Even though fifteen years have passed since the incident that changed the United States forever, not a single American citizen is safer than he or she was in 2001. It is nearly impossible to eliminate an extremist threat. The key issue in this situation is an ideological conflict rather than a military one. If we are speaking about the specific examples of the limitations of people’s rights, the biggest changes were implemented in the aviation field (which includes airport and airplane safety). The attacks have conceded power to the executive branch in numerous ways. The passengers are now obliged to arrive two hours before the flight (Snow, 2011). There are also numerous other restrictions. All of the passengers’ items have to be placed in transparent, accurately wrapped bags. Airport security does not allow passengers to take any finger food or drinks to the plane (Snow, 2011). Random passengers are carefully chosen for tremendously aggressive examinations. Security officers are allowed to perform a physical checkup of any location on an individual’s entire body.
The majority of the governmental or communal buildings are also currently subject to a bigger number of various inspections. The employees are obliged to wear security badges to identify themselves, and all visitors must certify their visit (Mueller & Stewart, 2012). Not a single delivery is allowed to the office before a thorough checkup at the front desk. A significant number of American executives currently show support for a national ID card. The latter was confirmed by several surveys and is expected to increase the power of the executives even more. Besides, thorough checkups (which are, in fact, a kind of racial profiling) are suggested to all the individuals of Middle Eastern descent. Even though it may seem trivial from the constitutional point of view, it is a serious problem for the majority of American citizens who are now limited in their freedoms for practically no reason.
The fact is, these measures were necessary and appropriate but not completely justified. It should be noted that any terrorist organization will find the gaps in the system if they want to attack the country, and nothing will stop them from doing that. Nevertheless, any individual is allowed to enter the country if they do it legally. Despite the origin, these people can become a part of the United States and absorb American culture with no restrictions (Huddy & Feldman, 2011). Finally, when these people enter the country, the government tends to break all the promises. Their movement is tracked, and phone calls are often recorded – all the necessary security measures are applied to safeguard the country. Nonetheless, undetected attacks are still possible since these individuals do not have to carry weapons with them and can learn how to compose weapons of mass destruction while being in the country.
Of course, some measures could have been taken that would have generated identical outcomes in terms of guarding the country against various threats (Jordan & Taylor, 2012). Nevertheless, the outcomes show that all the efforts of National Security ended up eliminating an array of countless civil liberties that were available to the common American citizens who had no intent to hurt anyone in the country where they live (Snow, 2011). The toughest task of the current government is to define who the real terrorists are while trying to balance between the civil liberties of American citizens and US National Security.
References
Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2011). Americans respond politically to 9/11: Understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. American Psychologist, 66(6), 455-467.
Jordan, A. A., & Taylor, W. J. (2012). American national security: Policy and process. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2012). The terrorism delusion: America’s overwrought response to September 11. International Security, 37(1), 81-110.
Snow, D. M. (2011). National security for a new era. Boston, MA: Longman.