¶ … doubt whatsoever that September 11, 2001 will forever remain one of our country's darkest days. On this day, terrorists successfully launched one of the worst terror attacks the world has witnessed in modern times. In an attempt to come up with a reliable account of the background of the terror attacks, a commission was set up. This came to be referred to as the 9/11 commission. The Major Interest Groups Surrounding the 9/11 Commission

From the onset, it is important to note that "family members of 9/11 victims were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 commission" (Bolton, 2008, p. 240). They, therefore, constitute a key interest group in this case. These were people who lost and had their loved ones injured. In addition to ensuring that they got closure, they also needed safeguards and assurances that what had befallen their loved ones would not happen again -- one of the commissions key agenda was to come up with proposals on how future attacks could be averted. In essence, the Commission was lobbied into existence by family members of the 9/11 victims. The commission, therefore, had to accommodate their views -- with some of the said views being largely outrageous. For instance, there were those who, like most victims, were convinced that the 9/11 was a "government project." As a result, they were of the opinion that the government was out to bungle up investigations into the same. It is for this reason that this particular interest group kept pressuring the commission and the government to maintain independence. Indeed, as Marrs (2006) points out, "bereaved Americans found themselves in Washington lobbying for a truly independent inquiry."

According to Marrs (2006), it was due to public pressure that President Bush increased the Commission's funding to further enhance its ability to investigate the 9/11. It is also important to note that quite a number of family members of victims have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Commission's work. Some have even gone as far as accusing the government of complicity in the events leading to the attacks. Many victims were to later on submit reports that contrasted scientific findings -- thus effectively delaying/compromising the commission's investigations. Patriotsquestion911.com contains some of the survivor accounts of the terror attacks. Some survivors in this case claim they reported basement explosions prior to the airplane blasts. The official findings of the Commission was that there were no such explosions and what brought the towers down were explosions from the jetliner's jet fuel.

The executive arm of the U.S. government could also be regarded a special interest entity because of the influence it had in the Commission's work. Apart from wanting to get a crystal clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the terror attacks, the executive arm of the government was also keen on sealing the loopholes that may have made the terror operatives' plans easy. It is important to note that the Bush Administration was perhaps the most influential of all the stakeholder groups as it controlled the commission's funding and deadlines. In this case, the said administration was accused of frustrating independent investigations by, amongst other things, allocating the commission only 3 million U.S. dollars (Bolton, 2008). This was later increased. The CIA was also accused of being uncooperative. Many of the requests made to the agency for documents relating to operations of certain terror cells like al-Qaida were simply not provided. This may have hampered the Commission's work (Marrs, 2006).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it is important to note that for purposes of this discussion, an interest group was taken to be any pressure or lobby group that for some reason had special interest in the composition, work, and outcome/recommendations of the 9/11 commission. On that front, three key interest groups were identified.

References

Bolton, M.K. (2008). U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking after 9/11: Present and the Re-Creation. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Marrs, J. (2006). The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11, and the Loss of Liberty. New York, NY: Disinformation.

Question 2

Introduction

In essence, counterterrorism has got to do with all the efforts, strategies, and techniques adopted by agencies concerned with, or established to counter-insurgency, and/or fight terror. Such agencies could include, but that are not limited to; the military, law enforcement agencies, and special counter-terror specialist forces. This text concerns itself with how counterterrorism has evolved in America before and after the September 11 terror attacks.

Counterterrorism -- Its Evolution Pre and Post 9/11

In the U.S., counterterrorism measures are multifaceted. In addition to seeking to keep the country's citizenry safe from terror attacks, counterterrorism also neutralizes any threats posed by terror cells operating either within or without our borders. For this reason,...

Many improvements have been made on the counterterrorism front since the September 11 attacks. According Boot and Kirkpatrick (2011), one of the most effective counterterrorism measures that have been adopted since the attacks in the assimilation of immigrants of different nationalities, including Muslims ... " such that the U.S. no longer has "a disaffected population of Muslim immigrants, or offspring of immigrants, which has been a breeding ground for terrorism in Europe."
Further, the resources counterterror agencies have access to have also been significantly increased. Some of the agencies that have largely benefited from this significant resource flow include, but they are not limited to, the CIA, NYPD, and the FBI (Boot and Kirkpatrick (2011)). There is no doubt whatsoever that expenses related to countering terror have increased since the 9/11 attacks as the agencies involved in countering terror redouble their efforts. The 2013 budget request for instance, according to Desilver (2013), "was about twice the size of the estimated 2001 budget (in constant dollars)."

Next, it is also important to note that many of the bureaucratic procedures that could have in the past gotten in the way of effective terror prevention have been eliminated. These bureaucratic barriers often got in the way of meaningful cooperation between the relevant counterterrorism agencies like the FBI, CIA and the New York Police Department (Boot and Kirkpatrick (2011). Also, counterterror efforts got a boost via the adoption of enhanced interrogation techniques. Prior to the 9/11, the interrogation of terror suspects was largely confined to traditional law enforcement interrogation techniques. No authorization existed for, say, waterboarding, where terror suspects would have their limits pushed further in an attempt to squeeze out key information. This effectively meant that hardened terrorists could easily navigate the interrogation sessions without yielding anything of benefit to law enforcement authorities. Notwithstanding the controversy surrounding these enhanced interrogation techniques, some like Jose Rodriguez (former director, CTC) claim that "the use of enhanced interrogation techniques have saved lives and prevented terrorist operations from occurring" (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 2014).

Lastly, unlike was the case prior to the 9/11 attacks, the approach to counterterrorism has, as Boot and Kirkpatrick (2011) points out, has taken a bipartisan approach. All those involved in the war against terror have found common ground as they seek to ensure that the country does not have to, ever again, endure another terror attack.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it is important to note that in the last decade, technology has significantly evolved; thus effectively helping in the war against terror. This is particularly the case when it comes to the advancement of systems that focus on intelligence gathering and surveillance. While terror adherents continue to cling unto 10th century ideologies, America continues to cultivate a culture of dynamism, even as it embraces 21st century approaches in the war against terror. It is not hard to predict who will emerge victorious.