Homeland Security-Terrorism

1 The adage “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is well known. Do you think the colonists of the 1700’s in their quest for freedom from England could be considered terrorists or freedom fighters. Are there other examples of this adage in world history?

2 What are your thoughts on the DNA study and the videos? Also, do you agree with Beccaria’s assessment of the death penalty? What portions of his reasoning do you most agree or disagree with?

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Homeland Security-Terrorism
Part 1
In matters of terrorism, there could be a very thin line in understanding who really is a terrorist and who is not. The old adage “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” may seem right or wrong depending on which side of the coin one looks at. The best way to respond to it however is by looking at their definitions as well as intentions. There is no specific definition that holds for who a terrorist is. However, it can be defined as a person who engages in unlawful violence as well as intimidation especially against civilians for personal and mostly political gains. Terrorism is an international concern owing to beliefs, recruitment techniques and operations that have very many negative implications. On the other hand, freedom fighters involve themselves in a revolutionary struggle whose end result is a political goal of overthrowing an existing regime. It is a resistance movement meant to protect the interests of the majority using minorities. Based on this definitions and aim, I don’t think the freedom fighters of the 1700’s can be…