The Effects of Terrorism on US Policing and Interrogation Methods

This essay examines the significant impact of terrorism on the US policing system, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It delves into how police forces have adapted to combat terrorism, including the need for closer collaboration with national security agencies and the allocation of resources for surveillance. The essay analyzes the evolving legal landscape, focusing on cases like U.S. v. Ghailani, and the importance of upholding constitutional rights during interrogations, referencing Miranda v. Arizona and Salinas v. Texas. It also explores interrogation techniques, such as the Mr. Big method, and their potential impact on false confessions, drawing on Canadian legal precedents and scholarly articles to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and complexities faced by law enforcement in the fight against terrorism.

Running head: POLICING AND TERRORISM
0
POLICING AND TERRORISM
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

1POLICING AND TERRORISM
The nature of policing has been affected profoundly after the attack of terrorists to
various essential parts of the United States on September 11, 2001 (Schwarzer, Bowler & Cone,
2014). The police forces have been combating with the terrorism even before such attack; the
subsequent acts of terrorism of other countries have shown that the conservative strategies of the
police were not so adequate to stop them. It has been demonstrated that the department of police
would have to work hard and closer to the National Securities Agencies (NSA) (Lowe, 2016).
There are many types of police resources, which have to be directed for the surveillance to the
suspected terrorist. After that attack, the US government has changed the environment of the
policing. The police officers have demonstrated considerable flexibility in facing some critical
incidents. This paper aims to confer the impact of terrorism on the policing system in the US
with the support of two scholarly articles.
In the case, the U.S vs. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani 2010, the accused, Ghailani, has been
charged with murder as well as the conspiracy of terrorist activities by the Federal Court of the
US in New York. He has been further charged for the involvement in the bombing of such
Embassies of the US in Kenya. He has been detained at the CIA and interrogated by the police
offices. During that interrogation, he has made several statements, which have amounted to
confessions regarding the bombing and his role of it. The court of law has acquitted Ghailani on
other charges, but he has been sentenced for murder and conspiracy for using the weapon to
destroy the public at large.
The United States in its Fifth Amendment of Constitution has provided a constitutional
right against the self-incrimination of the accused, and they can refuse to testify if the answers of
the interrogations are hypothetically self-incriminating. At the time of interrogation of a suspect
or an accused, they can remain silent instead of answering all questions. In the case law Miranda

2POLICING AND TERRORISM
vs. Arizona 1966, it has decided that any detained person can invoke his rights, then they should
not violates the interrogation procedure. In the case law Salinas vs. Texas 2013, the Supreme
Court of the US has ruled that an individual should remain silent by saying so. It is the
responsibility of the police officers not to breach the constitutional rights of the suspect or any
accused at the time of interrogation.
Dufraimont in her article “the Interrogation Trilogy and the Protection for Interrogated
Suspects in Canadian Law” has described that the interrogation trilogy, which was made up by
the Supreme Court on several cases may not be able to provide such safeguard to the suspects
and may not control the abuses of policed power in an interrogation room (Dufraimont, 2011). In
the case law, R vs. Oickle 2000, it has decided that the statement made by the accused in the
interrogation was involuntary and it should have been excluded from the evidence. It has taken a
different view of such interrogation and it has found that the statement of the accused has been
made for several inadequate inducements of the police authorities. It is unfair to use such a failed
polygraph. In the case law R vs. Singh 2007, the Supreme Court has clarified the connection and
relationship between the right to silence and such confession rules. According to her, the
Supreme Court precedents have not reformed any principal place in the Canadian criminal laws;
however, it has incited a resilient reaction of the merits and an adjacent investigation of such
implications (Dufraimont, 2011).
Steven M Smith, Marc W. Patry and Veronica Stinson in their Article ‘Using the Mr. Big
techniques to elicit confession: Successful innovation or dangerous development in the
Canadian legal system’ have stated that the interrogation procedures by the police officers may
be contributed the false confession. The Canadian legal system has provided some designed
safeguards for protection of the rights of the accused person to reduce the probability of their

3POLICING AND TERRORISM
errors (Smith, Patry & Stinson, 2016). In the Mr. Big technique, the Law Enforcement Officers
have compelled to confess the accused with a disguise, which will be unknown to the accused.
According to these Scholars, the Mr. Big technique is a problematic noncustodial interrogation
method and in this situation, the suspects may get an experience of the excessive compression,
which may result in a false confession.
Therefore, it can be concluded that police officers should not violate any constitutional
rights as well as human rights during the interrogation. According to those scholars mentioned
earlier, the authority should not use that type of method, which violates the constitutional rights
of an individual. However, police forces should be more active in reducing terrorism by
maintaining a close relationship with the NSA.

4POLICING AND TERRORISM
References
Dufraimont, Lisa. (2011) "The Interrogation Trilogy and the Protections for Interrogated
Suspects in Canadian Law." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual
Constitutional Cases Conference 54.
Lowe, D. (2016). Surveillance and international terrorism intelligence exchange: Balancing the
interests of national security and individual liberty. Terrorism and political
violence, 28(4), 653-673.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
R v Singh, 2007 SCC 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405
R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3
Salinas v. Texas 369 S. W. 3d 176 (2010)
Schwarzer, R., Bowler, R. M., & Cone, J. E. (2014). Social integration buffers stress in New
York police after the 9/11 terrorist attack. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 27(1), 18-26.
Smith, S., Patry, M., & Stinson, V. (2016). Using the Mr. Big techniques to elicit confession:
Successful innovation or dangerous development in the Canadian legal system [Ebook].
Retrieved
fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/228620573_Using_the_Mr_Big_technique
_to_elicit_confessions_Successful_innovation_or_dangerous_development_in_the_Cana
dian_legal_system