This paper examines the security posture of the United States before and after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Drawing on sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, the paper analyzes the structural and legal weaknesses that allowed the attacks to succeed — including fragmented intelligence sharing, outdated surveillance regulations, and an over-reliance on criminal justice frameworks for counterterrorism. It then evaluates key post-9/11 reforms, particularly the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded electronic surveillance authority and reduced information-sharing barriers among agencies. The paper also considers ongoing tensions between national security imperatives and the civil liberties of suspects and detainees.
If there was one thing that the 9/11 terror attacks made clear, it was that the national security of the United States was inadequate. The fact that terrorists could plan and execute an attack of this nature and scale was a clear indication that the country's national security apparatus needed to be fundamentally revamped. The attacks, as well as an evaluation of the events leading up to them, resulted in the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. This paper examines the security posture of the United States before and after the 9/11 attacks.
Lawson, Bersin, and Kayyem (2020) correctly point out that prior to the 9/11 terror attacks, the country's experience with terror attacks on its own soil could only be described as intermittent. As the authors further indicate, most terror attacks prior to this event took place overseas — albeit targeting U.S. personnel or installations abroad (Lawson, Bersin & Kayyem, 2020). Terrorist attacks within the country's borders had not been hugely successful in terms of loss of human life or damage to structures and installations. In fact, there had been no other attack of the scale of 9/11 prior to that event. This is not, however, to say that there were no flaws or loopholes in the country's national security framework — a conclusion supported by the various reports and findings released after the attacks, most notably the 9/11 Commission Report.
Harvey (2012) points out that prior to 9/11, domestic intelligence collection was largely governed by various regulations and statutes — most specifically Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This effectively meant that the criminal justice system was the primary mechanism for addressing terror attempts and attacks. Harvey further notes that various well-defined rules governed the approach used by domestic and foreign agencies to exchange collected information. To a large extent, these strict rules impeded information sharing among the relevant agencies. More specifically, in Harvey's words, the "strict set of rules were interpreted as forbidding pure 'intelligence' information from being collected for law enforcement purposes, and — conversely — made it difficult to share criminal justice-derived information with other agencies" (2012, p. 211). Harvey (2012) is also categorical that this approach was largely ineffective and suboptimal in preventing well-coordinated terror attacks, particularly because such a structure made it difficult to effectively chart the behavior patterns of terror suspects.
It should also be noted that the rules in place at the time could not be effectively applied in contemporary settings due to the rapid advancement of technology. A clear example is electronic surveillance rules. According to Lawson, Bersin, and Kayyem (2020), these rules had been "designed to govern electronic surveillance in the days of fixed land-line communications" and could not be effectively applied "to communications media such as mobile, disposable telephones or voice over internet communications" (p. 119). This largely meant that it was extremely difficult to incapacitate or detain terror suspects, as the admissibility of evidence in such cases could be promptly and easily challenged.
A review of the available literature thus clearly indicates that relying on criminal justice principles as the foundation of counterterrorism efforts was ineffective in thwarting attacks, because the focus was primarily on the punishment of offenders rather than their prevention. With this in mind, there was a clear need to refashion the counterterrorism architecture — remodeling it around the incapacitation of terror suspects while simultaneously allowing for effective intelligence collection and information integration.
"PATRIOT Act expanded surveillance and improved agency coordination"
"Balancing detainee rights with homeland security imperatives"
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network – FinCEN. (2020). Section 314(b) fact sheet. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/314bfactsheet.pdf
Harvey, F. P. (2012). The homeland security dilemma: Fear, failure and the future of American insecurity. Routledge.
Lawson, C., Bersin, A., & Kayyem, J. N. (2020). Beyond 9/11: Homeland security for the twenty-first century. MIT Press.
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.