Tuesday, March 5, 2013
GLOBAL TERRORISM AND THE WAR ON TERROR: AN APPRAISAL
INTRODUCTION Terrorism has come to stay as far as mankind is concerned. The pioneer assertion on terrorism, and to say with all the firmness that one can command is that, it is a violent attack, an attack on lives and property, and peace. Terrorism in the globe today is a multifaceted phenomenon consisting of an array of actors (Viottis and Kauppi, 2009). To be candid, addressing the scourge of terrorism has been a recurring challenge to International legal order. The out play of interest and goals especially in extreme cases has resulted to events and activities that can be situated in the enclaves of terrorism. The actors in this highly alarming and destructive enterprise include nation-states, non-governmental organizations/non state actors, and individual alike. As an observable dynamics, terrorist activities and the destructive outcome attached to them are increasing in geometrical progression in the past two decades. From the bombing of United States of America Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, to the September 11, World Trade Centre bombings in United States in 2001, the Mumbai attacks in India, and the killing of American Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi in 2012, the story remains the same; it brings sorrow and hardship to mankind and civilization. However, it is pertinent to note that, the 9/11 attack in America (the day the World changed) epitomized contemporary threats of International terrorism. Consequently, the responses arising from the attacks and how to prevent them in the future, has come to be collectively termed “War on Terror”, originated by the United States of America. The United States in her fight against terrorism, coined the “war on terror” has prosecuted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More so, it has numerous terrorist suspect detainees in her detention facilities, arrested and transferred from different part of the globe. The unreduceable reality is that, the cost of the war on terrorism is awesome. In Iraq, for instance, over 750,000 civilians were killed and the United States equally loss more than 4,000 marines. Records also show that United States spends 89 million dollars every month in Iraq. Again, while there have been no major terrorist incident in the United States since 2001; the United States counter- terrorism Budget for 2008 was 142 billion dollars. Conventionally, there are two important forms of fighting International and domestic terrorist, which include militaristic and diplomatic strategies. It is the militaristic solution that was applied in the case of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya etc. The above issue has given birth to several questions begging for answers; principally among them is “whether there is any legal justification of the War on terror” which is core of this paper. This paper therefore seek to investigate and explore the rudiment of international law and its specifications defining the conduct of states and non- states as regards combating terrorism. TERRORISM: AN OVERVEIW In the globe today, there are several international conventions that define war crimes and acts of violence, but there is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism. In fact, how to coin the most acceptable definition of terrorism has continued to preoccupy politicians, lawyers, administrators and scholars alike. It is imperative to state that, any article on terrorism must enter the labyrinthine debate on what “terrorism” means and how it is to be defined. Indeed the definitional quest has haunted the field of terrorist studies, some authors calling it the search for the “Holy Grail” (Wardlaw, 1989), and others conceive it as a “useless endeavor to be abandoned” (Lacquer, 1999). Most of all, the political use of the term by states to designate varied acts of opposition has further complicated the quest for a definition (Toros, 2008). As Kofi Annan (2004) former Secretary-General of the United Nations pointed out, “there is no internationally agreed upon definition of what constitute a terrorist attack. While there is no shortage of treaties prohibiting acts that are associated with terrorism, the lack of agreement on a clear and well-known definition undermine the normative and moral stance against terrorism and has stained the United Nations image. Achieving a comprehensive convention on terrorism including a clear definition is a political imperative”. However, this political imperative is likely to go anywhere because almost every Arab State oppose the definition of terrorism that prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians, if such activities take place in an occupied territory (e.g. one that will define Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians as terrorism). And, these objections are reflected in these States (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan e.t.c) refusal to sign most of the 12 anti- terrorism treaties. