9/11 Terrorism Research Paper

September 11, 2001 is one of the most infamous dates in American history. On this day, 19 radicalized Islamic militants hijacked four United States-based airplanes. Two of the planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Thousands of first responders, occupants of the Towers and bystanders were killed or injured. The third plane flew into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. and 125 people were killed. The passengers on the fourth plane revolted and forced the hijackers to crash into a field in Stony Creek, Pennsylvania. A total of 3,000 people were killed and over 6,000 were injured that day (“9/11 Attacks” 1). After the most detrimental terrorist attack in the history of the United States, action needed to

Recognizing the threat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups posed provided homeland security with the basis which is now important to state and local law enforcement agencies (Sheehan, Michael, 2011). After nearly a decade after the September eleventh, more than twenty terrorist related plots were uncovered by the federal government. As the war against terrorism continues, it has cost America the lives of more than six thousand service members and nearly 1.5 trillion dollars (Ortmeier, P, 2009).

Following the 9/11 attacks and the Congressional statement giving President Bush the power to seek out and detain terrorists, the Bush Administration asserted the need for an area of detention for these non-state actors. Certain criteria, however, had to be met to satisfy the administration and overall public safety of American citizens. These criteria include a desolate location out of U.S. Territory as to prevent detainee escapes and allow loopholes in treatment of detainees and length of detention. On the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, these criteria were fully met: it is surrounded by water, as to prevent

Americans were in a time of fear and despair and looked to their government to protect them from future threats. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act was passed, which required the State Department and Immigration to share immigrant and visa data with each other (Villemez). There has also been doubling in the Coast Guard, TSA, and Border Patrol Budgets since 2001 (Villemez). In following years of the attack, there has been the Post 9-11 G.I. Bill, which gives educational funding to soldiers, and the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, which provided billions of dollars to the health of those who worked at Ground Zero during and prior to the attacks (Villemez). The biggest change to the organization of the federal government in fifty years was the Homeland Security Act (“How Has National Security Changed Since 9/11/2001?”)

The Supreme Court speaks not only through its rulings in cases argued before it, but also through its choice not to hear certain cases -- the ones denied certiorari, in legal lingo. By refusing to hear claims brought by victims of Bush-era torture and detention practices, and failing to decisively reject the government's array of bad excuses for denying them a modicum of justice, the Court in recent years has sent an appalling message of indifference and impunity. These missing cases constitute a profound stain on the court's record, and they are worth recalling on this week's tenth anniversary of John Roberts's swearing-in as Chief

After the attacks, Arab Muslim men were arrested by the FBI, numbers in the thousands. Javaid Iqbal, who was one of these men and considered “high interest”, was imprisoned at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. After being released, Javaid accused the Detention Center of mistreatment while in their custody. A few of these accusations included: confinement from the other prisoners, direct contact with blinding light for twenty-three hour spans, and the air conditioning in full blast, even during the winter months. Javaid brought a suit against the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, and FBI alleging 21 violations of his statutory and constitutional right. The Us court of appeals for the second circuit stated that since these allegations were directly after the attacks of September 11th the court is going to hold them in to special regards. The court acknowledged all accounts by the district court except the right to due process. Due process is the act in which the government respects all of the legal rights of a person according to the law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) The government was protected under immunity in regards to due process. Since the other accounts were considered "serious allegations of gross

Eleven days after the terrorist attacks the Government created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department oversees and coordinates the governments strategy to guard the country against terrorists and respond to any attacks in the future (Homeland). The Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge was appointed the first Director of the Department of Homeland Security. Since the creation of the Department, America is much better equipped to handle the great deal of terrorist threats we face. Even with the creation of the DHS, it was clear that some sort of repercussions needed to be dealt to those responsible, which came when President George W. Bush declared a war on terror.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States (US) government has focused on terrorism as the biggest threat to stability and national security in the homeland. There have been controversial laws enacted which tested an individual’s Constitutional rights versus the security of the country as a whole, military engagements in foreign countries designed to stop terrorism overseas before reaching the homeland, and a number of law enforcement and government initiatives implemented to identify and investigate terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism or pursue material support activities in support of terrorism. Federal law enforcement agencies have been criticized recently for failing to predict when homegrown violent extremists

The Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. is mandated to deal with terrorism problem that has a long history in the U.S. Terrorism has been a threat to U.S. security since the 1800. Terrorists continue to use powerful secret communication strategies and unexpected tools to achieve their intention in the U.S. soil. For example, the 9/11 terrorism attack that killed the highest number of American citizens in history succeeded because terrorist used hijacked passenger planes to perform the attack (Lutz and Lutz, 2013). Although the most notorious terrorism activity in the U.S. soil was performed by Islamic extremist, several other groups among them black militancy, anti-liberal, anti-government, Jewish extremist, fascist extremists, and Palestinian militancy among others have been reportedly caused a terrorist activity in the U.S. in the past and their continued existence still remain a major threat to the U.S. security (Lutz and Lutz, 2013). The counter-terrorism policy administered through the Bureau of Counterterrorism aims at partnering with local security agents, multilateral organizations, non-state actors and foreign governments to defeat local and global terrorism. The policy employs high level of coordinated strategies in securing international partnership to document and monitor and act appropriately to Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) as emerging organizations that coordinate international terrorist

“If, as m any expect, allowing the program to expire causes a sharp decline in the number of businesses with terrorism coverage, we find that the federal government could spend billions more in disaster assistance after an attack than it would with the program in place” (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). Act creates an incentive for a functioning private terrorism insurance market through the promise of government support for losses that exceed a specified amount (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). The analysis finds that in a terrorist attack with losses up to $50 billion, the federal government would spend more helping to cover losses than if it had continued to support a national terrorism risk insurance program (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). Federal spending after future terrorist attacks on the United States may be higher if the nation’s terrorism risk insurance program is allowed to expire, according to a new RAND Corporation study (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). Congress reacted by passing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which provides an assurance of government support after a catastrophic attack (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). Congress reacted by passing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which provides an assurance of government support after a catastrophic attack (“Extending terrorism insurance,” 2014). Without the program, terrorism insurance would become less available and more attack losses would go uninsured,

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

It proposed the president to have the ability to take up arms successfully, once an approved war was started. "In the cutting edge time, no nation - not even a parliamentary popular government has been so irresponsible as to put a war under the direction of an authoritative body, instead of a solitary, brought together summon." Yet, different specialists point to built up points of presidential power amid wartime, referring to the U.S. Incomparable Court's 1952 decision that struck down President Harry S. Truman's request to keep up operations of the nation's steel plants for national security reasons, which was observed to be against the will of Congress. Some point to the Supreme Court's 2006 Hamdan vs Rumsfeld administering which discovered uncommon military commissions built up by the Bush organization to be unlawful - to stretch the mutual wartime forces of the president and Congress. Susan Low Bloch, a sacred law master at the Georgetown University Law Center, says the composers of the Constitution purposely isolated the war controls between the two branches to instigate them to cooperate on such a fundamental issue.

After the attacks on the world trade center in September 11th, american society felt vulnerable as many citizens felt unsafe living in their own homes wondering whether there would be further terrorist attack. The fear of further terrorist attacks weren't only within ordinary citizens but also in politicians, as a result US government implemented laws which

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

Today, I stand before the members of the court to request you support the opinion of on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld” (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2004); who believes that Congress does not have the authority to detent person found to be an “enemy combatant” of the United States of American for an undetermined amount of time.