 but his Daily Briefing Memo was scrapped, Rice justifying later that the memo did not mention any attacks inside the United States (911 Commission Report, 2004, p. 205).

Clarke continuously requested for the Principals to convene and  discuss the al Qaeda threat seriously, but no meeting was held until September 4, 2001, seven days before the 911 bombings.
The Bush administrations indifference coupled with the breakdown of the U.S. intelligence process has been blamed for the events leading up to the tragedy of September 11, 2001. In particular, the lack of cooperation between and among federal agencies drew out the most criticisms for this breakdown. In July 10, 2001, a memo, now coined the Phoenix memo was drafted by an operative named Kenneth Williams from FBIs Phoenix Bureau, warning that al Qaeda may be sending students to U.S. flight training schools for terrorist activities and urged the FBI to look into the matter. The memo recommended, Phoenix believes that the FBI should accumulate a listing of civil aviationuniversitiescolleges around the country ( Gertz, 2002, p. 83 ). Williams 5-page memo was left unheeded by the FBI - a blunder of monumental proportions (Gertz, 2002, p. 85). It was received by the Radical Fundamentalist Unit and never got far. As it turned out, had the memo been acted upon promptly, it would have most likely prevent the 911 tragedy. Since the Phoenix memo was ignored, it was not analyzed and shared across other intelligence agencies like the FBI  Minneapolis field office. Agents stationed there had arrested Islamic extremist Zacarias Moussaoui based on a tip from a civil aircraft training school employee. Williams said later that had the FBI acted upon a crucial piece of information and authorized an investigation of flight training schools, the 911 plot would have been frustrated.

Part 2  Questions 2 and 3
(2) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (hereinafter Miranda) held that exculpatory and inculpatory statements given  by a defendant in response to police interrogation will be admissible in court only if four warnings are given to the defendant a) the right to remain silent , b) anything he says may be used against him, c) right to an attorney present during interrogation, d) if indigent, a right to lawyer free of charge. The landmark case was decided on a slim 5-4 vote, and the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Harlan, articulates the many flaws of the decision. Among the problems the dissenters found was that Miranda was leading not toward the elimination of police brutality as it asserts, but to discourage confessions altogether. This poses several drawbacks to law enforcement ,where suspect questioning is intrinsic and considered undoubtedly an essential tool in effective law enforcement (citing Crooker v. California). Miranda aims to provide a protective shield for the accused against coercion and other cajoling tactics that would force a defendant to confess absent the element of voluntariness. The dissenters affirm the Constitution disfavors spontaneous confessions and agree that although confessions may be inherently suspect due to the accusatorial nature of interrogation and the compelling environment that the defendant may be subjected to, current tactics of interrogation have already taken into consideration due process concerns. However, dissenters argued that Mirandas inadmissibility rule is hazardous experimentation.

(3) U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (hereinafter US Term Limits) dealt with the nature of sovereignty and the limitations of the State in the exercise of sovereign powers, especially those that dealt with the imposition of congressional qualifications. US Term Limits rejects the argument that States are empowered to impose qualifications by virtue of the original powers granted by the Tenth Amendment. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Stevens, provides two major reasons. First, the power to attach additional qualifications is not within the purview of the States original powers prior to the Tenth Amendment, but is a new right originating from the Constitution itself (Hall, 1999).

Second, this would be inconsistent with the intent of the Framers in a uniform national legislature to represent the citizens of the United States.  Another landmark decision, U.S. v. Lopez, bolstered the limitations of Congress legislative power. In this case, legislative power was exercised in conflict with commerce power. The case decided on whether or not Congress has the power to legislate policies designed to control the public school system. In a narrow decision, the Court struck down the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, finding that it exceeds the bounds of federal commerce power (Hall, 1999, p. 165).

Part 3  Questions 1, 2, and 7
(1) Certiorari refers to a type of writ which seeks judicial review. Certiorari, which in Latin means to be more fully informed is a remedy that brings a decision made by a lower court to a higher court for review (Black, 1970). In the US legal system, certiorari is a writ issued by the US Supreme Court to a lower court in order to review the latters judgment for possible legal errors where appeal is no longer accessible.  However, when a writ for certiorari is granted, this does not mean that the Supreme Court opposes the lower courts decision. Granting of a writ, which requires the vote of at least four Justices, indicates that the Court has deemed the circumstances and nature of the petition substantial for review.

