A quarter-century after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a prominent columnist is asserting that the events have ushered in an era of repression and a significant erosion of freedoms worldwide.
The author argues that the attacks on the Twin Towers were exploited as a pretext for expanding state powers, leading to increased surveillance, more stringent security measures, and what are described as "stupid wars."
Travelers at airports, the writer contends, now navigate security procedures that resemble those for convicted criminals, involving intrusive scans and demands to remove clothing by stern guards. This experience, coupled with the increased need for identity documents for routine activities, signifies a growing power of the state to detain and process individuals, often through humiliating procedures. The author suggests that the mass panic following the attacks enabled the abolition of long-standing rights, such as the right to silence during interrogation and protection against double jeopardy.
Dissent on foreign policy, the commentary claims, is now frequently equated with treachery, suggesting a singular, government-approved viewpoint. This atmosphere, it is argued, is all performed in the name of combating terror.
In the years preceding the attacks, the author recalls an era characterized by "light, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," contrasting it with the subsequent quarter-century, which is described as progressively darker, more confined, and more fearful. The writer posits that terrorists aim to instill fear and often exaggerate their power, a tactic observed in previous incidents such as airplane hijackings and the actions of the Provisional IRA, which led to concessions from Western governments.
The commentary suggests that the West did, in fact, yield to some key demands of the 9/11 hijackers. The attacks were widely interpreted in the Middle East as intended to weaken U.S. support for Israel and compel the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. Hijackers themselves reportedly voiced these aims, with one stating the attacks were a "message to all infidels and to America to leave the Arabian peninsula and to stop supporting the cowardly Jews in Palestine."
Following the attacks, Palestinian officials reportedly took steps to suppress footage of Palestinian Arabs rejoicing, even confiscating and censoring tapes. Simultaneously, Yasser Arafat was filmed donating blood for victims. The article notes that U.S. troops were indeed withdrawn from Saudi Arabia in April 2003, and by October 2001, President George W. Bush had shifted U.S. policy to support the idea of a Palestinian State.
Furthermore, the author claims that within hours of the attack, U.S. and British law enforcement were aware of links between some hijackers and an official from a Middle Eastern Islamic state, a connection that the author asserts has strengthened over time, though authorities have not publicly acknowledged it.
Despite these perceived concessions, the public, according to the commentary, was led to believe in a perpetual "war against terror" that necessitated accepting extensive surveillance, bureaucracy, and an overreaching state in exchange for security. Every aspect of daily life, from travel to personal privacy, was seen as subject to increased scrutiny and control.
The article further criticizes the subsequent military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran, questioning the justifications for these conflicts. It cites the installation of an Al Qaeda sympathizer as the leader of Syria as a symbolic moment where the "War against Terror" lost its coherence. The piece concludes by lamenting the loss of freedom, light, joy, and humor that existed before 9/11, expressing doubt about their return.