Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
9/11 Policies
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there were many changes in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. The attacks highlighted the risks posed to Americans both at home and abroad. The Bush government enacted several policies in response to the attacks. Domestically, two stand out as the most significant. The first was the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This act created the Department of Homeland Security, which took a substantial amount of responsibility -- but not total responsibility -- for safeguarding the nation. The DHS began working with other agencies to strengthen border security in particular, and to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts. The department's presence is especially felt in terms of transportation safety, and the myriad new rules and restrictions that govern air travel. The role of Homeland Security in particular has expanded since that department was created. So it is reasonable to argue that these acts have fared well, and many of their provisions are likely to be maintained. In terms of terrorism, there have not been major terrorism acts on U.S. soil since 2001, but it would be logical fallacy to credit these acts with that, as there might not have been any serious attempts. Still, fewer terrorist attacks will heighten the sense of security that American feel and these acts were passed in part to restore that sense of security.
The other significant law that was passed in response to the terrorist attacks was the Patriot Act, which was passed very quickly after the attacks. The Patriot Act expanded Presidential authority with respect to combatting terrorism, expanded allowable surveillance, set up an anti-money laundering program to cut off finances earmarked for terrorists and in general removed legal obstacles to fighting terrorism. The Patriot Act has in particular had sweeping consequences. It was renewed in 2011 by President Obama. The Act has been criticized for its expansion of Presidential authority, its provisions on
...
There has always been the question as to whether or not the tradeoff with respect to civil liberties is worth the greater security. The answer does not depend on whether or not there have been any terrorist attacks, or even if any have been thwarted, since on an individual level it is highly unlikely that any one American will be affected. But civil liberties affect us all, and in a sense there are definitely elements of these acts that are not worth the security. I am not among those who objects to heightened security at airports, but there is good cause to be skeptical of heightened surveillance powers and the overall lack of transparency in the way that these new powers are implemented. The American citizen is protected by the Constitution, and in particular the Fourth Amendment and I agree with the critics…
References
Cornell Law School. (2014). Fourth Amendment. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved November 6, 2014 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
CRF. (2014). The Bush doctrine. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved November 6, 2014 from http://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/bush-doctrine.html
Drezner, D. (2011). Does Obama have a grand strategy? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 6, 2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67919/daniel-w-drezner/does-obama-have-a-grand-strategy
While most see these and other similar reforms as necessary, serving merely as a legal upgrade for law enforcement, one provision of the act's section regarding wireless communication has created much controversy. This section allows foreign intelligence agencies to wiretap citizen's phones and computers without a court order. Bringing the country back to the short-lived standard of 1928, when a fraction of the technology that is used on a
The 9/11 terror attacks is an act of terrorism that has had significant impacts on modern law enforcement and military operations. Etter (2015) contends that the 9/11 attack was a very traumatic event for the entire United States of America. This is primarily because the attack resulted in loss of lives and destruction of properties. 9/11 has been regarded as a terror attack that changed the face of global terrorism
DOJ Policy Changes The plethora of commentary regarding the terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11 has created much confusion. The overwhelming quality of the circumstances altered the collective psyche of America in deep and profound ways. In many cases these changes have provided solutions, problems and more questions. The purpose of this essay is to discuss how 9/11 changed criminal justice policies in the United States. The essay will argue that although
Foreign policy decisions are often thought of as collective events, conceptualized more in terms of sociology, historical patterns, structures, institutions, and culture before the individual psychological variables are considered. Situational and circumstantial variables are considered tantamount to psychological traits, cognitive, emotional, or behavioral cues. Structural perspectives like realism, neoliberalism, and idealism had become more important than focusing on the actual actors making decisions, just as the behaviors of corporations cloud
(Committee on House Administration 2003) The economical damage caused by the violent actions on human lives and infrastructure may be classified into direct and indirect damages. The city of New York was supported with assistance from various organizations from the state, nongovernmental, federal and local front to bring the situation under control. Direct damages included the lives of people, infrastructure, business establishments, appliances and gadgets in offices, telephone, power, travel
" When and if the U.S. cuts back on the use of fossil fuels to reduce global warming, other nations may well follow our example. To wit, when we allow the United Nations to conduct searches for potential weapons of mass destruction in our own country, or in countries we have disputes with, other nations may follow and allow inspectors into their country as well. It is idealistic to believe that