Chapter 59: 9/11 and It’s Aftermath: Debating America’s Future

Section 1: Introduction

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a series of delays made Richard Moller late to work. His office was on the 100th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Before Moller reached his office, an airplane hijacked by terrorists smashed into the North Tower. In just two hours, nearly 3,000 people would lose their lives—more than had died when Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Moller realized that the delays that morning had saved his life. “If I had gotten an elevator just a few minutes earlier,” he recalled, “I would be dead.”

The aircraft that hit the North Tower, a Boeing 767 jetliner, carried a full load of fuel. Most Americans can recall exactly where they were when they heard the news. Many people turned on their televisions just in time to see a second passenger plane slam into the South Tower 17 minutes after the first. As fire began consuming the upper floors of both buildings, most people in the towers managed to escape down stairwells. But many did not. Shock turned to horror as the Twin Towers collapsed. The South Tower was the first to fall at 9:59 A.M. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 A.M. Less than an hour before, a third hijacked passenger jet had crashed into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C. Soon after came news that a fourth hijacked plane had crashed in Pennsylvania.

As Americans watched the tragedy unfold, they reacted with emotions ranging from bewilderment and dismay to anger and outrage. And most sensed that life had suddenly changed. The deaths provoked both an outpouring of grief and tremendous anxiety as Americans all around the country asked one another, “Are you all right?” In just two hours, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives—more than had died when Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had not only shattered Americans’ sense of security. In the months and years ahead, they would also significantly influence the nation’s approach to preserving its founding ideals.

Section 2: The Immediate Impact of 9/11

On the evening of 9/11, President George W. Bush spoke to the nation about the horrific events of the day. He began by calling the terrorist attacks an assault on the nation’s values. “Today,” he said, “our way of life, our very freedom came under attack.” He went on to reassure Americans that the government was taking action not only to help with rescue efforts in New York but also to find those “behind these evil acts.” The president ended by saying,

This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

A New Sense of Vulnerability

 In the days following the attacks, shock gave way to a mixture of stunned disbelief and fear. It seemed incomprehensible to many people that terrorists could launch such a devastating attack on U.S. soil. After all, the United States had the most powerful military in the world. Most Americans believed the nation to be secure from outside threats. But after 9/11, no one knew how many terrorists might still be in the country, prepared to strike again at any time. As one Florida resident commented, “I realize now that we are as vulnerable as all of those nations [in] Europe [and] the Middle East.”

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, many normal activities came to a halt.

One journalist wrote, “It was as though life as we knew it had stopped, to be replaced by an anxious emptiness, a national stillness, immobility.” The stock markets stayed closed for nearly a week, and officials shut down the tunnels and bridges leading into Manhattan until they were secured. Airlines canceled flights. They did not resume service for several days. When they did, most planes flew virtually empty. In towns and cities across the nation, heightened security measures caused delays and disrupted everyday life. Authorities around the country warned Americans to be vigilant and report suspicious activities.

Drawing Together to Defend Our Way of Life 

Despite the mood of fear and vulnerability, 9/11 also drew Americans together. For weeks after the attacks, strangers greeted one another on the streets. Friends who had not spoken in years phoned to talk. A New Jersey woman who lost her husband at the World Trade Center found anonymous gifts of food at her front door every morning. “The kindness of people is what is getting me through this,” she said. “It’s enlightening to know that I’m not entirely alone.”

Americans also came together in groups, holding candlelight vigils and memorial services for the victims of 9/11. Schools and other local organizations raised money for victims’ families. The country mourned together for those who died in the attack and for the police, firefighters, and other heroic first responders who gave their lives in the rescue effort.

Firefighters across the nation expressed their solidarity with the New York City Fire Department. Some took time off to travel to Manhattan to help with the recovery effort. A group of Indiana firefighters ran the distance from Indiana to New York City, an effort that raised $170,000 for victims of the attacks. And the Wisconsin-based company that supplied New York’s fire trucks quickly began work on replacing the trucks lost in the disaster. Similar stories of individual and group actions of support recurred all over the nation.

