Terrorism and the Affects on American Way of Living Research Paper

Introduction

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, killed more than 3000 people and brought down the World Trade Center Towers. The after-effects of this action have proven to be far more extensive than the initial strike but these negative consequences have not been perpetrated by foreign terrorist organizations but rather by the U.S. government. President Bush initiated his ‘War on Terror following the 9/11 attacks which became the catchphrase to justify reducing or eliminating many individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and engaging in a war against a sovereign country that had no hand in the 9/11 events. The war has cost nearly 4000 American lives to date and many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Legislation passed disguised as a method to fight terrorism has infringed on civil liberties and caused unneeded hardships for many citizens and friendly foreigners alike. With the help of the Bush administration, the terrorists continue to win.

The illegal war in Iraq has caused terrorist attacks to increase as well as the loss of many thousands of Iraqi and Allied lives and as a consequence has cost the U.S. dearly as far as international respect is concerned. Additionally, this ‘war’ has monetary costs reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars which has crippled the U.S. economy and will continue to for many years in the future. It has caused the U.S. national debt to skyrocket to more than eight trillion dollars at present, which will have to be paid instead of spending federal revenues on healthcare, welfare programs, education, defense systems, etc. The U.S. military is crippled as well, both literally and conceptually. It could not respond to a crisis of any size which potentially could result in a disastrous situation (Anderson et al, 2003).

PATRIOT Act

A close examination of the PATRIOT Act confirms that those that champion civil liberties as such are justifiably alarmed. It was quickly accepted by Congress just a month and a half following the September 11 attacks. Pressure to pass anti-terrorism legislation prevailed over the need to understand what the 342-page document entailed and the Act became federal law in October of 2001. Provisions of the Act violate the Constitution and tear down the freedoms for which true patriots have fought and died.

The Act, as many citizens and legal experts alike, have argued, violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution’s first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. This includes the freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment); the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment); the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment); the right to a speedy, public, and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser, (Sixth Amendment), the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and freedom from punishment without conviction (13th Amendment) (Savage, 2006).

Section 203 of the PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement officers to give CIA with no court order information received through a wiretap or internet tap. Agents of the Government can now secretly tap into any citizen’s phone calls or internet communications including all visited websites. If directed by the Justice Department, police officers can enter people’s homes without the benefit of a warrant and even seize their belongings and not ever have to inform the homeowner of the search. Individuals, as well as religious and political organizations, can legally be spied on by law enforcement agencies whether or not those agencies can produce any evidence a crime has or is planning to be committed. Section 215 allows for library records to be scrutinized by more efficient means by government officials. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to obtain a warrant and search a residence without notifying occupants if it is an issue of ‘national security.’ No longer do law enforcement officials need to show ‘probable cause to obtain a search warrant, ‘probable suspicion’ is enough. Judges can authorize these investigations if they believe that it might prevent another terrorist attack (Goodman, 2005).

What bothers critics is the concept of government officials routinely intruding into the lives of private citizens. The power of intrusion is the abuse, and abuse of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Former conservative congressman Barr said “the abuse is in the power itself. As a conservative, I resent an administration that calls itself conservative taking the position that the burden is on the citizen to show the government has abused power, and otherwise shut up and comply” (Gellman, 2005). Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the ACLU, agrees with this conservative viewpoint which gives the argument against the Act credibility because the two, the ACLU and conservatives, are generally on opposing sides of most issues. Jaffer believes that First Amendment rights are suffering a “profound chilling effect” from the government’s use of surveillance techniques. “If the government monitors the Web sites that people visit and the books that they read, people will stop visiting disfavored Web sites and stop reading disfavored books. The FBI should not have unchecked authority to keep track of who visits Al-Jazeera’s Web site or who visits the Web site of the Federalist Society” (Gellman, 2005).

