6
On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, many analysts in the US have debated whether America is safer a decade after the tragedy. While this question can inspire introspection on American foreign and domestic policies during the War on Terror, there is a far more fundamental question one must ask first. Has America become so preoccupied with its security that it is willing to compromise the fundamental rights that make up the fabric of the nation?
As a member of the 9/11 Generation, my response to this question is affirmative because of the legislative measures enacted by leaders in the US, which have subverted constitutional rights in the name of “security.”
Each nation has its own way of balancing security and fundamental rights, and major events in the nation’s development will alter this balance. The events that took place on 9/11 were not only a remarkably tragic due to the loss of innocent lives, but also because 9/11 created an aura of fear and mistrust that was engrained in the citizens. This allowed for the government to strip away far more rights than could have been imaginable in any other time in the nation’s history, outside of the two world wars.
The Patriot Act, ironically named considering how many constitutional provisions it violates, was used as a ‘product of necessity’ by the Bush Administration. This law allowed for the FBI and state (provincial) police to conduct roving wire-taps and warrant-less searches on terrorist suspects. One example of such an operation has recently been exposed in New York, where the police was sending undercover agents to spy on hundreds of mosques and Muslim organisations based on a generalised suspicion against Muslims.
Though this may seem like a proper investigation to a frightened public reeling from 9/11, it compromises the essential rights guaranteed to Americans through the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment requires that, in order for police to search a person, they must have probable cause to suspect that individual is committing a crime, and then must prove this suspicion to a warrant-granting judge. Based on the evidence, or lack thereof, the judge can either authorise or prohibit the warrant. The general policy of this requirement is that people have a right to not be searched if they have not committed any wrongdoing. Therefore, judges act as filters to stop an overzealous police force from conducting searches that violate the privacy rights of innocent citizens.
This requirement was all but done away with through the Patriot Act, and President Obama signed an extension of the constitutionally invalid portions. Thus, the federal government continues to conduct warrant-less searches of terrorist suspects without the supervision of the courts. Not only can the FBI search one’s computer files, phone conversations, and business records on a whim, but even one’s library records can be examined by the government at any time. These 1984-like provisions are an expression of the skewed balance of security versus fundamental rights plaguing the American psyche since 9/11.
Further, though the US continues to deal with racial tension and discrimination, there are constitutional provisions that prohibit state action that discriminates against minorities. While the federal government has generally respected this legal protection, many state (provincial) governments have introduced legislation based on Islamaphobic sentiments. Legislators in Michigan and Tennessee have recently discussed laws that would make the imposition of Sharia impermissible in US courts.
Many of the supporters of the bill believe that Muslims wish to subvert the US Constitution by imposing Sharia law on the whole nation. This presumption is a product of the fear factory that the US has become in the wake of 9/11. Such statements about Muslims would have been deemed discriminatory, stereotypical, and offensive before the events of September 2001, but these ideas have now taken a hold in popular discourse. The assertion that Muslims wish to lead a revolution to take over the US and impose Sharia law on non-Muslims is preposterous. Especially when one realises that Muslims are a very small fraction of the population, many of whom have lived in the US for generations without any signs of such an “Islamic revolution.”
Some types of American law (like family law) allows for the court to respect and implement an individual’s religious rituals or practices. As such, some judges have honoured the practices of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus directly under court order. By creating legislation that bans only Sharia law’s usage, while allowing other religious practices to be respected, America’s provinces are also violating the right to religion (one of the most guarded rights by the Courts). The background for such discriminatory behavior is an enmity and distrust towards Muslims generally, which may exist popularly, but should never be acted upon by the government, according to the Constitution.
It is true America has not been attacked since 9/11, and it would be disingenuous to argue that the government’s work has done nothing to curb this threat. Yet, there must be a delicate balance struck between a nation’s need for security and its need to respect the essential principles on which it is based. After a decade of foreign wars and domestic reforms, the US needs to examine the true cost of its singular obsession with security. The atmosphere of distrust and fear has colored the discussion of “how safe is America 10 years after 9/11?” However, the question should not be whether America is safe, but whether America is willing to compromise its essence in exchange for supposed safety
The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.
