The War on Terrorism, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 (9/11), Americans have been increasingly divided as to how to appropriately safeguard the nation.   Early reaction was, not surprisingly, supportive of extreme measures, and many citizens were, at least tacitly, willing to sacrifice degrees of personal liberty and privacy rights in what was something very like a wartime atmosphere.   However, each successive year reveals growing discontent with law enforcement practices which inherently run contrary to constitutional rights.   Moreover, it seems that the absence of further attacks has led as well to a strong discontent with even those procedures that focus on ethnic groups within the nation similar to that of the terrorists.  Ultimately, as it appears a majority of citizens  are coming to assert, national security may not be properly maintained at the cost of the basic rights which define the nation itself.

Background

It is undeniable that the events of 9/11 forever altered the consciousness of the United States in a collective sense. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 aside, there had been no direct military assault on the U.S. from a foreign power or organization within its history.  Moreover, the attacks were of a particularly traumatic kind, fueled by a terrorist agenda and not conforming to traditional modes of warfare. That the responsible party was  identified as Al-Qaeda, a militant Islamic force originally based in the Sudan and with a vast, global network of camps, gave the U.S. a specific cultural impression, or image, of the enemy. It was Middle Eastern, an ethnicity as visually identifiable to most Americans as African Americans.

What ensued after the attacks was a consistent and legally endorsed focus on the responsibility of all citizens to be completely forthcoming as to their identities. The process was swift and mutually agreeable, at least ostensibly, to both law enforcement and the public. In the first years following 9/11, it seemed that the vast majority of Americans were voluntarily compliant with the safety restrictions suddenly and drastically in place by the Department of Homeland Security; for some time, the national atmosphere was one of near-panic, and few citizens objected to the rigorous, and often invasive, searches conducted at airports, or the new and extreme security checks elsewhere. Everybody, in a sense, was eager to oblige, despite their own racial background: “The massive trauma produced a dramatic reaction, setting in motion significant changes in U.S. doctrines, laws, and institutions related to security” (Bailey, Dammert, 2006, p. 223). It was very much a sustained atmosphere of fear and vulnerability, and little thought was given to individual rights to privacy.

Time typically alters sensibilities, however, and on a national level. Americans are increasingly discontent with security measures still in place, perceiving them now to be violations of their basic rights to privacy.   Initially, the majority of Americans felt that, on the heels of 9/11, the government was in fact not doing enough to ensure the nation’s safety; less than a year later, popular opinion began to shift dramatically and there was a growing lack of trust altogether in how the government was handling the situation (Crotty,  2004,   p. 155). Moreover, Fourth Amendment issues surface as law enforcement continues to apply flexible standards to previous search and seizure practices. What was once considered a legally necessary “reasonable cause” for such procedures is now, still, largely discretionary, or that at least is the public perception.

Even more crucially, as general tensions and apprehensions have eased, it appears that there has been a corollary emphasis on racial profiling as the most efficient means within law enforcement to reduce the risk of terrorism. It is difficult to isolate how and when such changes in public attitude and governmental reaction occur, as each tends to be reactive. However, it is reasonable to note that, as the majority of non-Middle Eastern, or mainstream, citizens began to express resentment at law enforcement suspicions leveled at them, even by such impersonal means as security checks,  it was similarly more accepted by this same population that those of Muslim and/or Middle Eastern origin should be particularly investigated. The average, white American today who now resists security checkpoint procedures, and who expresses extreme disapproval at any intended violation of their personal life or history, is nonetheless accepting of a need to pursue such policies for Arab or Muslim individuals.

9/11 remains a relatively recent and evolving legacy within the core framework of U.S. life and government. Viewpoints have shifted as fears have lessened, and complacency has manifested itself, in both law enforcement and the public at large, as concern primarily only for a select ethnic and/or religious population within the country. What this translates to, however, is a violation to the foundations of the country. A nation built upon the ideologies that all citizens are inherently equal and entitled to basic liberties may not practice selectivity in these arenas without eviscerating the entire core of principle. Legitimate concerns notwithstanding, the reality must remain that  national security may not be properly maintained at the cost of the basic rights which define the nation itself.

Opposing Rationales and Justifications

When the repercussions of 9/11 are discussed, it is usually in regard to racial profiling, as well as the concomitant element of “unreasonable search and seizure” as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.   These issues have become, in a very real sense, a distillation of the after-effects of the attacks, for they go to the heart of individual liberties and rights to privacy. Moreover, both are tangible manifestations of the law in action with which citizens are actually in contact;  the profiled suspect, charged or detained, and the person whose home is suddenly searched, are not dealing with abstract policies regarding homeland security. They are, quite literally, on the front lines of the issue as it exists within the nation.

