Something essential has changed in America in the ten years since terrorists hijacked passenger airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, shattering that sense of invincibility forever.
As Americans remember the 3,000 victims in ceremonies big and small, they are aware that their great country that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were fond of calling a “shining city upon a hill” can be breached.
Even though there hasn’t been another terrorist attack on the “homeland” – a term suddenly invading the lexicon post 9/11 despite its creepy historical baggage – Americans feel vulnerable. They have been recounting their stories on radio and television for the past week, talking openly as only the Americans can, digging into their wounds, exploring and excavating their innermost fears and healing.
Countless stories of bravery have been meticulously documented by now, each person identified and accounted for. Fire fighters and police officers who went into the collapsing towers to try to save lives are heroes and family members left behind have fought back to fill the void left by the loss of loved ones. There is no alternative but to move on. The dignity of ordinary Americans is impressive as they learn to live in a changed, more depleted, economically weaker America, an America reeling from the cost of two wars launched in the name of 9/11 and a recession caused by the shenanigans of the all-too-clever Wall Streeters, greedy bankers and a disappearing regulatory structure.
Americans feel vulnerable. They worry about the economy and they worry about their security. With terrorists striking other countries since 9/11 – notably India and Britain – it is no surprise that 59 percent of the Americans believe that terrorists will find a way to attack the United States in the future. According to a recent Gallup poll, they are roughly split on who is winning the “war on terror” – America or the terrorists. The killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Navy seals inside Pakistan in May after a long, arduous hunt gave a temporary sense of relief but not much more.
Negative views of Muslim Americans have continued to rise over the past decade. The community has been under the national microscope. It first tried to hide, and then come out; it struggled within itself and against stereotypes to assert its right to be a part of the American fabric. No one can deny that America has done a better job than most other western nations of absorbing and accepting Muslim immigrants but there is also a tendency to paint with a broad brush, losing the distinction between the moderate majority and the extremist minority.
Last year a controversy over a proposed Islamic Center by a Muslim cleric near Ground Zero in New York fanned those divisive flames. The families of 9/11 victims felt a mosque close to where the towers stood was like rubbing salt into their wounds. Now some members of the Christian right and a few politicians are worried that Sharia law may soon surreptitiously take over America. More than 12 states have devised “pre-emptive” legislation outlawing Sharia in state courts. At least three have already approved, conveniently ignoring the First Amendment, which already prohibits courts from using religious codes.
In the decade gone by since 9/11, the power of the state over its citizens has expanded dramatically, collapsing the cherished circle of individual freedom somewhat. The balance between freedom and security is sadly altered. America today is a snooping, listening, watching society where an old man who forgot his cell phone in the Mall of America on a table remains on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) watch list simply because he is Muslim. He and his son bear the ordeal quietly.
At airports, there is patience on display as everyone sheds shoes, watches, jackets, bracelets before standing in front of machines that can see through all your flaws. Most absorb the intrusions stoically.
Dana Priest, a Washington Post investigative reporter and co-author of “Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State” has revealed the growth of a terrorism-homeland security complex, which has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one really knows how much it costs. “Not only does the government find it difficult to get its arms around itself, it doesn’t know what’s inside, it doesn’t know what works, it doesn’t know what doesn’t work. And nobody still, 10 years later, is really in charge of those questions,” she says. There are 3,984 federal, state and local organizations working on domestic counter-terrorism. The annual budget for the US intelligence community has tripled since 9/11. Some estimates say that more than $1 trillion has been spent by federal, state and local authorities on security since the attacks.
America conducts its counter-terrorism activities emboldened by the Patriot Act, passed within three weeks of 9/11 in an extraordinary display of unity between the legislative and executive branches. It gives powers to the FBI that in ordinary times would shock and embarrass Americans but today the only opposition comes from a few civil libertarians. The FBI can get records without judicial oversight. It can get phone records from companies, list of websites visited by suspects from internet service providers and financial records from businesses through administrative subpoenas and without a warrant. Librarians can double as snitches. In one of the most disturbing manifestations of a post-9/11 mindset, torture was redefined as “enhanced interrogation technique.”
Who would have imagined such wordplay in the land of the free? It is chilling, especially when vocalized through the mouth of former vice president, Dick Cheney, who has justified, rationalized and augmented every “un-American” technique lustily. Will this national security state shrink back to its original dimensions in the foreseeable future? Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said a firm “No” in answer to the question.
Would it then be fair to conclude that Osama bin Laden’s deluded, last-century warriors have caused America to go back in time in its passionate respect for human rights? Perhaps only for a short period.
Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based analyst and a frequent contributor to Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. Seema is also on Twitter, and her handle is @seemasirohi
This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.
For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.
© Copyright 2011 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.