September 11, 2001 is one of the most important dates in American History, not only for its infamy in the death of over 3,000 innocent Americans, but because it changed the course of America’s future forever. Never before had such a devastating attack happened on American soil, and the resulting conflict has become a deadly war that is full of controversy. The United States government conducts itself differently than ever before in response to terrorism, and it has fielded endless complaints for abusing power, for being too violent, and for not minding its own business. However, the world is constantly changing, and conflict has always been present. With every change, people must learn to accept that something is different, something that Americans have done well over the last century in dealing with conflicts like the World Wars, the Cold War, and Civil Rights. Every action warrants a reaction, and every reaction is a result of certain interests. Since 9/11 the US has protected its citizens by enhancing security at home, taking measures like increased airport security and the Patriot Act. Defense has been a key part of America’s reaction to terrorism, with new technology such as drones and missiles to keep Americans safe while fighting the enemy far away. In addition, the retrieval of information, useful in understanding a difficult enemy, has become an integral part of the United States’ reaction to radicals. All of these things are controversial in America but also on an international scale, but it is important to remember that the United States has successfully changed before. The radicalism in the world today is still very similar to that of the 1940s and the holocaust, or the 1950s and the Cold War, and even the 1960s when the United States transformed into a country of tolerance and equality. The radical ideas of America’s twenty first century enemies can be traced to anger from groups in the past, and so should the response be. Change is inevitable, and some change is easier to accept than other, but if it is in the best interest of the people then they must allow it to happen.
After the hijackings in September of 2001, one thing became very clear: the United States had a serious enemy. Although this was obvious, many questions remained unanswered. Government leaders knew the enemy was a radical Islamic group in the middle east, but they were unable to say who it was, how they planned such an attack, if more were to come, and from where. It was a new world, and required new strategies for protecting the people of the United States. It seems that leaders were unsure of how to do so, though, and began using broad strategies to insulate the U.S. from any more attacks. When President George W. Bush announced the war against terror, just weeks afterwards, he made a clearly finalizing announcement, saying:
“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (1)
This message clearly stated that the US was fighting terrorism across the world, but it also does not make any clear distinction as to who a terrorist may be, just that they exist. This confusion is the source of much of the controversy over the appropriate response to radicalism, and has led to criticism of many anti-terrorism programs like CIA involvement or domestic security.
As the war on terror has unfolded over seas, Americans at home have grown accustomed to new practices that are meant to keep them safe. Even though safety is the intention, there has been widespread disapproval over the years of some of these strategies. Increased airport security, which is very understandable considering the nature of the 2001 attacks, is something that concerned a lot of Americans who feel that their privacy is violated by more thorough searches. One of the most controversial aspects of increased security in the U.S. is racial profiling, which is done in an effort to simplify the process of preventing threats, but is also violating to normal citizens. Every day, Americans are stopped from boarding planes because they share a name with a known terrorist, or are strip searched at the airport because they have a Muslim name or because they wear a turban. These are the type of incidents that make the response to radicalism so controversial. Americans feel that they should not have to sacrifice their freedoms as part of the fight for peace, but the evolution of society means that some sacrifices must be made. This is very similar to sacrifices and changes that Americans made in the middle of the 20th century, when communist radicalism threatened the American way of life.
During the Cold War people were afraid, a lot like people are afraid today. At that time, the world was an unstable place and it seemed as if anything could happen at any time. Today, there are terrorist attacks all the time and no one knows when or where the next one will be. During the Cold War, seemingly random people were put in prison on the premise that they were part of a communist subsection of society in the U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy made a speech in 1950 in which he declared that the United States was not taking the communist threat seriously enough and that there were large conspiracies within the U.S. government that had not been dealt with (2). This type of language seems fairly radical; the idea that the US government has a cancerous portion that was dedicated to communism and the failure of the American system. However, it made sense because people were afraid of communism.
Similarly, people like Donald Trump today have radical plans to stop terrorism and protect Americans from radicalism. The presidential candidate talks about plans to prohibit the entrance of any Muslim into the United States. Obviously, this type of action is itself radical and would hopefully never become a reality in the U.S, but it must be considered as a strategy that might be used, and if conditions get worse, be necessary. This is not to say that such a policy would be acceptable or even successful, but rather that, in an attempt to stop terrorism in the United States, a certain leader might see no other option. During the Cold War era there were examples just like this, where new policy seemed excessive, but was necessary in order to prevent the spread of communism. It seems that radical threats against the United States have repeatedly solicited radical responses from the United States, radical responses that get more reasonable as time passes and they are used more often. Not only is that true for racial profiling or the discrimination of Muslims in the U.S., but for new war tactics and strategies that are used to fight terrorism. In the same way that Americans questioned anti-communist policy in the U.S. during the second half of the 1900s, they now question anti-terrorism policy and tactics used to fight this war. Two of the most interesting issues that have arisen in this time are the use of drones and the treatment of prisoners that have terrorist connections.
