[ad_1]
While the September 11 attacks shook the ground beneath Americans’ feet, many observers say the policy changes authorized by Congress in the aftermath of the event have created seismic shifts in the way the nation decides to go to war, investigate and operate in a dark world of counterterrorism.
“In the days following September 11, Americans wanted and needed to feel safe, and we were prepared to give the President – and Congress for that matter – whatever [was] necessary to keep us safe, ”Michael Rocca, professor of political science at the University of New Mexico, said in a recent telephone interview.
“Because the next attack seemed like it could come from anywhere, [then-Vice President Dick Cheney] and the United States Congress created rules to do that, to protect us, “he said.” But in the process, they created a level of executive power that we’ve never seen before. “
Historians, academics and civil liberties advocates continue to take a critical look at the changes brought about by 9/11, and not just when it comes to the military.
A joint resolution passed by Congress a week after the terrorist attacks authorized then-President George W. Bush to use the US military against anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the effort, making it the most unlimited authorization for war in the history of the nation.
Before September 11, Congress had to give the president permission to wage war in a nation-state or designated conflict, said Jeffrey Engel, founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. But the joint resolution, he added, gave the executive branch of government “unchecked power” to deploy the army at will.
“We basically gave the whitest president blank checks to use military force at his discretion against any target anywhere in the world at any time,” Engel said. “It’s not a war, it’s a crusade.”
Later in 2001, Congress approved the USA Patriot Act, the short name for a law that gave even more power to the executive.
The Patriot Act – and subsequent changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – have been criticized by civil liberties advocates for what they say is a weakening of traditional norms for probable cause, a central tenet of the legal system. They gave law enforcement the ability to conduct electronic surveillance with little evidence that a person was involved in terrorist activity and shattered the distinctions that traditionally separated criminal investigations and terrorist investigations, Peter said. Simonson, executive director of ACLU-New Mexico.
“Thus, increasingly, federal law enforcement can use tools intended for the surveillance of foreign intelligence agents for the purpose of gathering criminal evidence as part of a regular criminal investigation,” he said. -he declares. “Now we are living with the consequences of all of these changes.”
Simonson said some of those changes have been curtailed over the past two decades by sunset clauses, laws and litigation, “but much of it remains intact.”
He pointed out FISA, which he said “allows very extensive use of surveillance without the traditional requirements of probable cause and without any kind of public accountability for their decisions.”
Another change to come after 9/11 – a change now familiar every time someone boards a plane – was the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security. Now the third largest cabinet department of government, Homeland Security’s stated mission is to “protect the nation from the many threats we face.” To do so, its website says the agency employs more than 240,000 people, from cybersecurity analysts and chemical facility inspectors to the men and women who operate metal detectors at US airports.
Its budget for fiscal year 2022: $ 52.2 billion, according to the ministry’s website.
“We reacted very quickly and turned what was already a large bureaucracy into something much more complex,” said Jim Falk, acting executive director of the Santa Fe Council on International Relations.
“Obviously, one thing you need to take credit for is that there hasn’t been another 9/11,” Falk said. “But I think the bureaucracy is overkill, and the amount of money we spent both nationally and internationally to protect the homeland to some extent could have been used more effectively and efficiently to keep our house, to improve our home. “
Engel attributes the turn of events to Congress, saying he has “abdicated” the authority given to him by the constitution to limit the president’s power as a necessary part of the government’s checks and balances system.
But UNM’s Rocca said voters also took some of the blame.
“Yes [lawmakers] wanted to check on the president, they could, but the point is they don’t, “he said.” Sometimes [it’s] just too unpopular or risky or easier to blame a president when things go wrong than to take responsibility yourself. “
But he also said voters could make a difference if they put pressure on Congress.
“After September 11, you can reasonably state that everything the Commander-in-Chief did in the months immediately following September 11 was historically justified,” Rocca said. “Congress, the Supreme Court and the public were saying ‘protect us’ – they were rushing to get information and they needed all the tools they had to make sure we were not hit again. In the days following September 11, that might be justified, but 20 years later? “
[ad_2]
Source link