In our discussion of the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, we talked a lot about the changes in society (especially in terms of security). Over the past decade, TSA’s power to search passengers has grown enormously and the Patriot Act has increased surveillience for all Americans. In response to September 11, 2001, our national government even created an entire cabinet department (the Department of Homeland Security) dedicated primarily to protecting against and responding to terrorism.
With all of these increases in government control and limits imposed on individual freedoms, I could not help but be reminded of Kafka’s Before the Law. Like the man at the gate, we have given the law (and those who enforce it) tremendous power. Many of these increases in the scope of the law may even be in violation of the Constitution, which many view as the highest American law. Constitutional Amendments that have potentially been violated since September 11 include:
The 4th Amendment – prevents unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a search warrant based on probable cause
The 5th Amendment – sets out rules for endictment by a grand jury and protects due process of law
The 6th Amendment - protects the right to have a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses, and to retain counsel
The 8th Amendment – prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
The 14th Amendment – contains the Privilages or Immunities Clause (which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”)
The 4th Amendment has been violated by the “unreasonable searches and seizures” of TSA and the National Security Letters (NSLs) found in Title V of the Patriot Act. An NSL is “a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued.” The 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments have been violated as a result of imprisonment of suspected terrorists or terrorist allies and the increased use of torture as a means to extract information (waterboarding would definitely qualify as both cruel and unusual).
So why did we grant the law so much power after the attacks ten years ago? Did September 11 make us realize that we did not take enough necessary precautions to protect ourselves and that the Constitution is not as applicable in this post-9/11 world? Or was it simply a fear response, where we granted the government immense power because we were afraid of what would happen if we didn’t? Finally, do we still agree with the governmental changes that were in response to September 11, or was quickly granting all of this power a mistake that we can no longer take back?
I think we can agree, almost to consensus, that the dramatic increase in defense spending abroad and governmental power at home was a "fear response" to the terror threat. Given that it was an unprecedented event- a coordinated attack on US soil by a terrorist group (i'm putting aside Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing for obvious reasons).
ReplyDeleteI think you're right in suggesting that the PATRIOT Act, extraordinary rendition, and Bush's military tribunals dramatically expanded presidential power. (Though, it is important to note that the vast majority of the PATRIOT Act is uncontroversial. Only a few provisions are creating concern).
But, to your last question, I don't see why we can't go back. It is true that the post-9/11 America is dramatically different from the pre-9/11 America, the encroachment on civil liberties by the executive and legislative branches are not necessarily permanent. Those can, and should, be rescinded. In the next few years, I expect the government to lax its stranglehold over American liberties, reduce defense spending, and gradually move away from the "security-state" role it has assumed in the last 10 years.
On the micro-level, the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Nepolitano, has already proposed more relaxed airport security measures. (Here's the story on Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62705.html)
It's a move in the right direction.
The United States will be forever changed by 9/11, but I don't see why we can't go back to a state that respects individual rights. I don't see why we can't champion Civil Liberties
I agree with Thomas on this. The consensus to the dramatic increase in defense and spending abroad was, most likely, to give a sense of safety at home, here in the states. Naturally, when something this large scale and tragic happens, the people that run the country are going to need to attempt to make those in that country feel safe again. I like that Thomas has optimism about the United States being able to move back to respecting individual rights, but I, however, have trouble seeing this happening. Unfortunately, our society seems to be getting worse and there is a continual move to advance technology which is meant to "provide safety" to those at home (x-ray machines at airports, etc.). I cannot imagine the country reverting back to a time when individual rights were honored. I feel as though we are almost "too far down the rabbit hole" for a return to such a time.
ReplyDelete