2
Introduction
Terrorism is a term that often evokes the tragic events of September 11, 2001, a day that
marked one of the most significant terrorist attacks in U.S. history. On that fateful morning, 19
terrorists associated with the extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes.
Two of these planes were deliberately flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in
New York City, causing the buildings to collapse within hours and resulting in the loss of nearly
3,000 lives. A third plane crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, exacerbating the
devastation, while the fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was thwarted by brave
passengers who fought back, causing it to crash in a field in Pennsylvania. Terrorism “lacks a
universal legal definition, as the United Nations General Assembly has yet to agree on a
specific characterization” (Alex Schmid,2011). Nevertheless, it is generally understood as the
use of violence and intimidation, particularly against civilians, to achieve political or
ideological objectives. This can take many forms, including bombings, shootings, and
hijackings, all aimed at instilling fear and chaos within societies. The complexities of terrorism
reflect a multitude of motives and contexts, involving not only acts of violence but also the
underlying social, political, and economic grievances that fuel such actions. Understanding
these factors is essential for addressing the root causes of terrorism and developing effective
prevention and response strategies. When examining the difference between acts of terrorism
and the actions taken by our government in response, we encounter a complicated concept.
Terrorists target our country and citizens with their unlawful acts. In return, our government
takes control and neutralizes the threat. While it may seem that we are resorting to similar
tactics as the terrorists, we are not attacking their homes; rather, we are neutralizing those who
have committed these heinous acts while protecting our country. I have been studying criminal
3
justice for about a year now, which has involved taking several classes and gaining a
foundational understanding of both law enforcement and the broader criminal justice system.
One topic that stands out to me is the stark contrast between government actions and those of
terrorists. To truly understand this difference, we must examine the individuals who serve as
law enforcement officers. These officers, while employed by the state or various agencies, are
often seen as the frontline representatives of justice. They present themselves as protectors of
the community, dedicated to ensuring public safety. However, there are situations where their
actions lead to harm rather than protection. This reality can diminish public trust in law
enforcement and paints a troubling picture of the government as a whole. This contradiction
creates a pressing need for clear boundaries and communication from government officials to
the citizenry. It is important to convey that our intentions are fundamentally different from
those of terrorists. While terrorists seek to instill fear and chaos, we are committed to
maintaining order and safety within our communities. By fostering transparency and
accountability within law enforcement, we can work toward rebuilding trust and ensuring that
our actions align with our mission to protect and serve the public.
In Romans 13, the passage thoughtfully explores the moral ramifications surrounding
acts of terror, stating that such actions are inherently sinful. This leads to a compelling and
complex question: Is the government, in its efforts to combat these acts, acting against the will
of God, or are these actions an essential means of self-defense? The interpretation of this
dilemma can vary significantly, as it is influenced by individual beliefs and worldviews. Each
person's understanding of morality, authority, and justice is shaped by their unique values,
personal experiences, and cultural contexts. Consequently, discussions regarding the
government's response to acts of terror can unveil a diverse range of perspectives, illuminating
4
the conclusion, we can say that acts of violence, whether perpetrated by terrorists or even our
own government in the interest of public safety, present a highly complex issue that warrants
careful examination. The term "terrorism," in particular, evokes a sense of fear and uncertainty
because it is frequently discussed in various contexts, often leading to misconceptions. Despite
the absence of a universally accepted definition, I believe that terrorism fundamentally involves
the deliberate act of instilling fear and chaos, with the ultimate goal of causing harm to
innocent civilians. When discussing the government's use of violence or force, it's essential to
recognize that opinions on this matter can greatly differ, often influenced by personal beliefs
and experiences. To me, the use of force should be strictly limited to what is necessary to
ensure the safety of individuals and the community as a whole. It should prioritize de-
escalation and only resort to violence when absolutely required to protect lives. Moreover, I
strongly advocate for the implementation of body cameras for law enforcement officers. These
devices should be worn at all times to ensure accountability and transparency in their actions.
Body cameras not only protect officers by providing clear evidence of their conduct but also
serve to uphold justice by documenting interactions with suspects. This technology can prove
invaluable in establishing guilt or innocence, thereby supporting fair legal processes. In
summary, while I believe that taking measures to protect oneself is not only acceptable but also
a fundamental right, I contend that the government's use of force in safeguarding our country
can sometimes be justified, provided it is approached with careful consideration of its
implications and the necessity of such antimoniate nature of ethical decision-making and the
pursuit of safety in society.