(2) Stare decisis is a legal doctrine, which translated in Latin means to stand by that which is decided (Black, 1970). This is often referred to as the precedent principle practiced and adhered to by the courts. This doctrine purports that once a point has been settled with a decision, cases of like nature are to be similarly decided. The stare decisis doctrine is founded on the assumption that the major objectives of the legal system  certainty, stability, and predictability  are fundamental elements of jurisprudence, but does not prevent reexamination or revocation of earlier judgments of decisions.
(7) The landmark case, U.S. v. Lopez, determined the limits of legislative power specifically in relation to the enactment of laws seeking to control the public school system. In response to the escalating incidence of gun-related violence in the public schools, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. Alfonzo Lopez, a senior high school student of San Antonio, Texas was arrested for the possession of a .38 caliber handgun in violation of the Gun-Free Act (Hall, 1999).

After sentenced to six months in prison by the federal district court, Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit where the latter reversed the earlier decision, citing unconstitutionality. The Fifth Circuit argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was an invalid exercise of commerce power by Congress. The US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Fifth Circuit. Until now, US v. Lopez is considered one of most important cases affirming state sovereignty.  

As one of the most progressive economic centers in the world, it is truly amazing how Singapore, despite of its limited resources, has been able to succeed in being a highly-industrialized nation.  It seems to have discovered the perfect formula on how a nations economy should be managed, and how competent manner of governance can make a nation prosper.  

Despite of the economic crisis that has befallen Asia and the rest of the world, Singapores economy seemed to have recovered its former dynamism.  As proof, even though they have posted a -6.5 growth on the first half of 2009, they have reformed by registering a 3.5 by the end of the 4th quarter, ending the fiscal year of 2009 with only a -2.1 economic setback a figure much better than neighboring nations.  In addition, Singapores economic experts have estimated that the worst part of the crisis has already passed, and is in fact expecting a much better performance in 2010.  This scenario will most certainly open opportunities to level the field with economic giants such as China and India, and will hasten Singapores recovery.  Singapore therefore must plan carefully for future actions in order to position herself at the right place and time to maximize her chances of success.  Presently, the government has already introduced extensive measures to further accelerate Singapores economy, thus, workers will need to prepare challenges that will demand them to be flexible, ready to adapt to changing conditions, prepared for new jobs that the changing conditions will call for, to up-skill, re-skill, and multi-skill.  Most important on the governments agenda would be to limit the influx of foreign workers, in order for the Singaporean economy not to be overwhelmed with the enormous numbers.  Likewise, those foreign employees who have displayed hard work and expertise in entrepreneurial skills must be encouraged to stay.  Singapores economy will further accelerate by increasing its Gross National Product through skills advancement programs with the help of the government, and by upgrading the employees competitiveness only then will Singaporeans be able to regain the economic prosperity and every citizen can be enthusiastic into having a better standard of living.  

With all of these economic aspirations in consideration, if given the opportunity to ask Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong, Singapores main economic tactician and government leader, my most important question would be, What would be Singapores long-term strategies, over a 10 to 20 year period, that will assure sustained economic growth and increase the chances of positioning the nation as being the leader among other advanced economies  This would be critical as Singaporeans should be prepared for the changes that are coming as a result of the governments efforts to up-skill and multi-skill.  By having a clear resolution on what to expect in the next couple of decades, not only can we better equip ourselves towards achieving the nations goal, but more importantly, we can educate and guide the younger generations as they will eventually become the pillars of the Republic of Singapore.            

Genocide is a very important topic that has to be carefully studied. In cases wherein one has to defend a certain stance regarding a particular genocide that took place in history, it is necessary that the researcher should give sufficient number of evidences coming from reputable sources in order to prove his or her claim. These requirements are only some of the factors that were taken into consideration by the researcher in the paper entitled, Cambodia Genocide or Massacre

The researcher was able to think of a very catchy title for the paper that also captures the main point that the paper discussed. The paper argues that the killings that took place during the Pol Pots administration should be regarded as genocide instead of a mere massacre. This argument was properly substantiated by the corresponding evidences that the researcher gave in order to prove her stance. She used primary and secondary resources, which validates the argument that she presented. The main strength of the researcher in the paper that she presented is her use of credible sources and the way she used it to make her argument viable.

However, there are also some points that the researcher must improved on. First, the researcher did not include an abstract for the paper, which is essential as this served as the summary of the contents of the research. Second, the researcher also failed to use the appropriate APA citation because the references in her paper are more like MLA rather than APA. Third, it would be better if the researcher placed headings in the paper to help in the organization of the paper. Fourth, the researcher should improve on her grammar and she should have proofread the paper because there are some grammatical errors and misspelled words.

All things taken into consideration, the research paper about the Cambodian killings was able to present a good discussion to prove that the deaths that took place are indeed genocide and not a massacre. The only weakness of the paper is in the citation and organization of the paper.