President Obama has become well known for his extensive use of drones to eliminate foreign threats without risking American lives. At the same time, though, the president has faced constant criticism about the innocent lives that are lost because of drone strikes that are only meant for one person or a small group of people. One argument is that the death of one bad person does not justify the death of a number of innocent people. Those who disagree with the death of innocent people think it is as damaging for the United States to use drones as it is helpful. This relates to radical changes that were being made in the U.S. in the middle of the twentieth century to create equality, and stop racism and discrimination. The treatment of black people in the United States was always terrible, and continues to be controversial, until Civil Rights legislation became law in the 1960s and protected black Americans from discrimination and racist practices. At the time, these policies were extremely radical because the U.S. had a long history of racism and discrimination. This was a very turbulent time in American history, with assassinations, riots and laws that would change the way the country worked. Radical racism had finally been met with what appeared to be radical anti-racist law, and the problem of racism in America was that much closer to being solved. In the same way, now with terrorism and radical Islamic groups, President Obama has taken seemingly radical action to combat a radical threat, and has had some measure of success, although there has been sacrifice and plenty of debate. This change, as all changes are, has been subject to a lot of criticism, but is increasingly accepted as the necessary actions to take against radical Islamic groups like ISIS and al-Qai’da. Another controversial part of America’s war on terror is the use of prisoners to obtain useful information to either prevent attacks or eliminate leaders of the enemy organizations.
Torture was officially condemned internationally after the Second World War, in response to the horrific Human Rights violations of the war, when the United Nations general assembly included it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (6). Since that time its use has been limited to the worst of situations, such as in Vietnam where American prisoners were tortured. However, after the attacks on 9/11 the CIA began conducting in depth investigations that led to the capture of high value targets, and ultimately to their interrogation. In 2005 the Office of Legal Council in the U.S. Department of Justice did an analysis of the CIA’s interrogation techniques in order to establish whether or not they violate the federal prohibition on torture, and also to decide how effective the methods have been. In this report, the department of justice carefully analyzes each of the methods and explains why each is justified in the fight for American safety. Each of the techniques used, which range from water dousing and water boarding stress positions and sleep deprivation, is only done to such an extent that the subject will not be permanently harmed. These techniques are also carried out with a team of medical experts present who are responsible for stopping the interrogation if it went too far (3). Although these measures are taken to prevent any serious problem during interrogation, there have been a number of incidents and reports that detainees have been seriously harmed. One detainee hallucinated after fifty-six hours of sleep deprivation, at which point he said he was ready to talk, according to the CIA (5). Another named Abu Zubaydan, the first terrorist to be detained and questioned using these techniques, was water-boarded sixty five times in less than twenty-four hours (5).
These types of occurrences are the ones that generate arguments and disapproval for enhanced techniques. Senator Susan Collins attacks enhanced techniques from a perspective purely based on morals:
“The prohibition against torture in both U.S. law and international law is not based on an evaluation of its efficacy at eliciting information. Rather, the prohibition was put in place because torture is immoral and contrary to our values.” (4)
The challenge comes when people compare the harm done to these people to the harm they would otherwise bring upon the United States or its allies. It is hard to say that they should be treated like any other type of criminal, and even harder to know if they would reveal the necessary information if that were the case. The United States is not a country that should condone torture, but it is a country that does all it can in order to keep its citizens safe. That may include forcing information out of important opposition figures. It seems that once again the U.S. government and its people have decided that it may be necessary to do something radical like “enhanced interrogation techniques” in order to prevent something radical, such as radical Islamic terrorism. This exception is even easier to understand because the people that are interrogated are always believed to have important information.
The definition of a High Value Detainee is part of that report and is a good place to start the discussion about exactly what the US is fighting, or how much they know about the enemy. A high value detainee (HVD) is someone that the CIA has “reason to believe” is a terrorist, has been involved in terrorist activities, or is connected with a terrorist group (4). Based on this definition, and the fact that these people pose a real threat, it seems justified that interrogation is slightly harsher in order to get the information they have. The Department of Justice found that the CIA was taking the proper steps to ensure that prisoners were not in jeopardy of dying or being too seriously injured. This is just another example of behavior that was, at one point, completely unacceptable but now, because of changing circumstances, is steadily increasing in acceptance and usage.
In times of unprecedented danger and unchecked chaos it is always interesting to see how order is reestablished. In the mid 1900s the United States underwent transition after transition until issues with radical roots such as racism had been remedied. The radical behavior of racists was met with radical policy and law that gave teeth to the Civil Rights Movement. During the Cold War, when Americans were terrified of communism and the threat of nuclear warfare seemed constantly imminent, it seemed like the government would do anything to keep the U.S. safe. Not only would the government do anything, but Americans would do anything, and let the government do whatever it took, in order to be safe from the evils of communism. Now that America is facing a new radical threat, it may be time to consider changing again in order to properly respond to that threat. That might mean doing things that make some people uncomfortable and that the country is new to. Regardless of the action that is taken, the question is one of justification. If the U.S. reaction is in response to something terrible like a bombing or a plane being hijacked, then it may be justified, and might one day be a normal, non-radical way of dealing with problems. Since 2001 the United States has begun to make these changes and use its power in new ways, but all with the objective of protecting its interests. Although motives are hazy at times, there are few things more important than the protection of democracy and the safety of American citizens. None of this is to say that torture is good, or that Muslims should not be allowed in the United States. Rather, it is important to remember that change is a constant reality and as the U.S. has learned more about terrorism and Islamic radicals since 2001, it has adapted to combat a diligent enemy. It is hard to know what would have happened if things had played out differently in the last decade and a half, but it is clear that we cannot change those things. Americans should be open to change, and consider all possible outcomes before picking a side, because something that seems radical today might not be so radical in a few years.