Manifest Destiny vs Native American Culture - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1825 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/07/01 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Manifest Destiny Essay Did you like this example? Imagine being forced out of a place that you and your ancestors had considered home for thousands of years, having promises broken, being forced to act like the people taking your culture away from you, or being forced on to the smallest fractions of land with little resources to go around. For Native American tribes such as the Cherokee, Dakota, Chickasaw, and many others, this was the reality their culture faced, because of the belief of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny was a term essentially used to justify any actions done during the western expansion under the name of God. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Manifest Destiny vs Native American Culture" essay for you Create order Some believe that Manifest Destiny does not justify the treatment of these Native American tribes, while others think that Manifest Destiny justifies the acts of the settlers because it helped to make the United States a very powerful country. Manifest Destiny was an excuse to take land away from areas that already were occupied, therefore, Manifest destiny does not justify the treatment of Native Americans because manipulated Native Americans and broke treaties, they killed thousands of innocent people, and they forced Native Americans to assimilate to the culture of the settlers. Manifest Destiny was a term used from 1812-1860 and was a belief of United States settlers that they were destined to move across North America. The term was also used to rationalize the removal of American Indians from their native homelands(SAAM-Manifest Destiny and Indian removal pdf). In 1803 the United States bought land from France, stemming from the Mississippi River to the Rockey Mountains, also known as the Louisiana Purchase. As the settlers started moving westward, they started to promote some concern of the Natives that were living in the west. To these white settlers, these Indian tribes were standing in the way of progress and Americas Manifest Destiny (SAAM Manifest Destiny and Indian removal pdf). The white settlers also found the Native culture as inferior and believed they had outdated traditions. In 1830, Andrew Jackson inforced the Indian Removal Act which forced Native Americans to migrate away from the land of their ancestors or to assimilate to American cultur e. In return for the land, the United States gave them small pieces of land, reservations, and agreed to supply them with food and money and clothing for these tribes to survive but these expectations were never met, and thousands of Native Americans started to die. In efforts to remove the Native Americans off their land, the United States fought battles, signed treaties and used force migration. The Trail of Tears is one of the historically forced migrations during the time of Manifest Destiny. The Natives were forcefully removed from their land and were sent to the designated places for the Natives; however the supplies promised were never given to them, so many died from disease as well as starvation, an estimated 100,000 of them died throughout forced migration. (SAAM- Manifest destiny pdf). As for the Natives that tried to assimilate to the culture, their children were sent to boarding schools. The schools attempt to remove and Native cultural traits, even going as far to try to make them look like white settlers. In Minnesota the Dakota war was fought after numerous broken treaties from the United States Government, the people were forced into internment and the aftermath of the war resulted in 300 men being sentence as well as 38 executed which was the largest single execution day in American history. (University of Minnesota- holocaust and genocide studies- Dakota war 1862). For most of the United States, the settlers and government [were] willing to do almost anything for the sake of Manifest Destiny (Frontier America- Sara McGill). The actions carried out throughout Manifest Destiny, were justified by the fact that God wanted them to, and it was necessary to make America a powerful country and North America democratic, and forcing the Native Americans off their land was for their well being. The belief in God wanting them to move westward was the main component for the justification of their expansion westward. Most settlers believed that God, blessed the growth of the American Nation and even demanded them to actively work on it,(HistoryNet- Manifest Destiny) and that even a spirit would guide them westward. During this time period many people would follow anything that God told them to do in fear of going to hell or sinning. The idea that God supported the removal of Indians and wanted to them to move westward would make people want to do these thing s. However if God encouraged them to move westward, it could have been achieved without harming thousands of innocent people. The United States also had important reasons on why they would need to expand westward. The United States government wanted these new lands to, strengthen national security, to spread liberty and democracy, to access more trade routes, and to have access to the Pacific Ocean(Vicky Nyoonyoon- Prezi- Manifest Destiny). These all were valid reasons to want to move westward because