The Administration Takes Action In the meantime, the Bush administration devised a two-pronged strategy to cope with the threat of terrorism and keep the country safe. First, it rolled out the war on terror, which called for aggressive military action abroad to combat perceived terrorist threats. This approach led to lengthy and controversial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, the administration focused on measures to prevent future terrorist attacks at home. Like the wars abroad, these domestic security measures aroused controversy.

At the heart of the often-heated debates that followed 9/11 lay a question that Americans have confronted before, during times of national peril: How can we balance such ideals as equality and liberty with our desire for security? In the years since 9/11, both the U.S. government and the American people have worked to review and, at times, revise domestic and foreign policy choices in hopes of ensuring that they achieve just that balance.

Section 3: Safeguarding Equality

The 9/11 attacks reminded many Americans of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor 60 years earlier. After that assault, the government forced more than 100,000 Japanese Americans to live in internment camps. After learning that the 9/11 terrorists were Arab Muslims, many people of Middle Eastern and North African descent worried that they might suffer a similar fate. Bush reassured American Muslims that they would be treated the same way as other citizens. “America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens,” he declared. “In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.”

Balancing Safety and Equality: Profiling 

The question of how best to protect the ideal of equality in the new, post-9/11 era first arose in airports. Airline officials began paying special attention to young men who looked like the 9/11 terrorists or had names similar to those of the terrorists. These travelers faced more rigorous searches than others did. The practice of using physical traits to decide whether to investigate or arrest someone is known as racial profiling [racial profiling : using physical traits to decide whether to investigate or arrest someone] .

Some Americans strongly supported racial profiling. They viewed terrorism as an extreme threat that justified the use of special security strategies. The principle of equality, they argued, should not be allowed to jeopardize public safety. Others viewed racial profiling as discrimination. They insisted that all travelers should go through the same search procedures. Norman Mineta, the U.S. secretary of transportation and a Japanese American, agreed. As a child, he had been sent to an internment camp.

Mineta banned racial profiling in airports. He also helped develop new procedures to prevent air travelers from carrying weapons or other devices that pose a security risk. Before people could board a plane, they had to take off their shoes, empty their pockets, and walk through a metal detector. These rules irritated a few air travelers, but most Americans were willing to suffer some inconvenience to ensure their safety.

One procedure, however, triggered much stronger complaints. Travelers who could not pass through a metal detector without setting off the alarm had to go through a pat-down. Critics argued that the equal treatment of travelers had gone too far when a 6-year-old child or a 96-year-old grandmother could be frisked.

Opposing Economic Inequality 

After 9/11 and again in 2007, recession slowed the U.S. economy. In stressful times like these, economic inequality—the huge gap in income between rich and poor—becomes an issue. The Great Recession officially ended in 2009, but the economy remained weak. Many people blamed overly greedy, corrupt Wall Street bankers for the nation’s economic woes. In September 2011, a group of Americans gathered on Wall Street to demonstrate. Some decided to camp out on the site, launching a protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

The Occupy movement spread to hundreds of other towns and cities. Economic inequality was one of the protesters’ key concerns. They noted that just 1 percent of Americans owned more than 30 percent of the nation’s wealth. Cold weather and evictions by police weakened the movement, but its slogan, “We are the 99 percent,” resonated with many Americans.

The aircraft that hit the North Tower, a Boeing 767 jetliner, carried a full load of fuel. Most Americans can recall exactly where they were when they heard the news. Many people turned on their televisions just in time to see a second passenger plane slam into the South Tower 17 minutes after the first. As fire began consuming the upper floors of both buildings, most people in the towers managed to escape down stairwells. But many did not. Shock turned to horror as the Twin Towers collapsed. The South Tower was the first to fall at 9:59 A.M. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 A.M. Less than an hour before, a third hijacked passenger jet had crashed into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C. Soon after came news that a fourth hijacked plane had crashed in Pennsylvania.

As Americans watched the tragedy unfold, they reacted with emotions ranging from bewilderment and dismay to anger and outrage. And most sensed that life had suddenly changed. The deaths provoked both an outpouring of grief and tremendous anxiety as Americans all around the country asked one another, “Are you all right?” In just two hours, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives—more than had died when Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had not only shattered Americans’ sense of security. In the months and years ahead, they would also significantly influence the nation’s approach to preserving its founding ideals.