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to opposition and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. This is because, even within the United States government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions. For instance, the United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimate government or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological”. There are identifiable elements from the definition, violence, fear and intimidation, and each element produces terror on its victims. To the Federal Bureau of investigation “Terrorism is 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 abilities”. While the United States Department of State, conceives terrorism as a “premeditated politically–motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant target by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience”. From the American definitions, rebels, insurgents, paramilitaries, separatists, militants, guerrillas, insurrectionists, fundamentalists etc are categorized as terrorists, because, they all in one form or other implore the calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear in the pursuit of their goals. The Anti-Terrorist Act of Uganda (2002) defines terrorism as: the use of violence, economic and cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner, and includes the use of violence or threats of violence to put the public to fear. However, the United Nations in 1992 described terrorism as “an anxiety- inspiring method of repeated violence action, employed by semi-clandestine individual groups or state actors, for idiosyncratic criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination: the direct target of violence are not the main targets”. Terrorism also refers to a deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of political and social goals. Put differently, the Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on combating international terrorism in 1999, defined terrorism as: any act of violence or threat thereof, notwithstanding its motives or intentions, perpetrated to carry out an individual or collective criminal plan with the aim of terrorizing the lives, honor, freedoms, security or rights or exposing the environment or any facility or private or public property to hazards or occupying or seizing them endangering a natural resource or international facilities or threatening their stability, territorial integrity, political unity, and sovereignty of independent states. It went further to describe terrorist crime as any crime executed, started or participated in the realization of a terrorist objective in any of the contracting states or its nationals. This is a very thorough definition; however, in Article 2, of this regional convention by the Conference of Islamic States, it posit that, peoples struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, hegemony, aimed at liberation in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be considered a terrorist crime (Baker, 2002). From the above scenario, the conception of the Islamic world on terrorism portrays the attack on the World Trade Centre by Al Qaeda, which they conceived as an attack on hegemony, and the attacks on Israel by the Palestinian or Lebanese, which to them is a fight against occupation or aggression, never as terrorist attacks. The exasperating inability to define terrorism is betrayed in the United Nations 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism strategy, where it asserts that, we the state members of the United Nations strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purpose. It has been observed that the difficulty in constructing a definition which eliminates any just cause for terrorism is that, history provides too many examples of organizations and their leaders branded as terrorist, but who eventually evolved into respective governments. This is the case of liberation movement fighting colonialism or oppressive regimes, engaging in violence within their own countries at last resort. A good example is Jomo Kenyatta (Mau Mau) and Nelson Mandela’s Africa National Congress. Interestingly, Mandela (Africa’s Foremost Nationalist Leader) wrote in his autobiography that “the hard facts were that, 50 years of non-violence had brought my people nothing, but more repressive legislation and fewer rights”. The United States Terror watch list of suspects as discovered in 2008 from FBI compilations included Mandela’s name as a terrorist suspect. This means the United States government defines its enemies and put them on the list of terrorists as it wishes. Be that as it may, what we decipher from the above definitions and interpretations of terrorism is that none has gained unanimous support, but at least, three key elements appear in most definitions. They are: (1) a violence means, (2) aimed at triggering political change, (3) by affecting a larger audience than its immediate target. International terrorism, which is terrorism that transcends national borders, is therefore both an action and reaction to repressing, desperate, hopeless and excluding situations. The actions and reactions take on political, economic, social, ideological, psychological, emotional and religious fervor (Mukwaya, 2004). Terrorism is therefore a politically, economically and religiously motivated violence directed against non-combatants and designed to instill fear in a target audience. It is an act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon; it is deeply embedded in history. A peep into history records that, terrorism has been one of the starkest expressions of rejection of authority. Terrorism eats away the socio-political fabric of many states, undermines democracy, provide a rationale for a government to delay democratic reforms and can increase tension among states. The result is often the impression that the world is in a state of chaos, and international order and authority is collapsing (Viotti and Kauppi, 2009). We have noted that the strategy of terrorists embraces the entire gamut of activities committed violently, that draws the attention of the local populace, the government and the world to their cause. And they plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. Again, the effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. A terrorist does not see himself or herself as evil. They believe that, they are only fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means’s possible. Hence, the phrase, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. A good number of factors have been advanced as the cause of terrorism, which includes; psychological, social, economic, ideological, cultural, religious and environmental factors. And of course, the new emergent typologies of terrorism are agro-terrorism, bioterrorism, cyber-terrorism eco-terrorism, and narco-terrorism. The terror networks act like non-governmental organizations, de-territorial and decentralized; thus on the one hand local, on the other, transnational (Ulrich, 2003). A notable example is the dreaded Al Qaeda network, led by Osama Bin Laden that symbolizes the new phenomenon of privatization of terrorism. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TERRORISM International law is the body of rules, which apply between states and such entities that have been granted international personality. It is seen as a body of rules that have been accepted by civilized nation as being biding in their relationship with one another (Akinboye and Ottoh, 2007:238). International law is a body of rules which binds states and other agents in world politics in their relations with one another. International law basically evolved in tandem with the nation-state system, from the Peace of Westphalia (Spiegel and Wehling, 1999). International Humanitarian law is the branch of international law limiting the use of violence in armed conflicts by: (a) sparing those who do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities. (b) Limiting the violence to the amount necessary to achieve the aim of the conflict, which can be independently of the causes fought for-only to weaken the potential of the enemy. This definition leads to the basic principle of International Humanitarian Law: I. The distinctive between civilians and combatants; II. The prohibition to inflict unnecessary suffering; III. The principle of necessity, IV. The prohibition to attack those hors de combat and lastly, V. The principle of proportionality (Sassoli and Bouvier, 1999: 67). In essence the fundamentals of international law are structured cum designed to maintain global peace and security. It is indeed truism that terrorism, endangers innocent lives, causes losses of social wealth, and jeopardizes state security, constitutes a serious challenge to human civilization and dignity, as well as sorrow and threat to international peace and security (China Daily, 2001). It is a however, a more fundamental truth that, just because there is no global consensus on what constitute terrorism and who are terrorists, there is yet to be in existence, an international law that solely and in all ramifications out laws terrorism. But this does not mean that there is lack of international conventions that condemns terrorist acts. More often than not, the category or aspect of international law that is applied in the fight against terrorism is treaty law, situated in the United Nations charter. The provisions of Articles 2(4) and 51 are adopted as the legal framework or background in prosecuting the “war on terror”. Article 2(4) of the United Nations charter states inter alia that: all members (states) shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations. While Article 51, of the United Nations charter state that: nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nation, until the Security Council and has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self- defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. The question now is that, what action can be categorized as a threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state? And under what condition can the principle of self- defense be a legally accepted option. The above issues are subject to debate and critical analysis. CRITICAL ISSUES IN THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE WAR ON TERROR It is quite glaring that, critical issues envelope the prosecution of the “war on terror. One of such contending issues has to do with the phrase “war on terror”. The notion “war against terrorism” has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long- standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. More so, some argue that the term “war” is not appropriate in this context as in war on drugs. Since there is no tangible enemy, and that it is very unlikely that international terrorism could be brought to an end by means of war. The idea is that, “terrorism” is not an enemy, but a tactic, calling it “war on terror” obscures differences between conflicts. A good example is the anti-occupation insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the international jihadist in Sudan and Somalia. Former president of United States, George Bush, articulated the goals of the “war on terrorism” in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. Be that as it may, the phase “war or terror” has been referred as to a false metaphor. According to George Lake of the Rock Ridge Institute, there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. And that terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing peace treaty. The reason been that, a war on terror has no end. To Jason Burke, there are multiple ways of defining terrorism and all are subjective, most define terrorism as, the use of threat of serious violence to advance some kind of “cause” … some state clearly the kinds of group (sub-national, non-state) or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term “war on terrorism” is thus unacceptable. It is further disputed that, the “war on