if the idea of Manifest Destiny never came about, America could have just been the original 13 colonies. The United States also would have suffered more diseases from over crouding in the urban cities which would have resulted in their culture not surviving. However, it does not justify the treatment of Native Americans. There were better ways of going about it rather than killing them or lying to them. The United States in this situation was looking out for the well being of their cou ntry and were oblivious to the fact that they killed off a nearly whole culture, which is why the idea of Manifest Destiny comes into play. This term changed the mindset of the settlers but a new mindset does not justify a genocide. The United States also thought that it was for the best interest of the tribes to move off the land because they wouldnt be able to assimilate into our culture. These beliefs under Manifest Destiny were all used to justify something that they knew was wrong. Had the United States wanted to help the Native Tribes, they would have done more then let most of them die out. Manifest Destiny was an excuse to take land away from areas that already were occupied, and therefore does not justify the treatment of Native Americans because the United States, manipulated and broke treaties, they killed thousands of innocent people, and they forced Native Americans to assimilate to the culture of the settlers. In efforts to try to get land from the Native Americans, they created treaties where the Natives would give up hunting rights or parts of land in return for cash payment. Many tribes agreed to these cash payments because of the ultimatums were given. Everything they used to get them to sign treaties, I think was illegal in a lot of ways browbeating , brainwashing, and then on the other hand telling them If you sign this treaty, youre not going to ever have to work or hunt again; well take care of you Everthing will be provided. Every year youll get so much money to buy your needs, your pots and pans, but well also have food coming in every month, or once a year for you. The alternative is Were going to drive you all the way to the Rockey Moutains where youre going to starve to death and well never have to worry About you again'[] Dr. Elden Lawrence- Us-Dakota war (treaties) These ultimatums that were given almost seemed like it was the obvious choice until they were signed and the food never came, or the money was never given to them. The United States government within the unfulfillment of theses treaties killed hundreds of people, by leaving them starving. They also killed hundreds of people through forced migration. The Cherokee tribe traded with the United States government for new land and From 1838 to 1839 the army rounded up 13,000 Cherokees and forced them to relocate to present-day Oklahoma, about 1,000 miles away. Thousands of Cherokees died from the forced march, which became known as the Trail of Tears (Kathiann Kowalski- False Promises). The Trail of Tears involved thousands of innocent Natives dying from disease and starvation while not being given the necessities to survive throughout the journey. As for the Natives that did not want to move and wanted to assimilate into the culture, they sent children away to boarding schools. At these s chools, School Administrators assigned new names to the students. They gave them western style clothing to wear and unfamiliar foods to eat. Long hair which was admired in native families was forbidden at the schools, Teaches and administration punished children for speaking their Native language or for practicing Native traditions or celebrations,( Pauline Bickford- Daune page 1). These schools restricted carrying on cultural traditions from American Indians and forced white settler beliefs on children. The way the settlers and United States government treated these people cannot be justified by a term that promotes westward expansion. The United States may have wanted more land, but they also wanted Native Americans out of the picture because had they just wanted the land, they would have also tried to help the NAtives and give them conditions that they can survive in. Manifest Destiny was an excuse to take land away from areas that already were occupied, therefore, Manifest destiny does not justify the treatment of Native Americans because, manipulated and broke treaties, they killed thousands of innocent people, and they forced Native Americans to assimilate to the culture of the settlers. The belief of Manifest Destiny may have had a lot to offer the United States, but in no way does it justify the removal of nearly a whole culture. The land taken from the Native Americans could have been obtained without killing off a culture, or lying to them about what was being offered. Being intrested in only the well being of the new settlers doesnt justify what the United States did to ther cultures that had lived on the land hundreds to thousands of years before the United States came to be. Bibliography Americanexperience.si.edu. (2018). Manifest Destiny and Indian Removal. [online] Available at: https://americanexperience.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Manifest-Destiny-and-Indian-Removal.pdf Bickford-Duane, P. (2015). DESTROYING a Culture. Cobblestone, 36(1), 17. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=ulhAN=100046638site=ehost-live The Dakota War of 1862. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/dakota-war-1862 Dugley, W. G. (n.d.). Manifest Destiny. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www.historynet.com/manifest-destiny Kowalski, K. M. (2015). False Promises. Cobblestone, 36(1), 2. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=ulhAN=100046632site=ehost-live McGill, S. A. (2017). Frontier America. Frontier America, 1. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=ulhAN=17908152site=ehost-live Minnesota Historical Society (Ed.). (n.d.). Treaties. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www.usdakotawar.org/history/treaties Nyoonyoon, V. (2015, April 29). How did America justify Manifest Destiny? Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://prezi.com/m8mydciydtgq/how-did-america-justify-manifest-destiny/