Libertarian organizations such as the Civil Liberties Union claim that the Bush administration has a proclivity for secrecy and rejects the concept of transparency. The PATRIOT Act has reproved its agenda for the “outright removal of checks and balances” (Etzioni, 2004: 9). Conservatives are alarmed as well including former Republican Representative Bob Barr, who is best known for leading the attempt to impeach President Clinton. Barr had led a group named “Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances” which focused solely on challenging the renewal of the Patriot Act in 2004 (Lakely, 2005). This multifaceted PATRIOT Act modified numerous laws including the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Immigration and Nationality Act among many others (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2003).

One of the most obvious tactics in the ‘War on Terror and the PATRIOT Act is the widespread use of racial profiling, described as when law enforcement officials use race, ethnicity, religion, and even color of skin to determine which persons are more probable to commit a crime such as terrorism. The term ‘War on Terror’ has been continually invoked to justify breaches of the Constitution as well as the basic civil liberties of citizens and foreigners alike. The invocation of this phrase has repeatedly prohibited rational discussions regarding civil injustices such as profiling individuals based on their race. Therefore racial profiling has continued unabated including the profiling of young black men since September 11, 2001. The not-so-subtle insinuation is that “one cannot condemn racial profiling because to do so will hinder the war on terrorism and undermine national security” (McDonald, 2001). The popularly stated position is that racial profiling is necessary because not using this tool of law enforcement would compromise the effort against terrorism thus sacrificing national security. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it erroneously presupposes that racial profiling an essential element of this emotion-evoking endeavor. However, the reverse is accurate. Profiling, as a tactic employed by law enforcement, redirects important assets, estranges and enrages prospective allies, and, most importantly, is contradictory with the uniquely American concept of equality and freedom.

Racial profiling

Undoubtedly, if profiling in the name of terrorism has not been proved effective, the profiling of black citizens in the name of ‘getting tough on crime’ is not effective as well and causes more harm, ultimately, than whatever good may come of it. “Racial profiling in any manifestation is a flawed law enforcement tactic that is in direct conflict with constitutional values” (McDonald, 2001). It is important at this point to note that feelings of mistrust and suspicion aimed at Arabs or Muslims as well as blacks or Hispanics about racial profiling by law enforcement officials are infrequently motivated because of blatant racism. Instead, the motivation stems from the anxiety and uncertainty surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the fear of future terrorist actions, a widespread phobia that has been fueled by a federal government to further its agenda. Profiling Arabs is an easy sell to a country made up principally of non-Arabs (Colb, 2001). Discrimination, no matter how it can be rationalized, causes the victimization of certain minority groups. It leads to malicious stereotyping and generalizations regarding race, religion, gender, etc. which civil liberty-loving Americans have decided is morally reprehensible.

Conclusion

The U.S. has inflicted more physical harm than the terrorists did in the attacks of 9/11 in the name of fighting terrorism. A constant threat of further instances, fueled by fear-mongering tactics by the Bush administration, has heightened the nation’s fear level to the point where the citizens have willingly allowed its leaders to infringe upon many of the individual liberties the country was founded on and many have died to protect. The terrorists brought down the two towers and ended thousands of lives but this action continues to impact the American way of life.

References

1. Anderson, Sarah; Bennis, Phyllis & Cavanagh, John. “Coalition Of The Willing Or Coalition Of The Coerced? How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in its War on Iraq.” (2003).
2. Colb, Sherry F. “The New Face of Racial Profiling: How Terrorism Affects the Debate.” Find Law. (2001). Web.
3. Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act? Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York, Routledge. (2004).
4. Gellman, Barton “2005 The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny.” Washington Post. (2005).
5. Goodman, John C. “What is Classical Liberalism?” National Center for Policy Analysis. (2005).
6. Lakely, James G. “Conservatives, Liberals Align Against Patriot Act.” The Washington Times. (2005). Web.
7. MacDonald, Heather. “The War on the Police … and How it Harms the War on Terrorism.” Supra. Vol. 7, I. 16. (2001).
8. Savage, Charlie. “Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws.” The Boston Globe. (2006). Web.