9/11: How US Policy Changed After Terror Attacks - Essay Sample

Introduction

Things have never been the same since the terrorist attacks on the cities of New York and Washington DC on September 11, 2001. The most affected issues were the country's domestic and foreign policies since the US had to ensure that a repeat of those terrorist attacks did not occur and that they would be better prepared in terms of preventing any similar attacks.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Better surveillance meant that there had to be sacrifices made in this quest, with the most notable changes being in matters related to privacy (Dycus et al. 2020). The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution provides for the right to privacy for American citizens, and there have been ongoing debates on the benefits and risks of the intrusions into Americans’ lives when seeking to prevent terrorism.

Issues that Came with the Security vs. Privacy Problem

Exclusionary Rules

The exclusionary rule is a law that protects US citizens from having evidence acquired in violation of the provisions of the United States constitution. When one is arrested in the US, and the arresting officers fail to read them the Miranda rights, the evidence, and statements issued by the suspect, however incriminating they may be, cannot be used against them in a court of law.

The Miranda laws are cited before an arrest or an interrogation so that the suspect is informed of their rights and informing them whether or not they are at liberty to leave the interrogation (Garoupa & Moungan, 2020). However, after the 9/11 attacks, there were exclusions made to this rule, and this came after the introduction of the exclusionary rules.

The exclusionary law provides for the evidence obtained outside the jurisdiction of the Miranda law to be admissible in court. Although the exclusion rules are accepted for use in the United States, their applications vary from state to state in which they are exercised.

The most common exception in the exclusionary rule is the exception for tangible evidence. This clause provides evidence collected by the investigators, even in violation of the Miranda rights to be admissible in court. The main argument for this exception is that the investigators would have found the evidence in the long run.

This exception provides room for investigators and prosecutors to use the evidence found on the person or in the residences of the suspects inasmuch as their statements may not be admissible in court (Giannoulopoulos, 2020). Therefore, when terrorism suspects are arrested, the evidence that would have been otherwise inadmissible in court, leading to them walking free, can now be used to prosecute them and therefore reduce the number of terrorist incidences in and outside the US.

Another instance under which the exclusionary rule can be applied is the impeachment of witness statements, whereby the witnesses' statements that were not covered by the Miranda rights can be used against them during a trial to disqualify them as witnesses to the case. Statements captured without the witnesses being furnished with the Miranda rights can be used if the witnesses show impartiality. The prosecution has reasons to believe that the witness is not providing correct information that would help.

More importantly, the exclusionary rules provide an exception when the public is at risk due to the suspect’s involvement. If the investigators have reason to believe that the suspect has information that could prevent a threat to citizens’ lives, then they will be allowed to interrogate the suspect without necessarily reading them their Miranda rights and their statements will still be used against them in a court of law (Levin & Cohen, 1981).

The weapons recovered from such interrogations and the recorded statements can be used against them since the exception allows for such evidence to stand in court. While the statements and evidence can be used, the admission will affect the sentencing, since it is assumed that the statements were a way of cooperation by the suspects, and can be used in pleading for reduced and lenient sentences.

Methods of Handling Evidence

Post-9/11 investigations, especially in terms of investigating crime, have been improved, in that the investigators are using more sophisticated methods of handling evidence to capture the most critical information in the course of their investigation. The most notable change in handling and processing of evidence from crime scenes is the use of druggist folds instead of plastic, as was done in the past.

The druggist folds are necessary for an investigation since they enable the enclose trace amounts of evidence to be used for analysis and help in the investigation and prosecution processes. Such shreds of evidence may be powders, strands of hair, or fibers that may be used as evidence against the suspects (Harrison & Ries, 2017). The use of druggist folds has been advocated for since it helps in the maintenance of the evidence, compared to the use of plastic, which would alter the evidence collected. The druggist fold was initially used in the medical field for packaging medicine. Therefore it is preferred in an investigation since the material used in these packages does not let in any air. Hence the evidence collected does not react with air and loses its use.

The use of trace evidence is now also used in investigating terrorist activities, and therefore investigators have been trained further on how to handle such evidence. Trace evidence is collected when the suspects come into contact with the objects in the crime scenes, and the naked eye cannot see the evidence, and even when they are seen, they can only be confirmed through lab analysis and forensic investigation (Geberth, 2020).

The investigators should, therefore, handle the crime scene carefully and tape it off from public access for as much time as may be needed so that they can search for any evidence that may help them in foiling terrorist attacks or in establishing the involvement of the suspects in the crimes. The investigators should then handle the evidence gathered with as much care as possible and use the druggist folds discussed above to store the evidence and transport it to the laboratories for investigation. They should also treat the evidence with confidentiality so that the evidence is not tampered with.

Solutions to the Security Issues Post-9/11

After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, there have been hard and soft security measures that aim to provide the needed security for the nation. The hard security measures involve the restriction of movements into the US by suspects. In contrast, soft measures include surveillance to track terrorist activities and stop them before they can occur (Sönmez & Sönmez, 2017). The government must also ensure that they keep up with the evolving nature of terrorism and the different shapes that it takes over time.

They are, therefore, also aware of the rise of cyber terrorism that is now on the rise instead of the physical attacks. Consequently, they have been working towards achieving the required technological advancements to ensure that they can intercept the communications held between the terrorists and thus being in a position to thwart the planned attacks.

Improvement of relationships between the US and other countries has also been included as a solution since they have seen the need for diplomacy as a solution to the terrorism issue that is going on in the world. When countries have a positive diplomatic relationship, it is easier for them to collaborate on the investigation and containment of terrorist attacks.

When countries work collaboratively, their investigating units can work together to track and arrest the terrorists who may be hiding in one nation while planning attacks on another government. Collaboration also helps countries share intelligence on planned attacks, reducing the number of casualties should the attacks happen.

Recommendations

I would recommend for better investigative measures so that the attacks are foiled in their planning stages, and investigations are carried out before the attacks happen, not after. This will reduce the number of casualties and loss of property when the attacks occur. Also, I would recommend that the investigators use lawful methods of evidence acquisition so that they do not violate human rights when investigating the terrorist attacks and other related crimes. This is because there has been a rise in human rights being broken in the course of an investigation, with torture being used to obtain the information that is then used in the trials under the umbrella of exclusionary rules. Finally, I would recommend that the government undertakes extensive public awareness to help the public to stay objective and away from the association of Islam and terrorism, which has played a role in the discriminative practices against people of Muslim religious backgrounds.

References

Dycus, S., Banks, W. C., Hansen, P. R., & Vladeck, S. I. (2020). National security law. Aspen Publishers.

Garoupa, N., & Mungan, M. C. (2020). The Exclusionary Rule Revisited. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper (20-18).

Geberth, V. J. (2020). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques. CRC Press.

Giannoulopoulos, D. Kelly Pitcher, Judicial Responses to PreTrial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings, Berlin: Springer, 2018, 557 pp, hb£ 175, eBook£ 140. The Modern Law Review.

Harrison, K., & Ries, S. (2017). Fabrics as Forensic Evidence. In Forensic Textile Science (pp. 27-37). Woodhead Publishing.

Levin, A. L., & Cohen, H. K. (1971). The Exclusionary Rules in Nonjury Criminal Cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 119(6), 905-932.

Sönmez, S. F., & Sönmez, S. (2019). Tourism, Terrorism and Political Instability.