Section 4: Preserving Opportunities

The United States has long appealed to immigrants as a land of opportunity. But after 9/11, the government put in place tougher immigration policies in an effort to keep terrorists out of the country. The new laws also made it harder for some foreign students, workers, and tourists to enter or stay in the country. The result has been a loss of opportunity for foreigners and for the schools and businesses that cater to them.

Balancing Security and Opportunity: Foreign Visitors 

Nonresidents make some 50 million visits to the United States each year. Some arrive as permanent immigrants, but the vast majority comes as short-term visitors. Citizens of Canada and 36 selected countries can enter the United States with just a passport. Others need a passport and a visa. A passport [passport: a document issued by a person’s home government to verify his or her identity for the purpose of traveling outside the country] is a document issued by a person’s home government to verify his or her identity. A visa [visa: a document from a government that authorizes a foreigner to enter its country] is an authorization from a government for a foreigner to enter its country. The 9/11 terrorists all entered the country legally, with valid passports and visas.

After 9/11, Congress passed new laws to make the country’s borders more secure. They included new procedures to make visas harder to obtain. As part of the process, officials now check each applicant’s identity against a “watch list” of known or suspected terrorists. This check can lead to delays or denials of visas to applicants with Muslim names similar to those on the list. Some people contend that the new security procedures violate visitors’ privacy. Others see them as a legitimate way of protecting the nation from terrorists.

The Immigration Debate Heats Up 

The U.S. government must also secure the nation’s borders against foreigners who try to enter the country illegally. Some could be terrorists. Concern about how to deal with illegal, or undocumented, immigrants has led to a heated debate in the United States.

Most of the 10 million or more undocumented immigrants now in the United States are Mexicans. They came mainly to find work. Some entered the country legally but stayed beyond the terms of their visas. Others came into the country illegally. Many U.S. employers rely heavily on these workers and may overlook or not be aware of their employees’ illegal status.

After 9/11, the federal government took steps to slow illegal immigration. By 2011, it had doubled the number of border patrol agents and had built some 650 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Obama administration also cracked down on undocumented immigrants living in the United States. From 2009 to 2011, nearly 400,000 were deported each year.

In addition, some states took it upon themselves to find and arrest undocumented immigrants. In 2011, Arizona and Alabama both enacted laws that were stricter than federal law. Critics complained that enforcing these laws might call for police to use racial profiling to identify immigrants.

Many Americans think it is improper and unsafe to allow anyone to be in the country illegally. Yet, as the government has sharpened its focus on border security, critics have pointed out that the reasons for illegal immigration—the need for work and for workers—persist. The question of whether the flow of undocumented migrants can or should be stopped remains a heated one.

Section 5: Securing Liberty

The events of 9/11 left many Americans anxious about the future. A week after the attacks, President Bush addressed their worries in a speech to the nation:

After all that has just passed . . . it is natural to wonder if America’s future is one of fear. . . . But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

Balancing Safety and Freedom: The Department of Homeland Security 

Bush’s words highlighted an immediate reaction that many Americans had to 9/11. Was it safe to travel anywhere? Should people limit public events and activities until the situation came under control? That is, would Americans have to give up their freedoms of movement and expression, among many others, to feel safe?

A key role of government is to keep the nation secure. The 9/11 terrorist attacks represented a breach of national security, caused in part by poor communication. Before 9/11, key federal agencies often failed to share intelligence that they had gathered. After the attacks, Congress took action to fix this problem. It created the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security [Department of Homeland Security: a cabinet-level department of the federal government that Congress created after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to coordinate 22 security-related federal agencies in order to prevent terrorist attacks and protect Americans in case of threats] (DHS), which centralized and coordinated the functions of 22 existing agencies. The mission of DHS is to “prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation.”

Improving National Security

In 2002, Bush also set up a commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks and suggest lessons to be learned. The commission published its findings in 2004 and made 37 recommendations to improve national security. Since then, DHS has made many changes in how the government protects its people and secures their liberty.

DHS has expanded and improved how information is shared. Threat-related intelligence is gathered and analyzed in DHS centers and distributed to law enforcement and other partners at the state and local level. Citizens, too, are kept informed. In 2011, DHS launched a new alert system, which includes two threat levels [threat level : one of two levels of danger established by the Department of Homeland Security to inform the public about terrorist threats] . One warns Americans that a credible terrorist threat exists. The other warns that a specific terrorist action is about to take place.

