9/11– 25 Years Later

Despite Challenges, America is still that “Shining City on a Hill”

By Mark M. Bello

At this moment, twenty-five years ago, I was watching the Today Show. I watched the world change—live. Like millions of Americans, I was startled and confused. A plane struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Was it pilot error? A horrible accident? Some type of equipment malfunction?

Then, shortly after the first strike, a second plane appeared. Suddenly, what was happening was clear—there could be no doubt.

I watched smoke pour from the towers. Panicked people ran through the streets of New York, away from danger, as first responders bravely ran in the opposite direction—toward the danger. And I watched, in disbelief and horror, as these magnificent buildings collapsed into dust, debris, and flame.

Nearly 3,000 human beings were senselessly slaughtered that day. These were people who did what they usually do. Some worked or shopped in the buildings. Some boarded airplanes for business or leisure. And first responders, firefighters, police officers, and others entered these burning buildings because strangers required their assistance.

Husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, and colleagues perished that day. They had plans for September 12, 20001, people to see, places to go, lives to live—cut short by hatred.

May Their Memories be for a Blessing.

America changed some that day and in the days that followed. Some of these changes were immediately visible, while others occurred in the background, almost behind our backs, in statutes, regulations, court decisions, intelligence practices, and cabinet restructuring.

For example, we suddenly ‘needed’ a new government department and cabinet-level executive: the Department and Secretary of Homeland Security.

We changed our laws.

We modified our government’s structure.

We secured our airports and borders.

We altered how intelligence agencies and police communicate.

We changed what information government could obtain about us, how it could obtain it and, in some circumstances, how long it could keep it.

And we accepted it all.

Frightened by the possibility of additional attacks, Americans accepted intrusions into our privacy and personal freedoms, things that we would not have tolerated before what has become known as 9/11.

While some changes make us safer, others remain controversial. Some have been modified or abandoned. Many are now woven into everyday American life—we hardly notice the inconvenience or rights infringements.

Twenty-five years later, it is appropriate to look at 9/11 and examine what laws changed, what rights were sacrificed, what safety measures were implemented, what worked or didn’t work. And one more question:

Which of these changes are still necessary?

The Security Revolution

The Patriot Act was enacted just weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The legislation expanded the federal government’s investigative powers, broadened access to records in national security investigations, broadened the use of surveillance, and dismantled many legal and bureaucratic restrictions on information sharing between intelligence agencies and criminal law enforcement.

Additional surveillance authority followed. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act, specifically Section 702. It permitted surveillance targeting non-Americans without individualized warrants. The obvious problem is that it also collected some communications involving American citizens. Section 702 expired this year after a contentious debate in Congress.

25 years after 9/11, some of these safety measures, like Section 702, were modified, allowed to expire, or were amended to add more safeguards. The debate between security needs and privacy rights has been ongoing since almost day one.

In addition to surveillance measures and the addition of a new cabinet-level department, we have reorganized our intelligence apparatus and created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The intent was to improve coordination among the various intelligence agencies and ensure information sharing. TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, was created, and airport security was federalized. With these changes came:

Expanded terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists.
Increased scrutiny at borders and ports of entry.
Expansion of the government’s ability to “follow the money” that intelligence officers believed was financing terrorism.
Increased immigration enforcement and the creation of ICE.
The creation of biometric identification techniques and massive databases designed to improve information sharing.

And we, the people, accepted and even embraced these measures as necessary to protect our safety and freedom.

Take off Your Shoes

Nowhere are these changes more noticeable or easier to understand and embrace than at the airport. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that the Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government cannot search your person because it thinks you might someday commit a crime.

Walk into any airport in America, 2026. Travelers place their belongings on a conveyor belt. They empty their pockets, walk through a scanner, and, sometimes, are subjected to an additional pat-down. The government inspects our suitcases.

Are we suspected of wrongdoing?

Have we been accused of a crime?

Have the requirements of “probable cause” for a search been met?

Has a judge issued a warrant authorizing these intrusions on our privacy?

Even though the answer to these questions is usually “no,” we hardly consider these security steps as “intrusive.” Most travelers have become numb to the process—we don’t even think about it.

