The Escalating Controversy in the Aftermath of 9/11
To illustrate another, more recent event where freedom was surrendered to ensure safety is the aftermath following September 11, 2001. 9/11 is considered one of the most harrowing days in human history.
Terrorism’s definition, provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), is “an unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political social objectives.” This definition is important to the topic being addressed because America declared a war on terrorism following the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
According to an interview with Brent Duggins, the head of the history department for the Ball-Chatham school district, on the day of September 11th, an Afghan man by the name of Osama Bin Laden led the infamous group Al Queda in terrorist attacks against the U.S. AA Flight 11 crashed into the first World Trade Center in New York city at 8:46 a.m., followed by UA Flight 175 hitting the second World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. Both of the World Trade Centers collapsed, killing and injuring thousands of people. Another flight hit the Pentagon, located in Virginia. In total, three-thousand lost their lives on this fateful day.
George W. Bush, America’s president at the time, made this statement relating to the attacks “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward.” The President made it very clear that America’s freedom would be defended.
The effects of 9/11 were monstrous. Fearful of future attacks, the need for airport security amplified. As a result, the drastic increase in security required the freedoms of American citizens to be overshadowed by safety precautions.
Before 9/11, there was little technology to detect threats such as guns, bombs, pathogens, or knives in airports. Thirty years ago, an airport officer was viewed with the same prestige as a custodian. Because they were paid low wages, workers were inattentive and apathetic towards the work they were performing. However, the intensity of airport security drastically changed shortly after the terrorist attacks.
Following 9/11, the finest technology possible was provided to airports. First, the problem of the airport workers was dealt with; in recent times airport officers are “security professionals” and America’s major defense against terrorism. Furthermore, airline pilots are screened with a better system called the Crew Personnel Advanced Screening System, or CrewPASS. In addition, President Bush increased airline funds to twenty-billion dollars in order to keep the security systems up-to-date and ensure the safety of employees. Now, airline companies and federal regulators have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on new, sophisticated detection devices.
One example of the up-to-date technology implemented in American airports is Advanced Imaging Technology equipment (AIT). In order to detect possible threats or potential weapons, these cutting-edge machines use backscatter X-ray or millimeter-wave technology to simulate an image of the passenger’s body beneath their clothing. The images produced by such technology are pictured to the side and are obviously very personal.
Another search method that is used in airports is pat-downs. Pat-down procedures are very intrusive and are said to “leave nothing untouched.” The new procedures are invasive to passengers’ personal space, thus becoming an issue of personal freedom.
With the intention of being protected from harm and securing the safety of the country, Americans must sacrifice freedoms to do so. However, I believe that it is better for Americans to endure such safety precautions than have to deal with the agony of another large-scale terrorist attack. The invasive measures such as pat-downs should be a small price to pay in order to ensure an entire airport’s safety.
Another response to the terrorist’s attacks on 9/11 is the passing of the Patriot Act. The number one priority of the American Justice Department is to protect the lives of Americans and fight terrorism. The Patriot Act, in direct response to the attacks, reduced the restrictions on the government and granted the government the right to investigate the private lives of people.
To begin, the act gave government officials the right to use the same methods in investigating a terrorism case as they could while investigating a fraud, drug, or racketeering case. For example, wiretaps could be used to listen to private phone calls. By the same token, the act allowed for information sharing between government agencies for better communication and cooperation. In addition, the act increased the punishment for anyone proven guilty of committing a terrorist act.
Images such as the ones to the side are very troubling to me because they depict the Patriot Act in an extremely negative light. This is bothersome because such laws were put into place to protect Americans against terrorist activities, not with the intention of spying on everyone just for the hell of it.
Although the Patriot Act was controversial, it was still highly supported during this time of need. The act passed almost unanimously in the Senate with a 98-to-1 vote. In the House of Representatives, it also passed with excellence by a 357-to-66 vote of approval.
According to a speech by Tom Ridge, the head of the the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security was also implemented in response to the terrorists’ attacks. Similar to the Patriot Act, the duty of Homeland Security is to significantly decrease America’s vulnerability to terrorism, guard American citizens against terrorism, and give Americans a greater peace of mind that they are well protected.
The department combines TSA and 21 other government agencies, totaling to a use of 170,000 federal officials. This department is tasked with jobs such as protecting America’s airports, seaports, and borders by monitoring foreigners into the country; helping equip and train first-responders; addressing weapons of mass destruction threats; keeping track of and dealing with vulnerabilities in infrastructure; identifying patterns that will help assist in capturing expected terrorists; and communicating those patterns to government officials and other government agencies in order to prevent danger in the future.
The Patriot Act along with the Department of Homeland Security were never ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the two are somewhat notorious due to the severity of what their policies entail. Both have to deal with the government’s involvement in people’s personal lives. By regularly stereotyping particular people as “terrorists,” both are potentially offensive. Even though the acts are controversial, most Americans choose to follow such precautions in order to ensure safety. If chosen to go against them and instead choose freedom, safety would be threatened.
In relation to Homeland Security, many citizen assistance and support groups were also created, proving that safety really is a major priority to American citizens. According to Roger L. Kemp, Ph.D., Governor of the Homeland Security Working Group, the organizations work closely with federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Health and Human Services. One example of such groups is InfraGard in association with the FBI. To prevent hostile acts, this band composed of businesses, academic institutions, local law enforcement agencies, and other participants are dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to the FBI.
Some citizens are reluctant in regard to these groups because they function on being nosey and reporting their findings to government officials. Kemp claims that government officials are increasingly relying more on reports from private citizens. It is a scary thought that Americans always have eyes on them, even when it seems there is no one around to care or pay attention.
Despite the procedures put in place by the American Government, it appears that there has been some backlash to the seemingly helpful precautions. Darren Davis and Brian Silver, professors of political science at Michigan State University, hypothesize in the Journal “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America” that when people have a greater sense of threat, the lower their support for civil liberties is.
Also, the relationship between sense of threat and civil liberties is influenced heavily by the trust in government. The less people trust the government, the less willing they are to trade their civil liberties for safety, no matter what the threat level might be.
However, their assumption is inconsistent with experimental research following the 9/11 attacks. In 2001–2002, a random-digit-dialing telephone survey was conducted with a total of 1,448 respondents. When asked a general question regarding giving up some civil liberties to curb terrorism, 55% voted for protecting those civil liberties. Not only that, but the support for civil liberties was higher in every category, such as protecting from racial profiling, not allowing warrantless searches on suspicion, not monitoring telephone or email, and so on. This research suggests that Americans are not as likely to trade off freedoms for security as one might think in a heightened threat period.
The tradeoff of civil liberties for increased security has been a long time concern for the American people. In some instances, it is necessary not to oppose the security precautions in order to ensure safety and to prevent another tragedy. Such instances are exemplified by the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the Columbine High School massacre. In other cases, such as the Cold War, it is essential that the American public defends their rights. In my opinion, even though the American government implements such policies in order to protect its people, they must be challenged at times. Nonetheless, if a person has nothing to hide, he should not be concerned about the increased security used to keep the country safe.
Examples of when Americans trade freedom for safety is important because it is an issue that happens time and time again in American history. I first exemplified the push for freedom during the Cold War, and now wrap the discussion up with the shift towards safety following 9/11. It is crucial that Americans come to some sort of an informed decision about when they think too many freedoms are being taken away because we are given these freedoms in the Constitution. If one feels that their rights are being infringed upon, then they have the ability to protest the precautions that are making them feel such distress. The choice is yours…
Click here to visit the previous article