Essay on Components of the Criminal Justice System

Components of the Criminal Justice System Abstract Components of the criminal justice system include the police, the court system and correctional agencies. The definition, the function and examples of each component of the American criminal justice system will be described. The criminal procedure and the processing of offenders will also be described in details. Components of the Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system consists of three main components. Those components are polices, courts, and corrections. Each component will be defined according to the American criminal justice system. The primary function of each component will also be identified and two examples of each component will be given. The ultimate†¦show more content†¦What is the court system? What is the function of the court system? The court system is the system where offenders are sentence for committing their crime. The function of the court system is to issue punishment to criminals and ensure proper sentencing is given for crimes. Examples of the court system are â€Å"Judge Judy† and â€Å"Judge Mathis†. The images that â€Å"Judge Judy† and â€Å"Judge Mathis† present are positive images. The stage that â€Å"Judge Judy† and â€Å"Judge Mathis† depict in the criminal justices system are where the judge hear s the arguments of the case at hand, the judge hears both the plaintiff and defendant, and then the judge makes a decision on the case for which evidence was presented in front of them. I think this a fair representation of the criminal justice procedure. Having been chosen to be a juror on the grand jury, I know that the procedures listed above are how the court system operates in Georgia. What is the corrections part of the criminal justice system? What is the function? When one thinks of the correctional part of the criminal justice system, one thinks of the jail and prison. The functions of the correctional institutions are to house criminals until they go to court and to house inmates until their sentence is complete. When an offender goes to prison, this is the lastShow MoreRelatedComponents Of The Criminal Justice System Essay2014 Words   |  9 PagesRunning head: COMPONENTS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 1 Components of the Criminal Justice System Bradley Gibson University of Central Washington COMPONENTS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 2 Abstract This paper explores how law enforcement, courts, and corrections work together to form the criminal justice system. More importantly this paper explains the duties of each subsystem and howRead MoreThe Components Of The Criminal Justice System1437 Words   |  6 PagesWhat is the purpose and explain the components of the criminal justice system? The purpose of the criminal justice system is to deliver a fair justice system for the public, by punishing all who doesn’t follow the rules or commit a crime, while protecting the innocent. There are three components to the criminal justice system theses are: law enforcement, Corrections and Courts. When a person has committed a crime they go throughout these three components. First is the law enforcement; law enforcementRead MoreMajor Components Of The Criminal Justice System906 Words   |  4 Pages Major Components of the Criminal Justice System Chelsea Sequeira 10/28/17 Citrus College AJ 101 Criminal Justice There are 3 major components of the criminal justice system; Police, Courts, and Corrections. These 3 systems work in harmony to enforce laws, punishments for violators of the laws, and to help correct the behaviors of criminals. The police system works closely with the public to investigate crimes, arrest offenders, maintain public order and provide emergencyRead MoreThe Three Components Of The Criminal Justice System1323 Words   |  6 PagesIn the criminal justice system, there are many components and rules that everyone must follow. The main three components are law enforcement, courts, and corrections. All three of these components interact with each other at one point or another in the criminal justice system. In the first phase, you have the law enforcement these are people that are looking for the individuals that are breaking the law. According to Smith (2017), â€Å"Law enforcement personnel are also responsible for bringing forthRead MoreThe Three Components Of The Criminal Justice System888 Words   |  4 PagesFrancois Degboe B. Robinson Intro to Criminal Justice 07 September 2017 Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The Three major components are Law Enforcements, Courts, and the Correctional System. According to Victims of crimes, Law