Prior to 9/11, racial profiling existed in the public mind largely as a specifically African American issue, and one moreover typically involving only younger, black males. This became something of a known and widespread practice, one creating increasing resentment as the term, “DWB”, entered the language to indicate that “driving while black” was police jargon for suitable cause to stop a car on the roads. The belief alone of this practice as widespread  prompted President Bush to affirm in 2000 that racial profiling would not be tolerated by the administration. By 2004, and in a highly controversial move in those post-9/11 years, Bush signed into law the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA). Not unexpectedly, ERPA is somewhat less than legally rigid and/or punitive in its terminology;  the Act is worded merely to convey the administrative position that racial profiling as conducted by law enforcement is “improper” (Orr,  2009,  p. 73). No actual sanctions are expressed, and it was generally felt that the Act was a symbolic, and ultimately meaningless, gesture to appease angry citizens of liberal ideologies.

With regard to Fourth Amendment issues also not born from 9/11 reaction,  and less commonly known to the public, violations and/or controversies did not arise only after that September of 2011. For example, in the 1990s, the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay was used to hold Haitians who had tried to illegally enter the country. It seems that the location of the base, removed from actual U.S. territory, served to create an environment in which basic liberties were less conscientiously adhered to. The Haitians had no recourse to attorneys, and were detained in “tent cities” insulated by barbed wire fences. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. set up similar camps in the region. When the state of Florida challenged the legality of these proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that foreign nationals, existing outside of U.S. jurisdiction, had no national rights and were compelled to rely upon “the American tradition of humanitarian concern and conduct” (Hafetz, 2011, p. 110). Even then, it seems, there was already at least a willingness on the part of the government to attempt to “modify” basic human rights. Obviously central to the Court’s decree was the location of the base as existing outside of U.S. borders. This is, however, a specious stance at best, for any expectation of American “concern and conduct”, as expressed by the Court, inherently points to American behavior and policy. It is ultimately unconscionable to declare that values held in the home territory are subject to degree elsewhere, as those values are purportedly built into the home government. More precisely, if Americans are truly Americans, they must observe outside of the nation all the laws that govern them within it, particularly as Guantanamo was governed by U.S. jurisdiction.

Returning to law enforcement relying upon the practice of racial profiling, in which a person’s ethnicity marks them as more likely to be a criminal suspect when that ethnicity is believed to be a commonality in higher ratios of crime, 9/11 went to the heart of traditional, American ideologies. The reality is that, before 9/11, a substantial majority of Americans declared dissatisfaction with, or strongly objected to, racial profiling; since the attacks of 2001, virtually all polls reflect a contrary viewpoint (Hess, Orthmann, 2008,  p. 184). In a variety of overt and more subtle forms, profiling has been both legislated and applauded by U.S. citizens. Quickly on the heels of 9/11, anti-terrorism programs and policies specifically targeted to Muslim and Arab individuals and communities were implemented by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. By virtue of no cause other than ethnicity and/or religious background, secret searches and seizures, raids on businesses and residences, coerced Federal Bureau of Investigation interviews, wiretapping and home surveillance, and special registration programs were put into place as legal procedures (eek, 2010,  p. 91).  This inevitably goes to, again, the link between profiling and Fourth Amendment rights, as the former must invariably set in motion the latter.

Repercussions of 9/11 profiling entitlement and Fourth Amendment laxity, moreover, go well beyond Arab or Muslim interests, for the over-all sense of increased governmental authority has extended to circumstances completely unrelated to terrorism. This is most evident in unreasonable search and seizure procedures by the law, wherein a degree of racial profiling, given the general acceptance of it in regard to Middle Eastern individuals, is somewhat “grandfathered” onto other ethnic groups. For example, in 2004, the vehicle of a Manual Flores-Montano was searched at a customs station at the Mexican entry port of Otay Mesa. Eighty-one pounds of marijuana was discovered concealed under the gas tank when a cursory search of the car was not satisfactory to the customs agent. The case went to the U.S. District Court of Southern California, where it was argued that removing the gas tank demanded a reasonable degree of suspicion unfounded by the circumstances. The court unanimously opposed this view, setting a further precedent that, in the post-9/11 nation, Fourth Amendment standards are highly subject to law enforcement discretion (Stephens, Glenn,  2006,  p. 212). It seems likely that such a ruling would have been at least more contested prior to 9/11, as it is also probable that the occurrence was enabled by 9/11 residual concerns.

The great question in regard to all of these issues is: does it work? Does racial profiling, along with subsequent search and seizure practices in defiance of the Fourth Amendment, help to safeguard the nation, reduce crime, and weaken the threat of terrorism? There are no answers, despite extensive studies and a reasonable ambition on the parts of both opponents and supporters to isolate any.   Interestingly, racial profiling is a more complicated affair than is commonly believed, and this results in the unsettling fact that virtually no established data exists to either support or refute its effectiveness.   Certain studies hold that, when the law seeks criminals through racial targeting, it is in effect creating the criminal element; that is to say, any so isolated minority will reveal the criminal percentage sought, and the remaining minority population, so categorized, will inevitably be more inclined to fulfill the criminal expectations of them already in place (Forst, Greene, & Lynch, 2011, p. 306). The potential efficacy of determining suspects by virtue of race is additionally rendered difficult because the process itself is typically denied as being practiced by law enforcement.   Tides of popular opinion notwithstanding, the reality is that racial profiling, as such, is illegal, and police departments engaging in it are not likely to promote the fact. In doing so, many open themselves up to charges from civilian review boards which, if not empowered to do more than merely recommend, must be highly unwelcome to law enforcement agencies (Finkelman, 2006, p. 305). The entire process of profiling is, in fact, one categorized by an intrinsic obfuscation. People tend to express disapproval of it, yet simultaneously accept, or endorse, it when it is directed at others. The police are prohibited from practicing it, yet they are also trained to operate on empirical evidence, which may indicate that a certain minority population is more likely to commit crime. Beyond all of this is the additional, confusing element of all the factors related to, but not necessarily arising from, race, such as economic hardship, environment, abuse, and lack of opportunity.