terrorism” qualities as a war, as there is no party whose defeat can bring victory. The Director of Public Prosecution and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the United Kingdom, Ken McDonald, Britain’s most senior criminal prosecutor, states that, those responsible for acts of terrorism such as the 7, july,2005 London bombings are not “soldiers” in a war, but “inadequate” who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Thus in the eyes of the United Kingdom criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of war. London is not a battle field. Those innocents who were murdered are not victims of war. And the people who killed them were not soldiers. They are deluded, narcissistic inadequate. They are criminals. They are fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the stress at London there is no such thing as a war of terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the preventive of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by it. One can rightly deduce from the above postulations is that, the” war on terrorism is a step in the wrong direction. The fundamental reality is that, terrorism is a natural unpredictable orientation whose output breeds violence at unprecedented degrees. PROSECUTING THE WAR ON TERROR We wish to reiterate the fact that, the major proponent of the war on terror is the United States of America with its British collaborator, and that the “war on terror” has been prosecuted in Iraq and Libya and is currently going on Afghanistan. The nation of Iraq for instance, was under the leadership of President Saddam Hussein when it invaded by American forces. The reason advanced for the invasion of Iraq was that, the Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction, which is a threat to world peace and security. Most so, it was alleged that, Iraq has links with Osama Bin Ladin’s AI Qaeda terrorist group which master-minded the bombing of the twin towers of the World Trade centre in September 11, 2001. Therefore, the justification given for the invasion of Iraq was to prevent terrorism or future attack by the Iraqi government sponsored terrorists against United States of America or other nations of the world. The United States of America also claims that, the invasion of Iraq was carried out in line with Article 51, of the United Nations Charter, which deals with the principle of self- defense. Therefore, the United States Congress in a joint resolution noted that, “the 9/11 attack renders it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self defense and to protect United States citizens, both at home and abroad to prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”. As one of the crucial factors militating against the enforcement of international law, the issue is that powerful states like the United States of America, more often than not, interprets international law as they wish to suit their actions. This is because, even if the allegations of the United States against Iraq were true, the invasion of Iraq as of when it was carried out was not justified. The reason is that, there was no substantive evidence about the allegations. War opponents are of the opinion that, the invasion of Iraq does not fulfill the requirements of a just war and that in waging a war pre-emptively, the United States of America undermines the provisions of international law and the authority of the United Nations, particularly the United Nations Security Council. The argument is that, Article 33 of the United Nation’s charter states that, “the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”. The United States failed to explore all avenues for peaceful settlement of disputes before the invasion Iraq. More so, Resolution 1441 of the United Nations never authorized war, but called on Iraq to “allow unfettered access by weapon inspectors’ which President Saddam Hussein duly complied with. The United States of America was not considerate and rational to wait for the outcome of the weapon inspectors report, but went ahead to invade Iraq, disposed Saddam Hussein, killed him and his two sons, and eventually destabilize Iraq. The report of the weapon inspectors (which was released after the American atrocities in Iraq) shocked the world when the United Nation chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, in charge of Nuclear Arms inspectors, concluded that ‘Iraq does not have weapons of mass destructions”. The independent 1,000 strong team (Iraq survey group) sent by Washington to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also concluded that, they found nothing in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein Iraq has no link with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. The war therefore was fought under falsehood. With the above reality, the action of the United State has set a dangerous international precedence, and under that premise, any nation could justify the invasion of another. It is indeed, high time the international community addresses the very important issue of the use of force and the satisfaction of the requirement of proportionality. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of her sovereignty, which constitutes a serious violation of international law, especially Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The war was therefore an illegally; and cannot be legally justified. TACTICS ADOPTED IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM A critical analysis of the methods and tactics adopted in the war against terrorism also throws light on the illegality of the war. That is, even if the argument of the United States is accepted that it is fighting a war, there are international rules that regulate wartime conduct, which the United States is continuously violating. Classical international law deals with two generic situations: war and peace. There is a big rule-book dealing with the laws of warfare, the law of how to open war, and how to end war, what weapons to be used, and how to treat captives. Different rules apply to countries when there is peace and when there is war. In peace time, people are divided into two categories. They are either law-abiding citizens or criminals to be dealt with by the police and courts. In a war time, people are divided into two different categories. They are civilians or combatants (Reisner, 2002:7). The question therefore is, how does the United States classify combatants, and whether the United States of America do abide by the rules of war? Experience has shown and there is no denying the fact that, “the Bush Administration literalized its war on terrorism, dissolving the legal boundaries between what a government can do in peacetime and what’s allowed in war. This move may have made it easier for Washington to detain or kill suspects, but it has also threatened basic due process rights, thereby endangering us all (Ruth, 2004). The singular act of branding terrorist suspects as enemy combatants constitutes an illegality. It negates the legal principle of been innocent until proven otherwise. Consider for example, the case of Dose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al- Mari. Federal officials arrested Padilla in May 2002, when he arrived from Pakistan at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, allegedly to scout out target for a radiological (dirty) bomb. As for al-Mari, a student from Qatar, he was arrested in December 2001 at his home in Illinois for allegedly being a “sleeper” agent: an inactive terrorist who, once activated, would help others launch attacks. President Bush, invoking war rules, declared both men to be “enemy combatants” allowing the United States government to hold them without charge or trial as long as possible ( Roth, 2004). Again, whereas the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles clearly states how prisoners of war and civilians are to be treated during the period of war and what constitute a war crime, the United States have seriously violated the Geneva conventions and also committed grievous war crime with impurity in fighting the so called war on terror. The extra- Judicial detention and unwarranted abuse and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the Abu Ghraid prison in Iraq, coupled with the activities of CIA secret detention facilities located in different parts of the global clearly violate the laws of war. At the Abu Ghraid prison in Iraq for instance, prisoners were subjected to different kinds of torture and were even highly dehumanized by been paraded naked and mocked by American Soldiers. The fourth Geneva Convention lay emphasis on the protection of civilian persons in term of war. But the manifestation of the war on terror saw the intentional targeting of civilian populations and the destruction of lives and property. Logically, the staggering proportion of civilian casualties witnessed so far in the war of terror, clearly out weights the so called threat posed by the terrorists. The bombing of electricity and water plants and even hospitals are crimes against humanity. Indeed laws are silent among (those who use) weapons as Cicero (of old) opined. From the perspective of the use of force and the satisfaction of the requirement of proportionality too, the action of the United States is very wrong and illegal. The truth remains that the war on terror has only succeeded in breeding more terrorist. Terrorism is an ideology, and people will continue to subscribe to it. The disaster of Iraq war has presented unimaginable gifts to the terrorist cause. The decision to invade Iraq reinforced Al- Qaeda accusation of western interference in Moslem territories whilst the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison undermined the United States claims to moral superiority. Without mincing words, the conduct of the United States of American in fighting the so called war on terror does not comparatively make him a better state, than those branded as rogues states or axis of evil. The war on terror prosecuted by the United States America with its hegemonic intent is squarely and evidently, the issue of fighting to eradicate illegality by committing same illegality and even in a more alarming degree. It is squarely, the issue of fighting terrorism with more dangerous acts of terrorism. This is because, is on record that American Soldiers used the internationally outlawed white phosphorus bombs on civilians in Baghdad and chemical weapons against residents of Fallujah in Iraq. The American actions in Iraq, Israel action in Gaza and the British authorities killing of a Brazilian terrorist subject in London are all an egregious manifestation of the abuse inherent in the application of the principle of self-help or self preservation in international law. The action also illustrate the difficulty in the application of the principle of “reasonableness” in reprisal measures, a principle which demands that their attack should be aimed at the destruction of camps or bases of the guerrillas or terrorists without injury to the territorial State (Agwu, 2005). With the politicization of the veto system in the United Nations, international law is like a bleeding mother, watching the killing of her children as far as the war on terrorism is concerned. Due to the unresolved unholy trinity issue of categorizing what terrorism is? Who is a terrorist? What is a