For legal purposes, airport screenings are treated differently from typical criminal investigations. And courts have recognized that a limited security screening designed to prevent a catastrophic event is worth sacrificing limited privacy rights.

Still, to someone who has studied the U.S. Constitution, the tension between rights and safety is fascinating.

Why are we willing to accept the intrusion?

Because the passengers seated from 1A and B to 40A and B are searched too.

Everyone is treated the same way; the rights of any individual are sacrificed for the benefit and safety of all. We have concluded that losing some privacy is worth a higher level of safety. Twenty-five years after 9/11, these safety measures are no longer viewed as emergency measures; they have become the way we fly.

Outside the Airport

Increased safety measures at the expense of constitutional protections are not limited to America’s airports. In our post 9/11 existence, the government has broader access to certain business and communications records in national-security investigations. National Security Letters allowed the FBI to demand certain records without a warrant and with little or no explanation to the subject of the search.

Electronic surveillance has expanded as technology has changed. Foreign-intelligence surveillance can now collect communications involving Americans when they communicate with foreign targets. Watchlists and no-fly lists restrict certain people’s ability to travel, sometimes without them knowing why they were listed.

Here’s an interesting question:

When does investigating a potential terrorist organization step on the rights of people engaged in protected speech, worship, or political activity?

And just how much liberty should a free society exchange for security?

The decisions made immediately following 9/11 were understandable. Our elected representatives didn’t know whether another attack was coming the next day, the next week, or the next month. Were additional terrorist cells already operating inside the country?

The fear and threat were real.

Proponents argue that there has not been an attack since that horrible day.

Did our newly created security architecture prevent one?

Critics argue that certain measures went too far, swept innocent Americans into surveillance, disproportionately affected Muslim and Arab American communities, and created governmental powers inconsistent with traditional expectations of privacy.

Both observations contain some truth. But the proper response is neither repeal nor maintaining the status quo. It is an honest review of the process.

Which measures have made us safer?
Which are now obsolete because threats and/or technologies have changed?
Which powers have expanded beyond their original purpose?
Which intrusions are so cemented into our culture that we no longer recognize them as intrusions?

These questions are not progressive or conservative; they are constitutional. Nothing is forever, and our government should keep studying both safety and freedom going forward.

Another Post 9/11 Point of Interest

Be honest. Following 9/11, what were your opinions or feelings toward Muslim or Arab Americans? Anti-Muslim bias was a real thing, so real that we created a name for it: Islamophobia, an unfortunate legacy of 9/11. In the days and months following the attacks, Muslim Americans—even Americans who just looked Middle Eastern—experienced suspicion, hostility, and sometimes violence. In the minds of some Americans, Islam became associated with terrorism.

Consider America 25 years later.

In New York City—the city whose skyline became the enduring image of September 11— a Muslim was elected Mayor.

In Michigan, a Muslim American is running a highly competitive statewide race for the United States Senate.

I’m not making a political statement—one does not have to support either man’s politics to appreciate the significance of their ascent to power. In fact, politics is beside the point.

Try to imagine the fate of either politician immediately following 9/11/2001. Twenty-five years later, millions of Americans who aren’t Muslim voted for and will vote again for Muslim candidates for major public offices.

And that says something extremely important about our country.

9/11 changed America, our laws, our government, the way we travel, how we handle threats to our security, and how we understand privacy rights. It also changed how some of us looked at neighbors who didn’t look or worship the same as we do.

But it did not destroy the core American ideal that has thrived here since 1776, despite our own occasional failure to live up to it.

America belongs to citizens of every race, ethnicity, and faith.

Did we sacrifice too much freedom after 9/11, or did we do too little to protect our future safety? Twenty-five years later, we should and must continue to debate these issues and protect the delicate balance between them.

That’s what a free society does.

But this morning, before we debate anything, we should remember:

The people who left for work that morning and never came home.

The passengers who boarded airplanes and never reached their destinations.

The first responders who ran toward danger while everyone else was running away.

All those families whose lives changed forever.

And one more thing: The people who attacked us that day wanted to change America.

Perhaps they did in some ways.

But, as Ronald Reagan once said, we are still that “shining city on a hill,” the ultimate example of freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Terrorists did not and will never get to define America.