Response to 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
Terrorist attacks occurred in September 11, 2001 created necessity for government and individuals to find a compromise concerning state interference in fundamental rights. They created necessity to reconsider existing balance between national security and rights in the detention of individuals suspect in terrorist activity.
national security interests and fundamental human rights. Consequently, the following changes were adopted as a response to 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The first challenge for fundamental human rights amended existing legislation concerning counterterrorism funding, searches procedure, immigration et cetera. Government authorities became allowed to supervise communication sent or received from devices of non-US citizens suspect in terrorist activity. In addition, judges are required to issue an order to access to business records of foreign intelligence in case the order application is related to terrorist activity. See, e.g., The Obstruct Terrorism Act (Patriot Act) Pub. L. No. 107-56, § 216, 501 (2001). Such provision contravene guarantee “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. See, e.g., U.S Const. amend. IV. From my point of view, such provisions create a background for manipulations to violate fundamental rights of any citizen.
The other challenge for privacy of individuals was an interference of the government authorities to the security issues. To illustrate, there was an improvement of access to control the secured area at the airport. See, e.g., Aviation Transportation and Security Act, 49 U.S.C. §106(c) (2001). As a result, requirements to security in the airport premise and during flights were strengthened. It was necessary to prevent attempts of potential terrorists to use an aircraft in their terrorist attacks. At the same time, provisions of ATSA limited privacy of individuals not related to terrorism.
The last order has given an effect to procedures against non-US citizens accused of terrorist activities. Its provisions legalized military commissions competent to prosecute against those who are probably involved in terrorism. See, e.g., Military Order of November 13, 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 3 C.F.R. 918, 919, §4(c)(5) (2001). In my opinion, such amendment decreases burden of proof that the state has to convict anyone in crime.
To make a conclusion, the result of 9/11 terrorist attacks was in extension of government authorities’ surveillance function. On the other hand, fundamental privacy rights of other individuals not dealt with terrorism were significantly limited. Balance between national security and rights in the detention of suspects in terrorism was affected. Changes adopted as a response to 9/11 terrorist attacks have shown that there are not any compromises to keep in balance national security and rights in the detention of individuals suspect in terrorist activity. Individuals leave unprotected against unreasonable trials and prosecution before themselves.
References
U.S Const. amend. IV.
Aviation Transportation and Security Act, 49 U.S.C. §106(c) (2001).
The Obstruct Terrorism Act (Patriot Act) Pub. L. No. 107-56 § 216, 501 (2001).
Military Order of November 13, 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens …
