The War on Terror: A Utilitarian Analysis

Transcription

1 The War on Terror: A Utilitarian Analysis A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation with University Honors Gallaudet University By George Nathan Gomme Thesis Director: Barbara Stock, PhD Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion Second Reader: James E. Haynes, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion Additional Reader: Teresa Burke, MA Instructor, Department of Philosophy and Religion Washington, DC May 2005

2 Abstract The intention of this thesis is to explore whether or not the response of the United States of America to terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 was morally right. It is my contention that the theory best suited to make such a decision is utilitarianism. Specifics as well as flaws of the theory will be explained as a filter through which to better understand and explore the events and the responses of the American government. Application of the theory to the United States government will lead to a determination as to whether or not our actions were morally right. The first chapter will explain utilitarianism and its basic foundation. It will go on to explain the form of utilitarianism I use, which is act/welfare utilitarianism, and show that it is the best theory to use for examining the war on terror. After explaining the ethical theory I will, in Chapter 2, review key incidents surrounding September 11 th, 2001 and the war on terror. They are as follows: the formation and use of the Department of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. In Chapter 3, I apply the theory to the actions taken by the United States. I have found that the formation and use of the Department of Homeland Security was the right thing to do, the PATRIOT Act is wrong, the war in Afghanistan is the right action to take, and finally the War in Iraq is wrong. In Chapter 4 I point out three challenges for utilitarianism and resolve these challenges. These challenges are 1) Justice and Individual Rights, 2) Impartiality, and 3) Media Biases. In the final chapter, I conclude that our government s actions were indeed morally right for the most part, with the exception of the PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq. 1

3 Contents Abstract:... Page 1 Chapter 1: Utilitarianism Page 3 Chapter 2: The Actions of September 11 th and America s Response. Page 16 Chapter 3: Utilitarianism: Did We Do the Right Thing?... Page 29 Chapter 4: Challenges for Utilitarianism Page 44 Chapter 5: Conclusion. Page 54 References Page 57 2

4 Chapter 1: Utilitarianism In this chapter, I will give a brief summary of utilitarianism to establish the particular style of utilitarianism later applied in the thesis. While clarifying the eventual conclusions for the reader, I will offer an explanation of the elements of utilitarianism and also lay out how the theory works. Clarification of misconceptions of the theory may eliminate negative feelings about it that are due to common misunderstandings. Utilitarianism in its most basic form is comprised of two elements, the first being the teleological theory and the second being a utility principle (such as hedonism). An explanation of the teleological theory is more easily understood when contrasted with a deontological theory, which judges an act all by itself, without regard to any other events (Pojman, 1989, pp ). For example, such a theory might say that killing someone is wrong simply because of the nature of the action itself. A teleological theory is a theory that deals with the consequences of a specific action (Pojman, 1989, pp ). An example of a teleological application is looking at what would happen if a person were to kill someone and analyzing these results. If the consequences are good, then the action is considered right, whereas the deontological theory would say that it is intrinsically wrong. Often there are multiple actions that could be taken instead of killing a person, such as wounding or doing nothing. Each action must be examined to determine which consequence would be best. To determine which consequence would be best we must establish what can be considered a good consequence. This leads to the second part of utilitarianism, which is the utility principle. The classic utilitarian view, hedonistic utilitarianism, says that the only way for a consequence to be good is for it to include a state that is good in and of 3

5 itself, i.e., happiness. The first real established criterion of utilitarianism was developed by an English philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, who proposed a form of hedonistic utilitarianism. Bentham argued that it was a simple difference between pain and pleasure (Pojman, 1989, p. 158). The concept was that by avoiding things that brought pain, a person would avoid doing the wrong thing. However, perhaps this simple difference is not really so simple. Bentham (1823) said that a person should apply seven rules to analyze the pleasure/pain involved in each action: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. Each rule examines both the pain and the pleasurable sensations experienced at the time; thus when using the term sensation I am referring to both. Bentham explains that intensity refers to the strength of the sensation felt during the first instance of the action. The key is to measure the intensity of both pleasure and pain and then turn to the second rule, duration or how long the sensation lasts. The certainty or uncertainty of the sensation refers to whether the action will bring the sensation for sure or not. The propinquity or remoteness refers to whether the pleasure/pain will take place soon or in the distant future. It should be noted that propinquity or remoteness can also apply to space, in terms of how physically close the consequences occur to the person who experiences them. The first four rules, in essence, are basic applications, which apply only if the pleasure and pain are by themselves with no possibility of more experiences being felt. If there is the possibility of more experiences resulting from the action, then three more rules are applied. The first is fecundity. This rule deals with the consistency of the experiences, such as whether or not the initial experience is followed by the same type of 4

6 experience. Therefore, if the initial experience is pleasure, the next experience will be pleasure as well. Pleasure followed by pleasure indicates good overall; whereas pain followed by pain indicates bad overall. The next rule is purity, which is somewhat confusing, given the word used in describing it. Purity is a measurement which looks at whether or not an experience is followed by the same experience, much like fecundity. However, purity looks at the chance the initial experience has of being followed by the opposite experience. For example, if the initial experience of pleasure does not continue but instead leads to the experience of pain, or vice versa, that would be impure. The last rule is extent, which asks a person to look at the number of people the action affects (Pojman, 1989, p. 158). To draw a conclusion, the person would figure out the sum of all the pleasures as a result of the action and the sum of all of the pains felt. If the balance seems to favor the pleasure, the act is good. If it favors the pain, it is then bad. The person would next have to see to whom the result extends and then apply it individually to each person affected. When the balance has been calculated, if it includes more pleasure, this means that the act has a general good tendency. If, however, it involves more pain, this means it has a general evil tendency. Although the terms take some getting used to, overall this theory is relatively simple compared to some of the other theories of ethics and, as we will see next, it is sometimes criticized for being too simplistic (Pojman, 1989, p. 158). The next philosopher to adapt utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill, who attempted to differ from the simplified hedonistic style of utilitarianism presented by Bentham by clarifying that pleasure (or as Mill put it, happiness) is not as simple as just smiling (Pojman, 1989, p. 158). For humans, pleasure/happiness includes complicated thoughts 5

7 and requires more substance than for animals. Thus, for a human to achieve happiness there are more difficulties due to higher functions. The same goes for pain, which can be more difficult for a human in more acute or sophisticated ways other than just physical discomfort. Mill implies that compared to animals, humans have higher faculties and thus experience greater extremes, enjoying the pleasure more and being hurt more by pain. Mill s utilitarianism is considered eudaimonistic utilitarianism in that pleasure is not the only good; rather, happiness is more important. Happiness, as defined by Mill, means pleasure both sensual and intellectual (Pojman, 1989, pp ). It should be noted that in my thesis I will be using the word happiness in its most common sense manner in that happiness means pleasure, feeling good regardless of whether this pleasure is sensual or intellectual. Later philosophers have continued Mill s trend away from the hedonistic view s focus on pleasure and pain only. G. E. Moore, J. J. C. Smart, Richard B. Brandt, Derek Parfit, and James Rachels were some of these philosophers. They reasoned that there are several other factors that are just as important when deciding whether or not an action is right. Rachels (1986) argument best clarifies the weakest part of the hedonistic view: Just because someone is unaware of an action being perpetrated against them and thus remains happy, does not mean that the action is right. He offers this example: You think someone is your friend, but really he ridicules you behind your back. No one ever tells you, so you never know (p. 92). The action is wrong even though you are unaware of it, and it does not cause you unhappiness. Rachels points out that since the hedonistic theory states that the ultimate good is pleasure and the opposite, or the ultimate evil, is pain, a hedonistic utilitarian would have no choice but to say that the friend s behavior is 6

8 acceptable. When happiness is the only way you can determine whether or not an act is right, you have no reason to say that the friend is wrong. Yet people would not like to have their friends ridiculing them behind their backs. Although Mill broke off from the simple hedonistic version of utilitarianism, his version does not address the problem presented by Rachels example because Mill states that while sensual pleasure is not the only goal, happiness is, and in the above example no one is unhappy. This is a serious criticism against both Bentham s and Mill s utilitarian views, thus leaving us with the question, How does modern utilitarianism deal with something such as this? First we must look at where exactly the classic utilitarian view goes wrong. When we think of a friend, it naturally makes us happy because we feel it is good to have friends. But when we think of a friend ridiculing us it makes us sad, not only because we don t like what they are saying, but because we have lost something we know to be good, and the loss of a good thing causes unhappiness (Rachels, 1986, p. 92). One must already believe friendship to be good in itself in order to be troubled by the corruption of this good. The objection to hedonism is that some things are good in themselves, and that is why they make us happy, whereas the typical hedonistic view is that they are only good because they bring us pleasure (or as Mill states, because they make us happy). Philosophers have responded to the dilemma of determining what things are good in themselves by developing sub-theories. One such theory is known as ideal utilitarianism; another is known as welfare utilitarianism. Both carry one main difference from hedonistic utilitarianism, which is that they hold that happiness is not the only thing that matters. Ideal utilitarianism, made famous by G.E. Moore, points out that whether or 7

9 not an act is good depends on whether or not our preferences or individual desires are satisfied (Mautner, 1998). Having one s desires satisfied does not necessarily mean feeling satisfied; it simply means getting what one wants. Welfare utilitarianism, developed by Derek Parfit under the name objective list theory, holds that what is good doesn t necessarily depend on what one desires. Instead, certain activities, in addition to happiness, are believed to be good, and it is in one s best interest to have these things in one s life. The good things might include moral goodness, rational activity, the development of one s ability, having children and being a good parent, knowledge, and awareness of true beauty (Parfit, 1984, p. 499). I believe that welfare utilitarianism is more plausible than ideal utilitarianism. One serious problem with ideal utilitarianism is that if you want to do something such as smoke marijuana, regardless of the harmful potential, it would be right so long as you desire it. The welfare utilitarian however would not look at the person s desires as the only way to determine what is good. Welfare utilitarianism notes the fact that smoking will have long-term detrimental effects, despite making a person happy as a short-term effect and fulfilling their desire. Another disadvantage of ideal utilitarianism is that, when calculating happiness, one has a hard time learning what another person s desires are. It is fairly easy for me to establish my own preference scale, such as losing my fries is better then losing my sandwich. But, if I were to apply that to another person, for that person, losing their fries might be the equivalent of or even more painful for them than losing their sandwich. This makes it hard to compare utility in interpersonal ways. This problem is compounded when many other people are involved, such as when we try to calculate a society s utility. Welfare utilitarianism offers a way out of this problem 8

10 because one need only know what is in a person s interest, rather than what they want. What is one person s general interest is likely to be similar to another s; whereas one person s ideal preference is specific to that person. Typically when examining what is in a person s best interest we look to what they would be worse off without. Earlier I presented the common sense interpretation of happiness, which was feeling good regardless of it being sensual or intellectual. When finding out what is in one s best interest for welfare utilitarianism using the common sense definition, we realize that there are a few things that stand out as necessary. They also tend to lead to happiness but are looked at as good in themselves, so do not have to lead to happiness. One obvious example is a person s health or physical wellbeing, which everyone can agree is a good thing to have. Following welfare utilitarianism we should assume that it is in the person s best interest to be healthy and thus consider that heavily in our analysis of our actions. This is why in welfare utilitarianism taking a life is a serious action to consider, as opposed to what cereal we should eat today. Another example of something good in and of it itself is self-determination. When a person is not free to make their own choices in life they aren t allowed to live their life to the fullest. An obvious example is slavery. We can see that when slavery was in effect many people were unhappy with their circumstances, even though they could at times get certain things that normally make a person who isn t a slave happy. Following these concepts of what is in a person s best interest insures more accurate analysis. Now that the basic breakdown of utilitarianism has been established, it is time to turn to the two main types of utilitarianism seen today: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism applies the theory of creating the best consequences to 9

11 each act. In other words one must examine the consequences of each action. To counteract the difficulty of doing so every time a person acts, there are general guidelines such as do not lie in most cases because generally the results tend to be bad if one does. It is important to note that these guidelines are only rules of thumb; the actual consequences of an action determine whether it is right or wrong. There may be circumstances where an action that is typically wrong promotes the greatest amount of happiness, in which case that action is right. Rule utilitarianism is different in that it says an act is right when the act follows an established set of rules: those that generally lead to good consequences. In essence, rule utilitarianism sets up the rules prior to the action and thus establishes that one is right if one follows the rules. The key difference between rule utilitarianism and the deontological theory is that rule utilitarianism holds that rules are instrumental (a means to an end) rather then intrinsically valuable. However, one can argue that because rule utilitarianism is so similar to the deontological theory, it really is the deontological theory until a conflict appears a situation in which said rule does not lead to the best consequences. In order to make a decision in such a situation, a rule utilitarian must do one of two things: (1) decide that the action is wrong regardless of the good it creates, thus making the theory become the deontological theory, or (2) believe that the consequences take precedence over the rule, which makes it seem like a complicated version of act utilitarianism. If the utilitarian must use act utilitarian principles in order to figure out the conflict, it is better to just follow the act utilitarian method, using rules merely as guidelines. 10

12 On a more practical level, rule utilitarianism is inapplicable for my paper because rule utilitarianism depends on having an established set of rules that we have reason to believe will cause good consequences. Yet, prior to 9/11, we did not have enough experience with such events to develop rules regarding appropriate responses. An event of such magnitude had never really occurred on United States soil; thus, we had very little precedent for determining which counter-actions tend to cause good results. Act utilitarianism, however, allows us to work on figuring out how to deal with new situations. Henceforth, my focus will be on act/welfare utilitarianism. Even after deciding on this as the best sub-theory, there are still disputes regarding the correct way to apply utilitarianism. I will mention two. First, philosophers debate whether there is a difference between doing wrong by doing nothing at all, and doing wrong by actively doing something. Further, if both the action and the inaction yield negative results, one may make only one person unhappy as opposed to a number of people. For example, the only way to make only that one person unhappy might be to take action, whereas inaction would ensure the other people s unhappiness. A second issue involved in determining if an action is right or wrong is the relevance of the persons who will be affected. For example, you may have to act in a way that may harm your mother but is in the best interest of a group of strangers. The basic foundation of utilitarianism says that a person must chose the greatest good, regardless of who the people affected may be, so the mother would be considered just another person. Utilitarians don t all agree with this because they feel that a personal relationship will bias the results. This is something that is bound to happen when using utilitarianism on a personal level, but in terms of 11

13 association with a country or group it can be less of a problem as I will explain later, in Chapter 4. I will be viewing both action and inaction as the same thing in my analysis of the war on terror and actions taken prior to it. The reason for this is that not doing something when one has the ability to do something, does not give people a free pass, especially when in the utilitarian perspective both can lead to unhappiness of different degrees. There will be no priority given to friends and family, even though it may be difficult to do. When giving a priority to someone, we find conflicting answers. If I was to analyze the actions taken after 9/11 with an Americans are more important perspective and compare that with an Al Qaeda is more important perspective, the results will no doubt conflict. In order to give an analysis as unbiased as possible, I must do neither and calculate utility not by considering whom I feel is more important. It is important to note, however, that while it is more or less impossible to change how you view your mother as opposed to a stranger, it is more feasible to do so in terms of America and Al Qaeda. But to clarify, this does not mean that you cannot count the level of happiness you feel in knowing that your mom, for example, has survived. It means that calculating the level of happiness must apply equally to everyone involved. So for every person in your equation, their pain of loss is equal to your pain of loss and their happiness is equal to your happiness. A person may feel a great amount of loss in losing their mother but so would any other person who loses their mother. I will further examine this potential problem for utilitarianism in Chapter 4. There are several ways that utilitarianism can be misunderstood. I will conclude this chapter by discussing an example that illustrates common misconceptions. This will 12

14 help later on when I am applying the theory to the PATRIOT Act and the war on terror. Suppose John is sick with a disease that damages most of his internal organs. With the help of a machine he can live, but he experiences severe pain. While there is a possibility of using various pain relievers, the amount necessary to dull all of the pain would cause death. There is an experimental surgery that can fix the organs and relieve his suffering, but its success rate is unknown and it has a high risk of killing John. There is also no future treatment that could cure him without risk. Keeping John on the machine is very expensive and will only prolong his suffering; however, his family will be very upset and hurt if he dies. His wife must make the decision for John to either get the surgery or stay on the machine. Additionally, John will also have no chance of getting better while his wife will be forced to pay the bills and will have a difficult time doing so. The chances of John dying due to surgery are high, so this prospect causes stress to the wife. However, if the surgery is a success, John will feel normal again. Let us suppose that both the wife and John s family attempt to apply the act/welfare utilitarianism theory. The wife and the family discuss the best action for John, explaining their reasoning in an attempt to convince one another. The family argues that since the surgery will most likely kill John, they would be overwhelmed with sadness because they raised and lived with John all of his life. They realize that being on the machine is painful for him, but they know that while he is on it he will live, and this brings them happiness. Although they know that the wife is burdened, they conclude that since more of them are happy with John being alive--and even the wife is happy with this in some respects that they are correct in their decision to keep him on the machine. They consider the wife s troubles, but in their measurements her unhappiness is not 13

15 significant enough to counterbalance the good of keeping John alive. The wife does not agree with this assessment and explains her analysis to the family. She considers the family and their happiness and how they would be hurt if John were to pass away due to the surgery failing. She also considers that they would be very happy if John were to survive and live pain free. She considers that the family would be happy if John were to remain on the machine, still alive but in pain. She realizes, though, that while the family may be happy for a short time, eventually they would become saddened from seeing John in pain. She considers John s pain and suffering and how much better off he would be if he were no longer in pain. She considers that the surgery, though risky, has the best chances of causing just that. She also considers the money that John s being on the machine costs, and how she bears that burden. She then considers her own pain: She has no freedom due to being at John s side constantly and cannot live her life because of the costs. After considering all of this she decides that the best course of action is to proceed with the surgery. The wife is applying the act/welfare utilitarianism theory correctly to her decision, and the family is not applying it correctly. The family thinks that one must make the most people happy in order to obtain the greatest happiness, so they conclude that John must remain on the machines in order to keep the friends and family happy. The wife realizes, though, that by only considering the number of people, one is misapplying the theory. She examines the problems in more depth and realizes that there are varying degrees of happiness and that as a true welfare/act utilitarian she must consider these degrees and note that while the pleasure of the family/friends will surely occur, it will also be short and based more on desires. Meanwhile, the wife will be forced to deal with 14

16 her own pain in various forms: financial, mental, and the physical pain caused by stress. In essence she would lose happiness, health, and freedom by operating solely on the fact that more people want John to live even while in pain. Utilitarianism is more than a sum of numbers. Since the family does not consider their own potential long-term unhappiness or the varying degrees of happiness involved, they have made some of the more frequent errors that can occur in applying utilitarianism. Even applied correctly in its strongest form, utilitarianism is not without its flaws, as will be demonstrated later in my thesis. However, act/welfare utilitarianism does have various strengths to show that it has good reason to be considered a viable theory. It allows us to calculate the goodness of any action while maintaining a set of guidelines from our previous experiences, and it allows us to consider more then just our desires by focusing on what truly benefits us. Despite any shortcomings, act/welfare utilitarianism, in my view, carries the most acceptable flaws out of all of the different utilitarianism theories. 15

17 Chapter 2: The Actions of September 11 th and America s Response The focus of this chapter is to attempt to sum up the events beginning with September 11 th 2001 until the end of the Iraq War. These events include actions taken by the United States Government and the terrorist cells, as well as the Iraqis in particular Saddam Hussein and his regime. To explain these events, I will use excerpts from the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the PATRIOT Act), the 9/11 Commission reports, and portions from a well done timeline of the war in Iraq from a website known as finchfactory.com. On September 11 th 2001 at 8:46 a.m., when an airplane flew into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, gallons of fuel poured out and fires began to spread. At 9:03 the South Tower of the World Trade Center was hit. The result has been forever imprinted in our minds. Smoke and fire rose from the buildings and people jumped out of the windows, perhaps trying to avoid the fire or perhaps to ensure that their death would be instantaneous. Whatever the reason, the nation watched in horror as it happened. People ran from the falling steel and glass, and in a matter of 90 minutes the buildings collapsed from the strain. Firefighters, World Trade Center workers, police officers, tourists, and others around the buildings were killed and injured. At 9:37 a.m., yet another plane crashed into the west wall of the Pentagon. Then, at 10:03 a.m., a plane that was supposed to hit the United States Capitol or the White House, thankfully never did; it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The death toll for all of these acts was around 2,981 people, including 19 Arab terrorists (National Commission, 2004). 16

18 When people recall the 9/11 events, there remains a pang of fear and sadness, sadness that this happened to so many innocent people, that the nation had to suffer such a blow. Fear, though, is what mostly prevails: fear that it could happen again, fear that they could be in the area it happens, and fear that someone they love would have to deal with such an act. This fear inhibits many people from flying freely, traveling to areas considered targets, enjoying major holidays, and in some cases from living to their full potential. The world mourned with the citizens of America. Citizens of other countries helped the nation and prayed for us. Such feelings as the loss and sadness felt world wide demanded action. The nation looked to the President to carry out that action. U.S. citizens sought justice and the ability to safely walk down the streets again. The government was forced to act quickly and give the citizens of America several answers. One was the PATRIOT Act; another was Homeland Security; and the third was the war on terror. The government beefed up airport security, assured people that police were patrolling the streets, and hunted down anyone with possible connections to what happened. The nation acted with purpose and conviction. As the truth of how the terrorist acts were conducted was discovered, efforts were made to stop terrorists from ever doing this to us again. Investigations exposed what happened and action was taken based on the emotions of fear and sadness (Timeline, 2005). The initial examination revealed several key elements, and the country learned several frightening things. On September 11 th nineteen hijackers managed to make their way through airport security and get aboard airplanes with weapons, and they did so in such an efficient manner that all 19 of them boarded their intended planes. The United States had no plans for what to do when planes themselves become weapons against us. 17

19 The only reason the terrorists missed one of their targets was because people on one of the planes realized what was going to happen and did something about it. The military enacted its shoot down plan 28 minutes after the plane went down in Pennsylvania. We were defenseless; and the defenses we did have had failed. These failures included inadequate terror watch lists, an inability to note false information on visas, an inability to detect doctored documents, and failure to follow up on information that we did have. Once we learned of these inadequacies, Americans in general were outraged and demanded that these flaws be fixed (National Commission, 2004). The answer to this demand came in several ways. The first was to improve our ability to communicate, focusing on key areas where the communication was most needed. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had a good amount of information which they had gotten from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The problem was that the FAA had to communicate through several levels to get the information to NORAD. Thus, the President couldn t contact the proper officials in order to act on any information received, the National Guard had no idea where and what they could do as they scrambled, and police and firemen did the best they could with no information (National Commission, 2004). Recognition of this lack of coordination led to the development of the Department of Homeland Security, which was first proposed by the administration on June 5, 2002 and whose bill was passed for development on November 26, 2002 (Timeline, 2005). The main purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to create one large agency that will allow a fluid exchange of information among several key organizations. These organizations include the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the U.S. 18

20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The idea behind this level of communication and putting these agencies and many more under the same umbrella (both the FBI and the CIA maintain separate operations but still communicate with the Department of Homeland Security) is for the government itself to have one major agency that can work together. Then it can act in our best interest in preventing such an act as 9/11 from happening again and to allow the citizens of the United States to be informed of the current status of our information. The agency was not necessarily an idea many people in the government support, but recognition of the inability to communicate the information that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks allowed the Department of Homeland Security to be created (National Commission, 2004, pp ). Other factors, such as the anthrax scare, also played parts in the development of Homeland Security. This was one of the answers given to the American public to respond to their fear. The Department of Homeland Security would put a threat level alert into effect, which would tell the public if there was any danger. This threat level would also mobilize local governments to act in ways such as increasing police in specific areas and updating fire departments and medical personnel. In addition to communication problems addressed by the creation of the Homeland Security agency, Americans were concerned by the fact that 19 people from various parts of the world had managed to collect a large sum of money, learn how to fly airplanes, figure out our security measures, and hit three out of four of their intended targets. This outraged many Americans because it occurred right under our noses, so to 19

21 speak. First, two of the Al Qaeda operatives managed to get into California where they then began looking for Muslims who had similar feelings and desires. These two operatives moved around and settled in San Diego under their true names. One of the strengths of terrorist organizations is that they operate on the concept of having many cells with a good number of people involved. That way if one cell should fail another would rise up in its place. During the summer of 2000, three members of the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell got into the United States to begin pilot training. The cell originally had four members. One had not succeeded in entering the United States, so the remaining members of the cell searched for a fourth member. This cell found the fourth member and continued training, following a plan that had been set up by early 1999, called the plane operations (National Commission, 2004). The American government, from 1998 to 2001, had been focusing on removing Al Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden from power but was unable to get significant support to act aggressively and so tried mostly diplomatic maneuvers. During that time, members of the Hamburg cell and the recruits working on the plan were able to study publicly available information on the security measures of the aviation industry. Two of the 19 members were on the State Departments tip-off list that warns of terrorists; the rest were not, or they only triggered extra screening via the CAPPS system (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). This system only ensures that the checked baggage does not board the plane until the passengers do and does not always include only those who are known terrorists. The Al Qaeda members, even those on the tip-off list, all managed to get through security with little problem. They managed to bring aboard box cutters and mace. They were able to get by metal detectors that would only go off if a 20

22 passenger carried enough metal to be the equivalent of a.22 caliber hand gun. They then boarded the planes and hijacked them (National Commission, 2004). The 19 men had money totaling approximately $500,000 to carry out these attacks. They opened accounts under their own names with passports they had purchased in other countries and were inconspicuous among most average Americans. The source of their money is still an unknown (National Commission, 2004). The fact that these 19 were able to do all this prompted the PATRIOT Act, which gives more powers to police, both local and federal, to conduct searches and detain suspected terrorists. It also allows for a level of electronic surveillance. The PATRIOT Act was approved by George W. Bush on October 26 th In general, it allows for a much easier time in searching for terrorists or people who have ties to terrorists, in order to prevent another 9/11 from occurring. One provision in section 203 of the PATRIOT Act, allows local law enforcement to share information regarding foreign intelligence with the national intelligence community and immigration community. Another important provision is section 905, which requires the Attorney General (with some exceptions) to share with the Director of Central Intelligence foreign intelligence obtained through the Department of Justice. These two provisions allowed for the New York U.S. Attorney s office to share a large amount of information that had been gained from the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the USS Cole bombing (Electronic Privacy, 2005). The PATRIOT Act, through section 218, also opened the doors for information to be given to local law enforcement from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which had previously not been available to them unless foreign intelligence had been the 21

