The Details on Security Change After 9/11

The word “cliche” is sure to have been used hundreds if not thousands of times for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in September 11, 2001 or commonly known as 9/11. The meaning of 9/11 first on the domestic scene is that America joined the ranks of those that suffered the brunt of terrorism for decades such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. America lost “its innocence” since this terrorist incident is of greater magnitude compared to the World Trade Center bombing in February 1993 or in terms of the socio-political impact, it really brought home the message that “no one is safe.”

On the global scale, 9/11 meant that even a superpower or the “only superpower” can fall prey to a low-intensity type of warfare known as terrorism. It prove that such an act can affect economic and market outputs considering that it weakened the stock exchange and flights were cancelled for a few days throughout the United States. 9/11 also redefined the meaning of terrorism and “holds lesson for other states, not just America, by demonstrating the U.S. resolve and ability to remove regimes that harbor or sponsor terrorism, 9/11should have strengthened the deterrent message to governments that would contemplate aiding terrorists. (Knopf, 2002)” It showed that whether it is state-sponsored terrorism or ideological group-led terrorism like Al-Qaeda, governments and nations of the world must unite to battle this modern-day organized plague.

In response to 9/11, the U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act of 2001 or completely known as “”Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. This piece of legislation contains sections that defines and effects controls and measures in the fight against terrorism such as:

Enhancing domestic security against terrorism;

International money laundering abatement and anti-terrorist financing;

Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism;

Providing for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families;

Increased information sharing for critical infrastructure protection;

Strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism; and

Besides the Patriot Act, 9/11 brought about the existence of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through House Resolution 5005 and whose major mandate is to prevent terrorist attacks within and reduce the vulnerability to terrorism of the United States. Since DHS became the focal point of the U.S. response to terrorism some major government agencies were transferred to the DHS. One of the major outputs of the DHS is coming out with the National Response Plan (NRP) in December 2004 (DHS, 2004). The NRP “is an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that establishes a single, comprehensive framework for the management of domestic incidents. It provides the structure and mechanisms for the coordination of Federal support to State, local, and tribal incident managers and for exercising direct Federal authorities and responsibilities. (DHS, 2004)”

Having been aligned with the National Incident Management System (DHS, 2004), the NRP had more 32 signatory government departments and agencies. Although it is an incident response plan, the NRP carries policies “to protect national security, coordinates the activities of the other members of the law enforcement community to detect, prevent, preempt, and disrupt terrorist attacks against the United States.

This includes actions to prevent, preempt, and disrupt specific terrorist threats or actual incidents that are based upon specific intelligence or law enforcement information. (DHS, 2004)” Although brought out in general terms, the new security measures in place gives a signal to the domestic marketplace that vigilance and stricter enforcement of security rules is already in place. Trade and commerce with the United States became more stringent especially in terms of cross-border access between U.S., Mexico and Canada.

On the whole, the effectiveness of the change security posture after 9/11 is being met on two fronts. One group agrees with the measures believing that it really curtails terrorist activities. On the other hand, another group declares that starting with the Patriot Act, then the rise of the Department of Homeland Security and the implementation of the National Response Plan, all these are questioned due to their singular and collective effects on rights, freedom and liberties Americans enjoy.

But as in any history of the United States, the debate or division brought about by the new security measures in effect is always welcomed since this is one of the true tests of democracy – when two or more groups agree to disagree. Five years after 9/11, the full measure of the efficacy of the security policies and methods in place can only be truly gauged when a future major terrorist incident can be prevented and the perpetrators captured – only then can some of the “questionable human rights violation measures” can be vindicated! But for now, we can only “hope and pray” that such incident will not happen again or else another event that would live in infamy would be in our midst.