In addition, DHS has increased the security of all modes of transportation. It works with shippers to keep the global supply chain safe. It also helps maintain global standards of air travel safety. This includes screening passengers at airline terminals and using new technologies to check all baggage and cargo for explosives. DHS tries to do all this without undercutting privacy and civil liberties protections. In this way, it seeks to strengthen national security while preserving individual freedoms.

Section 6: Protecting Rights

After 9/11, the Bush administration asked Congress for new powers to fight terrorism. Just 45 days after the attacks, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act [USA Patriot Act : standing for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” law passed by Congress in 2001 to loosen restrictions on intelligence gathering by U.S. security and law enforcement agencies after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; questions about the constitutionality of parts of the law have since raised controversy] . This act loosened many restrictions on intelligence gathering by U.S. security and law enforcement agencies. As details became public, Americans began debating the act’s impact on their constitutional rights.

Balancing Security and Privacy Rights: The Patriot Act 

The most controversial sections of the Patriot Act involve privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. This amendment bans unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. It defines as reasonable only those searches and seizures that are authorized by a search warrant from a judge. To gain a warrant, agents must show probable cause. That is, they must show that there is reason to believe a crime has already been committed.

The Fourth Amendment applies to “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” That includes modern communications devices. For example, federal agents cannot place wiretaps on telephones without a search warrant. However, the Patriot Act allows judges to approve a single warrant for tapping all phones a suspect uses. That means a wiretap can “rove” from phone to phone to follow a suspect’s communications.

Some Americans opposed these roving wiretaps, arguing that their use could easily violate the privacy rights of people who talk unknowingly to a suspected terrorist. But law enforcement officials contend that agents need roving wiretaps to track down terrorists who move from phone to phone.

The Patriot Act also allows agents with a warrant to search a suspect’s home or business in secret. Agents may break in, take photographs, examine computers, and remove evidence without alerting the suspect. Officials argue that this freedom allows them to carry out a lawful search without giving suspects a chance to flee or destroy evidence. Critics view the use of these “sneak and peek” warrants as a clear violation of privacy rights. The Patriot Act was reauthorized by Congress in 2005 and in 2009.

National Security Letters 

Long before 9/11, Congress created a way for the government to gain access to communications and financial records. It gave the FBI the authority to demand customer information from a bank or phone company via a national security letter [national security letter : a document that allows federal agencies, when pursuing a terrorism-related investigation, to secretly gain access to a variety of records held by “third party” sources such as banks, phone companies, and Internet providers] (NSL). But the FBI could issue such an order only when investigating a foreign power or its agents, or spies.

The Patriot Act broadened the scope of the NSL. It gave a number of intelligence agencies the right to use NSLs. They could secretly acquire personal records not just from banks and phone companies but also from credit agencies, hotels, Internet providers, and other sources. And they did not need to get a search warrant to do so. Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands of NSLs have been issued and billions of records accessed—many of them generated by law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Critics claimed that national security letters invade people’s privacy and are too prone to abuse by the government. There is not enough congressional oversight or judicial review of NSLs, they said. Supporters of the law argued that the use of NSLs is critical to preventing additional terrorist attacks.

Section 7: Defending Democracy

The war on terror, conducted by President George W. Bush and later by President Barack Obama, was in part a war in defense of democracy. Yet it also tested the ideals upon which that democracy was founded. One such test involved the U.S. treatment of prisoners captured in the fighting in Afghanistan.

Debating the Limits of Presidential Power: Military

Commissions Most of the prisoners taken during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan stayed in that country. But Bush ordered that 660 of them, from 42 nations, be detained at the U.S. military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Held as suspected terrorists, these detainees were described as unlawful enemy combatants [unlawful enemy combatants : fighters in armed conflict with the United States who are not part of a regular army] , or enemy fighters who were not part of a regular army.

The detainees, most of who had been turned over to the U.S. military by its Afghan or Pakistani allies, had little hope of being released. They were not accused of any crime and were not given the chance to present their case before a judge or jury. The detainees were also interrogated regularly. The government’s goal was to obtain timely information about terrorists and terror plots. So-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” were designed to force prisoners to reveal what they knew. One, waterboarding, involved pouring water over the prisoner’s nose and mouth to simulate drowning.

