International Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Civil Liberties

Introduction: Security and Liberty in Tension

It is a basic principle of government, even in democracies, that when a country faces great danger it may be necessary to curb some personal liberties to ensure the safety of the country. This has especially been true during times of war. The difficulty has always been that the government may be tempted to go too far. One example of the United States making that mistake was when it interned nearly all Japanese Americans living in the country during World War II. While some may have actually been spies or saboteurs for Japan, the great majority were loyal Americans who were angry at their country of origin. By today's standards, this event is viewed as going much too far in the name of securing the country.

Today we face a similar problem. We know that some extremists have viciously attacked the United States, and that they would welcome another opportunity to do so — in fact, they actively look for such opportunities. With the ongoing risk posed by people who may know how to build "dirty" nuclear bombs, use biochemical warfare, or construct a truck bomb, and who believe that dying in the attempt guarantees them an honored place in the next life, we are compelled to take steps to protect ourselves. The difficulty is that our vigilance must be 100% effective twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, in every corner of our country as well as at our interests abroad — such as embassies and business sites — while the enemy only has to get lucky once (Taylor, 2003). It is a daunting task.

Two Views of History

Although we had been aware for some time that terrorism could strike on foreign soil — having seen attacks occur in Japan, Canada, Great Britain, France, and countries in Africa in recent history — concerns about internal safety escalated several times in succession. These events included the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and, most devastatingly, the destruction of the World Trade Towers, the damage done to the Pentagon, and the crash of a plane heading for a second government target on September 11, 2001. The marked coordination of the September 11 attacks was clearly an act of war.

Because we know that the group behind those attacks, Al-Qaeda, still seeks to strike us, we must be prepared for what they might attempt next. One of the best ways to anticipate an enemy's next move is to understand how that enemy thinks as completely as possible. The September 11 attacks were "fueled by rage" (Cohn, 2002), and to understand why they happened — and why they may happen again — we must understand the origins of that rage. To the terrorists who have targeted the United States, this country has participated in or supported attacks on them for decades. They point to U.S. policies regarding Israel, a lack of sanctions for abuses against Palestinian refugees, and even the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, something Osama bin Laden himself has cited (Cohn, 2002). Saudi Arabia is bin Laden's country of birth, and his anger over that presence is not something to be taken lightly. Because of "roiling hatred" (Cohn, 2002) in the Arab world regarding the United States — fueled by grinding poverty and a lack of real political power — some individuals turn to terrorism and feel entirely justified in doing so.

While Americans are outraged at the loss of more than 3,000 lives — overwhelmingly private citizens — terrorists view those deaths as collateral damage: in their framework, it is not possible to conduct warfare without killing some innocent civilians, and they regard this as part of the realities of war (Cohn, 2002). This means that in a terrorist attack, our enemies feel no obligation to select what most people would consider military targets. In fact, they viewed the World Trade Towers as a military target because the complex served as a financial center for the United States, and they see American economic interests as driving much of the foreign policy they oppose (Cohn, 2002). While we are outraged both at their strategies and their justifications, they view the United States as a rogue nation that ignores United Nations statements of policy and rules regarding aggression toward other nations (Cohn, 2002).

Finally, the Middle Eastern world, with its long history, views the past differently than a country founded in 1776. Many in that region view the Crusades — wars in which Western countries actively attacked them based on religious differences — as current history (Cohn, 2002), much as Americans view the Civil War as not having happened too terribly long ago. Just as lingering resentments over that war persist in some parts of the American South, people in the Middle East still regard the Crusades as relevant today.

The U.S. Response to September 11

Until September 11, 2001, the United States had not been attacked within its own borders within the living memory of most of its citizens, as the majority of the American population was born after 1941. While attacks on American embassies in Africa were technically attacks on U.S. soil, most people did not experience them emotionally as strikes within the nation's boundaries. They may have recognized intellectually that enemies viewed it that way, but the broader public did not fully internalize that perspective. Such attacks placed the United States in a difficult position, because ours is a country founded on personal liberties — including the right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure (Taylor, 2003). After September 11, the country was suddenly and unexpectedly at war, but the laws protecting personal rights — which had been strengthened following excesses during the Vietnam War era — tied the hands of those charged with locating threats and determining how best to protect the public (Taylor, 2003).

A clear illustration of this tension is provided by the detention and investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui was initially detained on August 16, 2001, for overstaying his visa, but he had actually come to the attention of authorities after reports of his unusual behavior at a flight school in Minnesota: he wanted to learn to fly a plane in the air but had no interest in takeoffs or landings. The FBI had additional evidence suggesting he might be a member of Al-Qaeda. Since the September 11 attacks, he has admitted to being a terrorist and was eventually identified as the missing twentieth hijacker — three of the four hijacked planes carried five hijackers, but one carried only four (Taylor, 2003). Nevertheless, the FBI's ability to fully investigate the extent of Moussaoui's plans and affiliations was hampered by laws designed to protect individuals from excessive investigative practices.

To place the country's laws more on a war footing, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. This legislation gives the government greater latitude in protecting the nation from attack. It provides broader leeway in monitoring communications from suspected terrorists, and agencies that gather intelligence abroad received expanded flexibility as well. The Treasury Department gained enhanced authority to identify and combat money laundering. The act also increased the government's power to detain suspected terrorists and compel them to leave the country, tightened border controls to prevent terrorists from entering, and enabled agencies to work more efficiently in combating both domestic and international terrorism (Doyle, 2002).

The law also defined new crimes and clarified the definitions and penalties for existing ones, including attacks on mass transportation, the use of biological weapons, money laundering for terrorist purposes, actions that endanger domestic or international commerce, and knowingly donating to charitable organizations that serve as fronts to raise funds for terrorism (Doyle, 2002). It allows "sneak and peek" search warrants — which can be issued on less evidence than is required for non-terrorism crimes — improves government access to confidential information when needed to combat terrorism, enhances the ability to collect DNA samples, and clarifies the law regarding attacks on American installations abroad (Doyle, 2002).

The Department of Homeland Security, formed in direct response to the September 11 attacks, was established to organize and oversee the roles that many different agencies — as well as some private industries — must play in protecting America from further terrorist attacks (Haynes, 2004). President Bush immediately directed the Office of Homeland Security to focus on three specific issues: preventing further terrorist attacks, reducing the nation's vulnerability to such attacks, and devising ways to minimize damage if another attack should occur and to facilitate rapid recovery (Haynes, 2004). The 2004 United States budget supported the functions of the Office of Homeland Security and its partner agencies by funding additional resources for securing borders; protecting transportation systems; safeguarding ports and coastlines; protecting the water supply; enhancing national emergency preparedness; analyzing infrastructure vulnerabilities; improving the application of emerging science and technology; and strengthening the ability of Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify individuals who should not be permitted to enter the country.

Conclusion

Much work has gone into improving organization and communication between agencies, but much more needs to be done, and these changes alone will not be sufficient (Haynes, 2004). The country needs to continue relying on the eyes and ears of its citizens, who must remain alert to suspicious behavior — such as unattended parcels left at airports or a private boat being used to inspect the structural supports of a bridge (Haynes, 2004). For the foreseeable future, Americans will have to accept some limited loss of personal liberty in the interest of the greater good and in the effort to keep the country safe from future terrorist attacks. In the words of Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: "The safer the nation feels, the more weight judges will be willing to give to the liberty interest" (Taylor, 2003).