Enforcement is when officers take reportsRead MoreThe Three Components Of The Criminal Justice System933 Words   |  4 Pages has been in the hands of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement, courts, and corrections have been making sure that the streets stay clean and that the community is safe. These three components work together in order to ensure justice is being served fairly. Although these three parts, of the criminal justice system, are different in many ways they succeed because of those differences. The different knowledge and insight each individual has about the criminal mind and behavior helps them makeRead MoreThe Three Components Of The Criminal Justice System766 Words   |  4 Pages Criminal justice! I’ve been asked plenty of times what is your definition of criminal justice or how would you explain criminal justice? My definition of it is when an individual who do a criminal act to someone or something to where t he victim needs justice from it. You can explain what is criminal justice in many ways but I’m not here to discuss only the definition of it, today I will be discussing the three components of the criminal justice system. The criminal system consists of the policeRead MoreThree Components Of The Criminal Justice System950 Words   |  4 Pages The three components of the American criminal justice system are the police, courts, and corrections. These components operate independently of one another and maintain different goals, histories, and operating procedures (Neubauer Fradella, 2017). There are two commonly accepted models of the criminal justice system, the crime control model and due process model. These two models vary at the basic level, the crime control model aims to protect society at all costs while the due process modelRead MoreThree Components Of The U.s. Criminal Justice System997 Words   |  4 PagesThere are three components of the U.S. Criminal Justice Sy stem today, law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Anyone who is arrested will go through all three aspects without even being found guilty. However, one that most people seem to remember the most as a defining factor would be when they were in court, during this time there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct to follow. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecutionRead MorePolicing Is The Primary Component Of The Criminal Justice System1648 Words   |  7 PagesPolicing is the primary component of the criminal justice system. The police have a constitutional duty to enforce the law, provide the public with safety and security and maintain order in the society. They are seen as an authority figure who has considerable control over it s citizens. The police also have a duty to arrest people who break the law or commit an offense and in doing so, they help keep the justice system in a functional state. T he police does not determine the guilt or innocence

The policy of the United States Free Essays

string(306) " States received much more attention than the Canadian border, â€Å"†¦only 334 agents were assigned to the 5,525-mile northern border compared with over 9,000 agents stationed at the 2,062-mile southern edge† \(4\), however, since September 11 there are an equal amount of agents patrolling both borders\." This essay will generate the ideas of the role between border security and counter terrorism. The subcategories that will be discussed along side this theory are the lack of border security, both south of the United States and north. The policy of the United States toward immigration will also give the paper a close-up of the harm illegal aliens who are not apprehended will do, not only to the status of the economy but to national terrorism . We will write a custom essay sample on The policy of the United States or any similar topic only for you Order Now In the emergence of a lax border security, finally, the issue of this juxtaposed with the opportunity that exists for terrorists to exploit will also be developed in the paper. In order for a more substantial argument to evolve in this paper a brief history with terrorism and border control will be argued as well as the history of the US Patriot Act and other issues in the past with the United States concerning immigration, illegal aliens, and terrorists. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there have been many changes in the ways the United States government functions. The first act of alteration to the normal code of conduct was the drafting and passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. There are many who see this act as a bold defense against the fear of terrorism for the American public, however, a growing number of people see the changes in American governmental policy and overall attitude towards enemies and allies alike as an affront against proper American values and freedom. As Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter explain, there is a distinct politic to the notion of terrorism. However, these tactics are not always effective. There are many events of terrorism in the world each year, yet only a handful are regarded with any merit. According to Kydd and Walter, through a well argued and insightful article, it is â€Å"the trust between groups† that must be destroyed for an extremist attack to be successful. This is the motivation behind the response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. On December 6, 2001, then