As noted, no data exists to define the practices as commendable or egregious. New studies, however, strongly suggest that racial profiling undermines, or impedes, actual criminal investigation. When law enforcement turns to profiling as its basis for investigation, it has been determined that more valid and refined forms of procedure are neglected. More succinctly, as the profiling isolates suspects from the start, inquiry into those not conforming to the profile is greatly lessened, as the racial component fuels efforts often leading to no evidence of criminal or terrorist activity (Peek,  2010,  p. 92). In the former scenario, law enforcement manpower is wasted, and dangerously so; in the latter,  it is likely that a cycle of self-perpetuating, and self-defeating, profiling is set in motion, as law enforcement agents who subscribe to it are not so easily dissuaded from believing in its validity.

Personal Viewpoint

Adopting a firm and clear position on racial profiling and unreasonable search and seizure operations is by no means an agreeable or easy task. The issues are highly complicated, steeped in contrasting evidences, fueled by personal feeling, and further rendered difficult by the single, inescapable fact that we as a people are long conditioned to respect our law enforcement, for we believe that it is in place to ensure our well-being. In a very real and disturbing sense,  examining the possible value or harm of profiling translates to the questioning of authority we have elected not to question. A citizen need not be obliviously complacent to wish to avoid such a process, for it brings with it the distinct possibility of mistrusting those whom we most trust.

That said, it is advisable to examine the issues in as practical and forthright a manner as possible. The core value of integrity as put forth by Saint Leo University demands no less, if a just and honest determination is to be made. It is certainly true that 9/11 created a national sense of fear and vulnerability, as it is reasonable that response to it, both personally and governmentally, would go to an extreme form. Drastic circumstances elicit drastic response, always, and many of the precautions set in motion from the attacks were and are sensible safeguards. If certain practices went into operation that seemed to infringe on personal liberties, they are and were accepted because, quite simply, everything was at stake.

Nonetheless, a fundamental issue remains, and it goes to the Saint Leo definition of integrity. We are as a people, and as a nation, not only obligated to reflect the values regarding individual rights as laid out in our Constitution; we are further responsible for fully understanding that these rights are intrinsically not subject to modification. It is true that the judicial and legislative branches of the government may sit and ponder whether a body search at an airport is a violation of civil liberties, as this weighing of the issue is right and imperative. This does not, however, mean that these powers may tailor rights to fit the desired procedure; rather, the sole determination to be made is whether or not the search defies the rights. It seems, however, that the climate of fear generated by 9/11 allowed for just such an editing.

It must be reinforced: our chief obligation as a people is to comprehend that our rights are not a consequence of our government or way of life. They are the essence of it, and the essential nature of personal freedom within a society is not a thing that may be tampered with without destroying the whole. This then goes to the specifics of profiling, wherein certain kinds of people are “less free” than others. Our culture and society cannot exist as it is defined to exist under such circumstances. Terrorism is a frightening thing, and war is devastating to contemplate. Worse, however, is to permit fear to do the enemy’s work for it, and remove all the elements of the society that make it what it is, and render it a state to be protected. This is the final consideration, and it weighs heavily against even the most fear-driven forms of profiling and search and seizure.   As it seems that increasing numbers of citizens  are coming to assert, not even national security may be properly maintained if it comes at the cost of the basic rights which define the nation itself.

References

Bailey, J., & Dammert, L.  (2006.)  Police Security and Police Reform in the Americas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Crotty, W. J. (2004.)  The Politics of Terror: The U.S. Response to 9/11.  Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

Finkelman, P. (2006.)  Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, Volume I.  New York, NY: CRC Press.

Forst, B.,  Greene, J. R., & Lynch, J. P.  (2011.)  Criminologists on Terrorism and Homeland Security.  Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hafetz, J.  (2011.)  Habeas Corpus After 9/11:  Confronting America’s New Global Detention System. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Hess, K. M.,  & Orthmann, C. H. (2008.)  Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Orr, T.  (2009.)  Racial Profiling.  Edina, MN: ABDO Publishing Company.

Peek, L.  (2010.)  Behind the Backlash: Muslim Americans After 9/11.  Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Stephens, O. H., & Glenn, R. A.  (2006.)  Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Rights and Liberties Under the Law.  Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.