Bush’s critics argued that detainees should be treated as prisoners of war (POWs) under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. A series of international agreements made between 1864 and 1949, the Geneva Conventions set rules for proper conduct toward civilians, sick and wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war in times of armed conflict. Under the Geneva Conventions, POWs have certain rights. They may not be tortured or subjected to humiliating treatment. They may petition for a writ of habeas corpus—an order compelling a prison official to take a prisoner in front of a court to assess whether the person is imprisoned lawfully. Bush claimed that these rights did not apply to unlawful enemy combatants.

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees did have the right to challenge their imprisonment in court. Bush responded by establishing military commissions [military commission : a court set up by the armed forces to try enemy forces during wartime] to try detainees. These are courts set up by the armed forces to try enemy soldiers during wartime. Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that Bush did not have the constitutional authority to set up military courts. Only Congress had that power.

In September 2006, at Bush’s request, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Military Commissions Act of 2006 : a law passed by Congress to authorize the use of military commissions to try enemy combatants and set out rules for such trials; amended in 2009 to increase the rights of the accused to bring them more into line with regular military courts and federal criminal courts] . This act authorized the use of military commissions to try enemy combatants, and it set out rules for such trials. However, this act failed to grant detainees basic legal rights, including habeas corpus. In 2009, President Obama halted the military commission trials and ordered a review of the whole process. Out of that came an amended law, the Military Commissions Act of 2009. It increased the rights of the accused to bring them more into line with regular military courts and federal criminal courts.

Earlier that year, in one of his first acts as president, Obama had ordered the closure of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. But Congress blocked his attempts to have detainees tried in U.S. civilian courts or transferred to U.S. prisons. The Guantánamo camp stayed open, and in 2011, Obama resumed military commission trials there.

Critics continued to decry the U.S. detention policy. Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on national security policies, summed up their feelings. “Requiring the continued detention of individuals based solely on the fact that they were at one time suspected of terrorism is profoundly wrong,” she wrote. “It is not the behavior of a nation that abides by principles of justice and the rule of law.” Clearly the debate over the treatment of suspected terrorists was far from over.

Pursuing America’s Founding Ideals 

Writing in 1776, Thomas Jefferson could not have even dimly imagined the complex world in which we live today. Nonetheless, the ideals he set forth for our nation have endured, as points of pride and prods to progress. In the troubled times since 9/11, they have also led us to consider new ways—at times successful, at others not—to uphold them.

Building a nation based on ideals has never been easy. Being human, we are bound to disagree about what our founding ideals mean. We are even more likely to disagree about how they should be applied to the complex business of governing a nation of hundreds of millions of people. Nevertheless, it is our commitment to these ideals that binds us together as Americans. Like our founders, we know that a nation built on ideals is never finished—it is always becoming. Just what it is to become, however, is up to each generation to decide.

Section 8: Summary

The attacks of 9/11 left Americans with a new sense of vulnerability and prompted a war to eliminate the threat of terrorism. The war on terror—at home and abroad—posed the challenge of balancing our founding ideals with our desire for security.

Equality After 9/11, Americans debated these questions: Should all airline passengers be treated equally? Or should those fitting the profile of the 9/11 terrorists face special scrutiny? The nation chose equality over racial profiling, but racial profiling persists. The Occupy Wall Street protests pointed out another equality issue—the income gap between rich and poor.

Opportunity Congress struggled to preserve the United States as a land of opportunity while tightening visa requirements and border control to keep terrorists out of the country.

Liberty Congress created the Department of Homeland Security to improve the ability of U.S. security agencies to keep the country safe from terrorists. DHS worked to improve communication among its agencies and the public and otherwise secure Americans’ liberty.

Rights Congress enacted the Patriot Act after 9/11 to help government agencies track down terrorists. The act sparked a long debate over what some saw as assaults on privacy rights.

Democracy U.S. policies toward unlawful enemy combatants raised questions about how to treat suspected terrorists in a democracy. Could they be detained indefinitely? Should they be tried by military commissions or by civilian courts? Is “enhanced interrogation” appropriate?