Attorney General John Ashcroft addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee in praise of this act, and it’s restructuring of the NSA, CIA and FBI. (Ashcroft 524) His rhetoric was patriotic and concise, and his views of the USA PATRIOT act and its changes seemed sincere. This was supported with the passage of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which paved the road for the Patriot act itself. Eric Rosand wrote about the resolution in 2003. His response to its necessity was one of sympathy to the government, for having to face such a difficult challenge. However, not everyone who has commented on the alterations of the US governmental policy has done so with such reverence. David Cole compared the investigations into possible terrorist cells in the United States, to the â€Å"Palmer Raids† of 1919 – where, following a series of bombings, J. Edgar Hoover led a series of â€Å"round ups† of immigrants across the country and held them without trial or charge in â€Å"unconscionable conditions, interrogated incommunicado and in some cases tortured†. (529) This attitude has spread throughout the country, as the appearance of indecency has flooded the government’s handling of the terrorists investigations. Mary Jacoby brings up the question of the legal definition of â€Å"Detainee†. This is in response to the holding of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba. The prisoners of this facility have been acquired from around the world – from the war in Afghanistan, and from arrests done in dozens of countries around the world. However, the problem arises when the soldiers fighting for the Afghan military are brought in as detainees, rather than prisoners of war. While the Guantanamo prison has its apologists, such as Charles Krauthammer – who states that freeing of these men would be â€Å"lunacy† (537) – the fact remains, that in strict terms, the United States is in breech of the Geneva Convention by holding POWs. The United States government however sees this detention as necessary. The United States also enlists other tactics involving border control. The United States since September 11 has kept a more watchful eye on the Mexican border to ensure that large trucks are not passing the borders which could hold weapons, but this seems to be the only action officials and military are taking in regards to border control according to Zagorin (2004) in The Mexican Border Will Get a Closer Look. In this article Zagorin is hard pressed to find any true action the US is taking in regards to border control and Zagorin sites many examples of how Mexico is making its own efforts to decrease the chances al-Qaeda terrorists coming into the country or leaving the country, â€Å"The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. †¦another episode has some senior U. S. officials worried; the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction†¦ a senior U. S. law-enforcement official notes that crop dusters can be sued to disperse toxic substance†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (19). In contrast to the underlying belief of the lax nature in Zagorin’s article Andreas (2003) holds a very different opinion in his article Perspective. This article gives details about the before and after September 11 border security in the United States dealing with both the Mexican and Canadian border. Prior to September 11 the United States focused its energy on deterring the flow of drugs between the borders. Thus the model by which the United States is equipped in handling border security in regards to terrorism is very juvenile in design because their previous focus has been on migrant workers and masses of illegal immigrants rather than to search a crowd and discover a few terrorists (4). Another issue that arises in the approach of the Mexican border is that the south border of the United States received much more attention than the Canadian border, â€Å"†¦only 334 agents were assigned to the 5,525-mile northern border compared with over 9,000 agents stationed at the 2,062-mile southern edge† (4), however, since September 11 there are an equal amount of agents patrolling both borders. You read "The policy of the United States" in category "Papers" Under the Patriot Act, as stated previously, the number of agents present in the Canadian border has tripled in a response to September 11. In an effort to stop terrorism, the US coastguard now stops every boat crossing the Great Lakes as well as escorts large tankers. Thus, Andreas states that these new border securities have merely taken the old ideas of drug trafficking measures and applied them to terrorism which makes for an increase of difficulty in border control (Andreas, 5). Fernando Reinares noted in his article, The Empire Rarely Strikes Back, that after â€Å"more than 2400 acts of terrorism against American citizens and interests† there have been only â€Å"three occasions of overt military response†. (Reinares 92) However, because of the incredible size and depth of impact of the September 11th attacks, war became unavoidable. There did arise a problem with the military action, however, as a growing public opinion seemed to point the target ast Islam itself, rather than just Al-Qaeda. This prompted the United States to â€Å"enlist the help of as many Islamic nations as possible† to counter act this perception. (Aretxega 143) This coalition of Islamic nations does nothing to counteract the rise in racial profiling