Introduction
In the history of the world and, specifically for the United States, the events that led to September 11, 2001, are so critical because they reshaped the United States, and indeed the global security balance has been in a critical inclination (United Nations. 2021). The relatively new type of attacks carried out clamed the lives of almost 2,996 people, giving tremendous destruction hitherto unseen for centuries while leaving an incalculable effect on the psychology of an average American (Hartig & Doherty, 2021). The country had to turn to deep grief and an imperative that was so urgent: not to allow anything of a kind to happen again.
It was the response to 9/11 that was key for a law to boost national security and the further development and consolidation of activities concerning counterterrorism called the USA Patriot Act (American Red Cross, 2021). Though signed into law only weeks after the attack, the Patriot Act extended the reach of law enforcement and intelligence agencies by availing both enhanced surveillance capabilities and a new ability for further investigation and prosecution of those suspected of terrorism. It represented a sea change in the balance between security and civil liberties, prompting much debate over the extent to which the government has power and perhaps even encroaching on individual rights.
But more crucially, the post-9/11 period led to a radical restructuring of the country’s security architecture (NCTC, 2021). Institutions such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration were created to forestall other follow-on challenges and manage crises jointly when such threats emerged, even though reflexive to this fresh character of the terrorist challenge reflected an awareness of the need to adjust in response to the new problems posed in safeguarding the homeland.
It remains a chapter-defining history in America, arising from the legacy left by 9/11—just twenty years young but shaping policies, perceptions, and priorities on matters of national security. Yet resilience and determination in adversity are what such fateful happenings brought forth, deeply questioning how such a balance between security imperatives and the preservation of democratic values is to be maintained (Pazzanese, 2021). As the country grapples with the aftershocks of 9/11, it also faces the challenge to try and move forward with increased safety and without diminishing liberty in a very dangerous world.
Policy change in the US: The U.S. Patriot Act
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, led to immediate and sweeping change in U.S. policy, culminating in the rapid enactment of the USA Patriot Act (Jones, 2021). For the first time in its history, responding to the magnitude of threat for itself posed by al-Qaeda and its sister groups, the US government activated itself in strengthening counter-terrorism measures and elevating national security (Hoffman, 2021). The Patriot Act of October 26, 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush, thus crystallized as one of the key foundations of strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities with greater authorities aimed at discovering, preempting, and prosecuting terrorism and its activities.
At its core, the act was intended to eliminate those barriers that stood in the way of effective counterterrorism by enhancing information sharing and making it easier to investigate. The law accorded the authorities sweeping powers such as roving wiretaps to monitor electronic communication and access to business records in a manner that was not so because it had permission. These mechanisms sought to make more effective the work of identification and disruption of terrorist networks by allowing US law enforcement agencies to adapt to new tactics and technologies used by adversaries.
The Patriot Act proved to be a genuine watershed in the balance struck between security imperatives and civil liberty, provoking heated debates over how far government power should be extended and individual rights protected. Critics see therein potential abuse of power, particularly through broad surveillance provisions and insufficient oversight mechanisms. The growing surveillance powers prompted concerns over privacy rights and erosion of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures that, in turn, sparked various calls for transparency and accountability in the practices of national security.
Supporters of the Patriot Act, however, maintained that the said law was very handy to respond to unprecedented threats of terrorism, and actually it did give the country interior protection against repeat attacks. They noted their part in improving the coordination of law agencies and uniting their efforts to respond to new threats more quickly. In such a way, the Patriot Act became the final response to the day and year, seriously altering the policy and legal grounds of the United States in response to the realities of the new world order. The establishment of other departments in the police force.
The forming of additional law enforcement agencies
In the months that followed the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States underwent a comprehensive realignment of the law enforcement and security architecture, which led to the creation of new specialized organizations whose task was to ensure additional protection of the country from similar challenges in the future. Of all the dozens of reforms, one towers above the others: the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the huge federal department housing counter-terrorism efforts, disaster response, and much more besides.
The Homeland Security, established in November 2002 by the Homeland Security Act, consolidated a variety of several different organizations that were already existent, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the US Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under one organization. The task of that consolidation pursued one purpose: that of improving coordination between all the different organizations, their operations, and also the nation’s security resilience.
It was central to the DHS initiative that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is set up to prevent attacks against the nation’s transportation system, particularly airways. TSA took over the running of airport security screening, instituting practices that were thorough in the identification and prevention of possible sources of threat. In actual fact, this was a great departure from the earlier way things were done, pre-9/11, an effort to solidify potential loopholes that had been revealed in the wake of the attacks.
Besides, agencies that had been even more long-existing in the post-9/11 period expanded their structures and specially dedicated units on critical counter-terrorism and homeland security missions . The country’s federal entities, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), enhanced their capacities to meet novel challenges through re-deployment of other resources in addition to investigating and enforcing personnel acting against terrorist activities and sabotage of radical networks.
Funding and support from the federal government through the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), at state and local levels, were to help communities enhance their preparedness and response capability in high-risk urban centers. These were also taken up to enhance coordination between the federal, state, and local agencies and further develop an increased holistic model for homeland security.
