Part One

The question about terrorism is very sharp nowadays in the modern United States of America. To protect its citizens, the federal government, as well as state governments, has adopted several laws; however, right - wingers do not approve those laws, stating that they violate human rights. This point of view is t absolutely not correct, because those laws have been created to protect people from any violence, to protect their lives and freedoms.

“All States have a duty and an obligation to protect individuals within their jurisdiction from terrorists under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stemming from the right to life. While counter-terrorist measures are essential for States to maintain national security and ensure safety for all individuals, these measures must not circumvent international law or violate human rights. The lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism increases the possibility of human rights violations and negatively impacts the ability of the international community to fight terrorism. Human rights are also implicated due to the lack of transparency and inadequate judicial oversight of counter-terrorism measures. Transparency in counter-terrorism policies is necessary to protect human rights while also ensuring national security.”(Virotsko, p.2)

It is not doubtful, the policy of the United States of America against terrorism is very useful, because since it has been established and less terroristic acts occur, thus, life of ordinary citizens is protected. The point is that if people want to feel secure, they should sacrifice something; that is why firstly we should think about what we get if some of our freedoms are limited. However, I would not say that they are limited much towards ordinary Americans; only those who look fishily may be checked, or people from Arabian countries. All those measures have been taken only to protect citizens from any danger, especially something that could be dangerous for life.

Part Two

Terrorism has become a world - wide threat, that is why the United Nation Organization has established the Uniting Against Terrorism campaign to provide the recommendations on how to avoid terrorism. The list of recommendations is rather long, however, in this part of the paper only one of it is studied. The point is that this report was aimed to prevent terrorism and, perhaps, give some recommendations on how to do that.

“Given the wide range of United Nations entities working on counter-terrorism issues, it is crucial that the coordination and sharing of information is enhanced to the fullest degree possible. To this end, I recommend the creation of an informal group, to include United Nations technical assistance providers, as well as donors and recipients, which could meet once or twice per year to exchange information. Such coordination will also need to include better sharing of information in the field. Several innovative mechanisms could be adopted to that end.” (The Report, p. 10)

This recommendation seems to be perfect to begin the fight against terrorism. The point is that those who implement this recommendation in life may face several challenges. For example, the process of sharing information may become difficult, because, first, information that they will have might not be enough to fight; second, it might not be enough to meet once or twice a year. Thus it would be better to have more frequent meetings, for example, once a month or two. Moreover, the system of informing, the system of communication between members of that informal group should be highly protected. It might happen that terrorists may break such a channel of transferring information and thus, they will have access to this system. Consequently,  firstly the UNO members should evaluate all the dangers and security measures and only then implement.