within the United States. Sherry Colb wrote about the foreseen changes in American law enforcement following the September 11th attacks. Her article articulated the problem of racial profiling and its consequences. Cold notes that â€Å"real numbers do not support profiling†. (539) However this does not stop the utilization of profiling in airports, or in traffic stops. However, this too has its supporters, from such sources as law professor Roger Clegg. His response to the topic of racial profiling is one of acceptance and justification. â€Å"So what? † (Clegg 542) Clegg asks of the act of profiling. However his racial make-up lends itself easily to such opinions, as an educated white male is rarely confronted for being white, educated or male. But profiling at the borders is the number one cause by which patrols see fit to apprehend an individual since they fit the profile and the Patriot Act backs up the idea of border security no matter what the cost. The changes in the United States since September 2001 have been many and wide in scope, however there is little agreement as to whether these changes are for the better – or even legal. As illustrated in these articles, the several aspects of governmental policy that have been affected by these attacks have been met with acceptance and praise, as well as contempt and ridicule – with communicative and sincere arguments on both sides. Though, despite the eloquent nature of the arguments, they do not dissuade one from his or her own opinion. It is the learned set of moral values that create one’s opinion of the new America. The issue of border control seems increasingly to be an issue of economics and as much as the United States focuses its attention on increasing patrol, it is also obstructing trade between countries and so the lax behavior or approach in certain instances of policing and allowing immigrants to cross borders presents to the theorist that increased border control does not necessarily lead to a more protected country. In Kiely’s (2006) article GOP View, she states that the United States is more focused on illegal immigration than terrorism and using terrorism as a guise by which to exert an autocratic policing style which does not give rights to immigrants, â€Å"A bill the House passed in December called for making illegal immigration a felony offense, punishable by at least a year in jail†¦Under the law, people who cross the border without permission are already guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. But people who enter the country legally and then overstay their visas—as many as 40% of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, according to Sensenrenner—are guilty of a civil violation† (1). Thus it becomes apparent that the United States is focusing more attention on illegal immigration than on terrorism since all of their efforts are geared toward this goal. Since the United States has merely adapted their approach to finding terrorists in the same fashion by which they find illegal immigrants there seems to exist a very unreliable system. The terrorists that entered the country each had different ways to travel, false papers of identification and would have been apprehended if the border security had not been as lax as they had been and since their approach to border control has not changed dramatically as a system, but merely as having more patrols and policing the gate is left open for terrorism, as The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control (2004), states, â€Å"We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by border authorities. Analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 of the 15 hijackers and more effective use of information available in U. S. government databases could have identified up to 3 hijackers† (570). Since these hijackers could have been apprehended but were not, and the government has only increased the number of patrols on the either border and not per se the system by which illegal immigrants are apprehended it stands to reason that the government is not altogether prepared or establishing a methodology in apprehending terrorists, they are merely cracking down by using brute force without strategy, Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws—that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism—inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be—and ensuring consequences for violations—it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors (570). Thus, the article emphasized the lack of a system in uncovering terrorism as part of border security. Aristotle was partial to pluralism. He did place his faith in the idea that humans ‘aped’ reality and copy what they are witnessing, and thus making reality a reserved, unattainable subject. A person’s personal truth, through the philosophy of pluralism and Aristotle, has a background involving historical context and empirical evidence wherein truth can be extrapolated. Aristotle believed that pluralism dealt more with a person’s culture than with a vast array of immitigable scenarios. For Aristotle, pluralism, and not unity allowed for change in the universe, and in this avenue of discourse Aristotle presented the concept of both motion and rest existing in the world in simultaneous reality, â€Å"†¦ it is not the case that all things are at rest or in motion sometimes and nothing for ever; for there is something which always moves the things that are in motion, and