terrorist action?, the diverse interpretations to suit various ends have continued to militate against global peace and security. Other critics are of the opinion that the war on terror has a double standard connotation. The American government has granted political asylum to several terrorists and terrorist organizations that attack Cuba attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro, while the American government claims to be anti- terrorist. It is even sad to note that, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks was part of the Mujadin who were sponsored, aimed trained and aided by the CIA to commit terrorist acts in Afghanistan to fight Russia after it invaded Afghanistan. More so, majority of the terrorists that executed the 9/11 attack in the United States were of Saudi Arabian origin. But Saudi Arabia was not attacked because it is an American ally. The United States has terrorized or sponsored terror in Nicaraguan, Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, Indonesia/East Timor, Zaire, Angola, South Africa, etc. that are clear manifestations of state terrorism. CONCLUSION Though, the war on terror was initiated to eradicate terrorism and protect the United States from any further terrorist attack, the United States in the process of fighting the war has committed war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and an alarming degree of terrorist crimes. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands, but the united States have stained its hands with terrorist act and as such lack the moral and legal stance to call others terrorist. It is squarely the issue of the kettle calling the pot black. The war on terrorism in all ramifications has no moral and legal justification, and falls short of internationally recognized standards. One cannot defeat terrorism with terrorism. That is simply contradictory. As Nicholas (2008) rightly observed, the only way for preventive action to gain international legitimacy is for it to be blessed by the United Nations, but that was not the case. Preventive war has never has a good name, and the Iraq war has done little to help its reputation. Invading sovereign States on the ground that they might do something bad in the future is not conducive to a stable world order. Strong evidence that the enemy is up to no good might justify pre-emption (war in response to an imminent danger), but still the case for restraint remains compelling. Once powerful states start taking the war into their own hands, even for the best of motives, there is no telling where they will stop. Terrorists should be treated as criminals and not as combatants, and all terrorist detention facilities must be closed down. Those who have committed crimes against humanities with the pretend of fighting the so- called war on terrorism must be brought to book under the international criminal court to serve as deterrence to others. REFERENCES Awgu, Fred. (2005) United Nations System, State Practice and the Jurisprudence of the Use of Force Lagos, Malthouse Press Limited Alan, Baker and Daniel, Reisner (2002) The Evolution of International Law and the war on terrorism, Jerusalem Issue, Brief Vol.2 No 14, December 24 Alexander, Downes (2008) Targeting Civilians in War, Cornell University Press Bruce, Riedel (2008) The Search for Al Qaeda, its Leadership, Ideology and Future, Booking Institute Press. London Charles, Dunlap (2002) International Law and Terrorism: Some Questions and Answer for operators, Rigworth Press, Oslo Enodien Timtiniko (2003) Impending Demise of the United Nation, The Guardian, Sunday 27, April. Eric, Hobsbawn (2008) On Empire: America, War and Global Supremacy, Pantheon Books, Chicago Toros, Harmonie (2008) Legitimacy and Complexity on Terrorist Conflicts, Security Dialogue, volume 39, No 4 August Ikechukwu, Eze (2003) Kofi Annan slams United States over Iraq, Vanguard, Wednesday, September 24. Liqueur, Walter (1999) The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction, Oxford University Press New York Malcolm, Shaw (1998). International Law, 4th Edition, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Michael, Doyle (2008) Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict, Princeton University Press Mukwaya, Aaron (2004) The Politics of International Terrorism, African Journal of International Affairs, Volume 7, No 1 and 2, P. 34. Noah, Feldman (2004). What We OWE Iraq: War and the Ethnics of Nation Building, Princeton University Press. Patrick, Tylor (2009) A World of Troubles: The White House and the Middle-East from the Cold War to the War on Terror, Straus and Giroux. Roth, Kenneth (2004) The Law of War in the War on Terror, Foreign Affairs. January/February. Security Dialogue (2003) Is the United States of America fighting Terrorism with the Wrong Weapon? Vol 34, No, 1 March, Sage Publications. P. 121-122. The Charter of the United Nations www.un.org The Geneva Convention 1948 ThisDay News (2003). Iraq has no weapons of Mass Destruction-UN Inspectors. 15 February. Thomas, Nichols (2008). Eve of Destruction: The coming age of Preventive war. University of Pennsylvania press Ulrich, Beck (2003). The Silence of Words: on Terror and War, Security Dialogue Vol. 34. No 3. September United States of America (2001) PATRIOT ACT Wardlaw, Grant (1989) Political Terrorism: Theory, Factors and Counter-measures, Cambridge University Press Wedgwood, Ruth and Roth, Kenneth (2009) Combatants or Criminals? How Washington should Handle Terrorists, Foreign Affairs, January/February. Wottti, Paul and Kauppi Mark (2009) International Relations and World Politics. Security, Economy, and Entity,4th Edition, Pearson Educational inc. New Jersey.