As was amply demonstrated by the targets of 9/11, symbolism is critical in the perceived intent of terrorist strikes. On one level, certainly, attacking the Pentagon and the World Trade Center is a pragmatic ambition. These are centers of military strategy and commerce for the nation, and the assaults create actual damage to these operations. At the same time, and as terrorists likely know, no single structure is the sole base of such functions; business and military concerns at the highest levels must occur in multiple locations, many of which are not as iconic. The attacks then emphasize the symbolic power of the sites, which makes them extremely vulnerable. Such structures are more representational than anything, and have great meaning as expressions of national power to the country and the world. Consequently, structures like those attacked, or any national monument, are at risk because the attacks on them are assaults on the perceived foundations of the nation.
I personally feel that the Homeland Security response to terrorism, as well as all measures in place since 9/11, put the criminal justice system in an untenable position. Militarizing the police, which translates to given them authority beyond constitutional boundaries, inherently defies the precepts of American justice, which is founded on presumptions of innocence. As has been greatly debated, there is a dilemma at the heart of violating personal liberties to ensure the protection of the nation based on providing those liberties, yet this is how the nation has addressed the threats. It seems to me that a choice was made, but in a way lacking integrity; rather than honestly assert that national defense required a military state and martial law, the Patriot Act was drafted and enacted to defy constitutional protections while not admitting to doing such. It is ultimately unconscionable that the government would not openly declare its intentions here, as it has demanded that citizens “voluntarily” surrender personal rights. The public has been made to accept that presumption of innocence is not a feasible concept in a climate of terrorism, but this is a covert and unethical approach to dealing with the actual crisis, and one that clearly contradicts the ideologies of the nation.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Terrorism and 9/11".