the first mover is itself unmoved [Ibid. , 29-32, p. 751]. † Therefore, life, reality, self exist on a plane where the possibility of truth is represented in many. Thus, the United States’ approach to terrorism is found to be understood as the common good for everyone as opposed to the common good based on one man. This is shown in the allowance of holding foreigners in prisons without trial in order to gain information from them, and even in some cases indulging in torture in order to protect the greater good as is stated in Aristotle’s logos. In the reality that existed for Aristotle through the philosophy concept of pluralism, empirical facts were the focus, goal and reality which human beings base their existence. In this existence, it is not necessary for a common laborer to delve into the meanderings of the Ideal Good possibly having relevance for anyone besides a philosopher. The absolute idea for Aristotle was not found in abstract concepts but rather in empirical multiplicity and continuous transformation of facts based on frame of reference, history, and culture. It is through these fundamental approaches that human beings come to know their own truth instead of delving into the misrepresentation of Forms given through Plato’s unity, â€Å"Pythagoreans say that things exist by ‘imitation’ of numbers, and Plato says they exist by participation, changing the name. But what the participation or the imitation of the Forms could be they left an open question [Ibid. , ll-14, p. 7O1]. † The interaction of Forms and human beings in the universe is the core concept on the philosophy of pluralism, as Aristotle states, â€Å"Platonists speak as if the One were homogeneous like fire or water; if this is so, the numbers will not be substances. Evidently, if there is a One-itself, and this is a first principle, ‘One’ is being used in more than one sense; for otherwise the theory is impossible [Ibid. , 992a 7-10, p. 7O9]. † Through metaphysics Aristotle suggests that existence is not reliant upon numbers, reasons, or Forms alone, but only that the realistic forms are primary, which is the approach the United States government is taking in regards to counter-terrorism. The number one priority of preventing terrorism is to prevent terrorist travel. This tactic however has not been seriously employed with regards to border security and finding and preventing terrorism since the focus, as previously stated, is more about finding terrorists, not finding the means by which they are mobile. One system that has not be utilized in border security is the means by which to detect whether documentation is authentic since terrorists have system by which they infiltrate a country. Their travel channels should be found and exploited, but no real clause in the Patriot Act has been given or stated. Terrorists establish themselves in the United States through their travel channels by which there is a paper trail of documents; therefore, the Patriot Act, and NAFTA should not only be focusing their efforts at the borders where the terrorists may or may not be traveling but the government should also be wary of terrorist activity already transpiring inside the country, as The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control, â€Å"Each of these checkpoints or portals is a screening-a chance to establish that people are who they say they are and are seeking access for their stated purpose, to intercept identifiable suspects, and to take effective action† (571). This paper has shown that although the United States is refocusing efforts on border control their methodology has not been new in design as counter terrorism efforts call for, but instead the United States seems to have merely increased the number of patrols across the border and not changed the system by which they seek out terr orists. In the information presented in this paper it gave different avenues by which the United States could be making a better effort to fight terrorism by simply having a different strategy on terrorism inclusive of finding their travel channels and relying on identification and false passports. The United States approach to border control, since they are using the same system now as prior to September 11 have not changed how they approach terrorists and their apprehension thus leaving room for terrorists to take advantage of this lax method and exploit it. Bibliography Andreas, Peter. (2003 3rd Quarter). Perspective. Regional Review. Vol. 13, Issue 2, p3-7. Aretxaga, Begona. (Winter 2001). Terror as Thrill: First Thoughts on the ‘War on Terrorism’. Anthropological Quarterly. Vol. 75, No. 1, p138-150. Kiely, Kathy. (13 April 2006). GOP View: Illegal Immigration Won’t be Felony. USA Today. Kydd, Andrew; Walter, Barbara. (Spring 2002). Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extremist Violence. International Organization. Vol. 56, No. 2, p263-296. Reinares, Fernando. (Jan-Feb 2002). The Empire Rarely Strikes Back. Foreign Policy. No. 128. P. 92-94. Rosand, Eric. (April 2003). Security Council Resolution 1373, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and the Fight against Terrorism. The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 97, No. 2, p333-341. The US 9/11 Commission on Border Control. (2004). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p569-574. Zagorin, Adam. (22 November 2004). Bordering On Nukes? Time. Vol. 164 Issue 21, p19. How to cite The policy of the United States, Papers