At the most general level, the creation of more such agencies typified a whole-of-society response to the complex array of challenges that terrorism in the post-9/11 world presented. In fact, they have made very important contributions in terming with other agencies and making infrastructure investments to build capacity and strengthen preparedness systems against attacks in the country.
Changes throughout the U.S. and towards racial groups as a result of changes in law enforcement.
Changes made in the wake of 9/11, particularly after the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, have significantly affected life and communities across the United States—most especially among racial and religious minorities. Trying to securitize the state after September 11, this direction all too frequently has based on existing social conditions that have been linked with racial and ethnic minority groups.
One of the most remarkable results of this new security after 9/11 is the increased scrutiny and surveillance that has befallen on travelers (Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, 2019). Long lines, invasive checking, and a general sense of suspicion have set in because of an increased level of screening procedures and surveillance technologies that have been applied (Phillips, 2021). The increase in surveillance and screening at airports is not only gaining its target to stop terrorist attacks but also to further dilute the right to privacy and give assurance of legitimacy in surveillance.
These changes in law enforcement reflect that the racial and religious minority groups, more particularly the Muslims of color, have been worst sufferers. After 9/11, Muslims and anyone else who was taken as belonging to Arab descent have been openly discriminated, harassed, and attacked against (Santhanam, & Epatko, 2018). The incidents of racial profiling, unwarranted detentions, and even hate crimes against Muslim communities rise alarmingly high, leaving them alienated and insecure.
Roughly speaking, nearly one-half of U.S. Muslims said it had become harder for them to live in the United States after 9/11, according to the Pew Research Center. In this way, such an answer is indicative of how much fear and suspicion have been heaped upon the Muslim community within the years that have followed 9/11. The law enforcement community has spent a great deal of time focusing on Muslims and has sought to spy and monitor based on religious status compared to actual evidence that some crime is being committed.
One of the main causes of this prevailing outcome is the USA Patriot Act passed in the post-9/11 period. While, on the one hand, framed as an instrument to increase the security interest of the country, various quarters have perceived the Act to be too broad and ambiguous in language construction: it has also used to advance almost unregulated powers of government surveillance. This statute has given the authorities much wider powers of surveillance than they ever experienced in their lives, enabling them to tap communications, access personal data, and carry out searches with insufficient judicial review. These are the clauses that have raised very serious concern about the erosion of civil liberties and constitutional guarantees.
The facts that were responsible for further aggravating such apprehensions—again, quite legitimately—are that a heavy veil has been drawn across the implementation of the Patriot Act. This is because government departments have been given very sweeping powers to spy on people and collect their data without proper protective measures, which either regulate the abuse of such data by them or afford protection of the right to privacy.
Conclusion
In sum, the post-9/11 changes to law enforcement and the passage of the USA Patriot Act have fundamentally remade the American security environment and how America’s racial and religious minorities experience it. That they may be pursued in the wider national interest of clearer national security posture vis-à-vis new and unique threats often has appeared to reflect the feeling that these steps have been taken at the perceived risk of civil liberties and constitutional rights.
These things, together with the prejudice and harassment suffered by Muslim communities, are underscored as part of the human cost of the post-9/11 security machinery. The USA Patriot Act, by the wide powers given to and the concomitant lack of transparency in that regard, only adds to these problems, engendering a slew of criticisms on the issue of government overreach and the degeneration of privacy rights.
Carrying on with this status quo is not acceptable. It serves as a wake-up call to better shape an approach characterized by justice, security, and balance in the national security sector—one that adheres to democratic principles and equality with justice for all. They must have more surveillance and be accountable for the government’s actions in law enforcement practices, ensuring that different differences of racial, religious, or background will be taken care of by the government in maintaining rights and dignity. Recognizing and correcting failures of post-9/11 security measures will help show that the U.S. nation is equally committed to freedom and justice for all its members.
References
American Red Cross. (2021, August 13). Never Forget: Red Cross Remembers 9/11, 20 Years Later. Www.redcross.org. https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/news/2021/red-cross-remembers-9-11-20-years-later.html
Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2019). What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(2), 275–328. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20181444
Hartig, H., & Doherty, C. (2021, September 2). Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy; Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/
Hoffman, B. (2021, August 12). How Has the Terrorism Threat Changed Twenty Years After 9/11? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-has-terrorism-threat-changed-twenty-years-after-911
Jones, R. (2021, September 9). How the 9/11 attacks changed emergency response. News.miami.edu. https://news.miami.edu/stories/2021/09/how-the-9-11-attacks-changed-emergency-response.html
NCTC (2021). Post 9/11 Response Evolution to an Enduring Threat. https://www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/jcat/firstresponderstoolbox/116s_-_First_Responders_Toolbox_-_Post_9-11_Response_Evolution_to_an_Enduring_Threat.pdf
Pazzanese, C. (2021, September 8). Professors detail the hard lessons from 9/11. Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/professors-detail-the-hard-lessons-from-9-11/
Phillips, B. J. (2021). How Did 9/11 Affect Terrorism Research? Examining Articles and Authors, 1970–2019. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2021.1935889
Santhanam, L., & Epatko, L. (2018, September 11). 9/11 to today: Ways we have changed. PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/9-11-to-today-ways-we-have-changed
United Nations. (2021, September 11). Sacrifice of 9/11 first responders an example of humanity and compassion, UN chief. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1099682
write