Many people are asking: are we safer since 9/11? Well, to answer that question you have to go back to the laws and other actions in the past 10 years. In the last decade, legislation has changed the American mindset, useless wars have begun in far-flung countries and many now live in a culture of fear, all to “fight terror with terror,” passed in America’s collective history.
In March 1986 after Muammar Gaddafi committed acts of terror (as accused by the United States), President Ronald Reagan baited the Libyan leader to attack U.S. ships. As Michael Oren wrote in Power, Faith and Fantasy, Mr. Reagan justified this action, asserting: “Any nation victimized by terrorism has an inherent right to response with force to deter new acts of terror.” This lesson came back again after the terror attacks on 9/11. I do not believe the government’s narrative on this event completely but I know for a fact that planes did crash into the two towers, but it unsure if only Al-Qaeda or someone else was behind the attacks that day. Some eyewitnesses say that in the building at the time they heard bombs going off throughout the building and saw bombs going off World Trade Center 7. There are numerous other people who have a completely different story. I am skeptical of conspiracies, but as Josh Tickel said in FUEL: “We will never know what happened that day.” Getting back to the useless wars, let me mention a bit about the wars themselves.
In 2001, after the terror attacks in which Al-Qaeda was implicated, America invaded the sovereign country of Afghanistan to get supposed terrorists. Personally, I think now the incentive for war was probably more driven by the ability to attack drug markets in the global war on drugs. Afghanistan is now the biggest producer of heroin in the world and has been a big drug producer for a while back. Also it could have been done to contain the rising power of the People’s Republic of China. Whatever the reason, America is still in the country to fight “terrorists” and maintain law and order. Under a law passed in 2001, the Authorization of Military Force or AUMF justified this action saying that the President did not have to consent Congress to take actions against terrorists that attack the United States (I wrote about this on HermannView). This is a horrifying lasting legacy of the war on terror. Since this supposed war has started, the U.S. government has used to justify unlawful invasions into Iraq and Libya, along with military movements in 150 countries worldwide. AlterNet’s article earlier this year says: “Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the U.S. military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world’s countries…By the end of this year, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye [said the] number [of countries with Special Forces] will likely reach 120…about 60% of the world’s nations.”All of these invasions are because of what happened on 9/11. However, the invasions of countries worldwide were not the only effect on the American psyche; it was the repressive laws like the PATRIOT ACT and intrusive practices that put Americans in a box of little escape.
Like what Josh Harris showed in his experiments, showcased in the documentary We Live in Public, around-the-clock surveillance can make someone go insane and listen to authority almost immediately. Also in a situation like the one created by Mr. Harris, the governing authority would be able to watch on the citizens and control their actions. The Patriot Act brings America closer to this surveillance state. The mainstay of the act is to protect from terrorism, but the act does not at all. The legislation almost contradicts itself, saying that there will not be any violations of civil rights, while later doing the exact opposite. In the act, it states: in wartime people who have committed “terrorism” against America may have property seized by the U.S. government without probable cause, classified information is not subject to any judicial review, in court, a judge can only use classified intelligence “as necessary” in deciding in a case which would limit its ability to be used in lawsuits against the government as well as elsewhere, wiretapping on phone lines is allowed, watching of the internet is allowed and so on. All of these actions make it harder for the average American to exercise their individual rights. Every American is supposed to have “constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press” as Justice Hugo Black said in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) but this protection is being threatened in this current time of security.
Going back to my original question, is America safer? Well, with the creation of Homeland Security Department, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), along with extensions to other departments, it’s not any safer. You cannot fight terror with terror. Howard Zinn, in the introduction to A People’s History of the United States (graphic adaptation) stated: “We have learned nothing, absolutely nothing…from a hundred years of retaliation, vengeance, war…[where] violence [is] met with violence.” America’s two “major” political parties with names that don’t fit their ideology, followed what Mr. Zinn said exactly. They decided to support an angry wrath of the United States, which acted like a five-year old child with a temper tantrum. After starting wars in abroad, which I mentioned earlier, America created a new department and a new agency to solve the problems of terrorism. Instead of solving them, it just redefined terror. How does going down someone’s legs, down the back of their shirt in a pat down promote security? How is a body scanner that emits harmful x-rays and radiation going to make you safer? It feels like the privacy protections that have long been enshrined in the Fourth Amendment are being chipped away. The best reaction to the 9/11 would be to work with other countries to have an investigation and bring the planners of the attack to justice. That didn’t really happen. How can you have war on a word, terror?
America throughout its history has started ‘wars,’ some just phony. The war on drugs. The war on terror. And so on. There is no way a country can have a war on a concept that has been around for thousands of years, since the beginning of human existence. It just doesn’t work. Webster’s New World Dictionary: Third Edition defines terrorism as “use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate, esp. as a political weapon or policy…demoralization or intimidation produced this way.” It sounds a lot like the American government to me. Through the government programs produced in the ‘war on terror’, which isn’t even a war, the government uses certain events to threaten demoralize the population. For example the government said there would be a terror attack on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which didn’t happen after all. In the past few days more people have been reporting suspicious activity. Why? People are getting paranoid and are forced through the way of government messages everywhere to believe they are always in danger. Fear can control people and is an effective tactic in ruling. I am not saying I support it, but it can be used by government officials from time to time. Anyone who tries to challenge the government is threatened and sometimes even arrested. This what America has become. If citizens wish to restore the United States to its former self, one that supports democratic values, they must vote for those that will change this country in a positive way, learn the issues from reliable alternative media sources and act up against the wrongdoings in society.
Great nations make great mistakes. Greater the nation the greater the mistakes. We arre bound to serve and we were attacked by terriorist. The War On Terror was too broad attempt to defend this country at all cost regardless of a terrorist. Remenber who were the men that planned and excuted this attack. They are misguided men using a great faith to cover up thier crimminal acts. We were and are a super power. Our interest interest are deep and wide. This age we live in is complex and it take engergy of all sorts to maintain our life styles. Those who can not adapt or will not, become resentful and hate us for what we have; and, then twist a faith to gain new recruits to their cause. Which is to destroy Western society. Peace and Joy, my friend. PS: You decide which side you are on. There is a third way, but it has not arrived.
I completely agree with you. As you said, “the War On Terror was too broad attempt to defend this country at all cost[s].” How can you have war on a concept that’s been around since the beginning of humanity. It is impossible. While I criticize Western imperialism and interventions that claim it is the international community’s ‘responsibility to protect’ (r2p) them, I don’t really agree with the terrorists. Violence doesn’t really solve anything, it just makes problems worse. I understand those that hate Western society, consumerism, greed and all that is associated with it, those critics must understand that not all believe those principles. In reference to thd last comment, I am on the side of the West, the side of the people, not the elites. Aristocracy is something to fear, as rule by the best is usually becomes rule by the greediest. America, if certain events happen will be moving in this direction.