23 primary goal. This would mean that if there was a significant reason for local law enforcement agencies to request information from the national intelligence community, they would be able to get it. This is different from the past, when local law enforcement had to go through a lot of red tape to get foreign intelligence. The PATRIOT Act, in general, allows for much better communication between intelligence officials and local and federal law enforcement. In other sections of the PATRIOT Act we see that the tools given to the law enforcement officials have been improved to the extent where officials can wire tap, view s, view internet usage, and view public subscription services, all before formally charging and beginning an investigation (Electronic Privacy, 2005). There are some sections of the PATRIOT Act that worry people, such as section 215, which allows officials the right to look at an individual s business and non business records, membership in religious organizations, and library borrowing records. It should be noted, though, that officials have yet to use this section when looking for possible suspects. The biggest problem is that there are misunderstandings and confusion as to what is allowed, even by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This has demanded more training and shows a genuine desire to not trample the civil liberties of honest law abiding citizens (Electronic Privacy, 2005). The PATRIOT Act was enacted and was followed by the PATRIOT Act II. This Act expanded the powers of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Along with allowing secret arrests and detainments of prisoners, it also allowed deportation of people if they were found to be affiliated with organizations or political groups that posed a threat. People protested and were able to prevent the expansion of powers for the law enforcement officials. In the end, though, the PATRIOT Act was enacted and later on 22

24 most of the powers that were supposed to be used with the PATRIOT Act II were implemented via the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations (Victory Act). This was done with minor legal process and caused some Americans to become very concerned that their legal rights would be trampled (Bennhold, 2004). The PATRIOT Act may help catch terrorists here in the states, which would surely help many Americans feel safe, but most Americans believe that the plan to use the planes on our country was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden and his followers. For that reason, we have attempted to disrupt his funding and his influence, and also to bring the fight to his home. First, the President had his Cabinet and the intelligence community investigate which countries may be helping Bin Laden and his followers and who might possibly harbor them should they try to flee. A few countries came up in this discussion: Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan, with particular focus on Afghanistan s Taliban regime. By September 13 th of 2001, Pakistan had agreed to help the United States and, after several meetings, the idea was that the United States would attack the Taliban, since most of the Taliban forces were stationed in remote areas in Afghanistan. This was to show that America would fight back against terrorism. The United States first gave the Taliban an ultimatum that stated that they would have hours to cease all actions and disband. If the Taliban refused to comply, the United States, along with its coalition, would use all resources against them. By September 17 th 2001, President Bush and his advisors had developed several strategies and plans in case the ultimatum did not work (Timeline, 2005). Bush met with Treasury Secretary Paul O Neil to seize all of Bin Laden s, Al Qaeda s and the Taliban s monetary funds and assets. By September 18 th plans were in 23

25 the works to seize the money and assets. Secretary of State Colin Powell had contacted 58 people with similar positions in different countries who had offered aid, if necessary, if the United States acted against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. By then we had begun strategic strikes on anti-aircraft guns and kept warning Al Qaeda and the Taliban that their time was running out. On October 1 st 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom was officially approved and the coalition began putting troops where they were necessary and continued destroying the anti-aircraft guns. The coalition gave the Taliban six more days to comply with the ultimatum, and, on October 7 th 2001, launched attacks after Al Qaeda and the Taliban refused to comply. During this time, the anthrax scares began and the Taliban offered to ship Bin Laden to a neutral country in exchange for a cease of the hostilities. Throughout October, Saddam Hussein made many public comments telling the world that the United States was getting payback and that they deserved the attacks perpetrated on them. On November 27 th 2001, Iraq said that it did not want the United Nations, at the request of George W. Bush, to search for weapons of mass destruction (Timeline, 2005). On December 21 st Richard Reed attempted to blow up American Airlines flight 63 and was foiled, sparking fear in the American public that the terrorist threat is still a problem. By January 1 st 2002 the Taliban had been defeated but we still had not captured Bin Laden; that same day Iraq denied any involvement with Al Qaeda. On February 13 th Iraq said it would not allow inspectors to return to Iraq and on the 24 th the United Nations told the United States that it would be unwise to launch an attack on Iraq. On April 4 th an Iraqi defector told Vanity Fair magazine that Iraq was developing long-range missiles 24

26 that could carry weapons of mass destruction. This led to more animosity between the United States and Iraq and subsequently would lead to war with Iraq. (Timeline, 2005) As time went on Iraq continuously denied making weapons of mass destruction and the United States continually pushed for Iraq to allow inspections. The United Nations continued to oppose any war against Iraq, pushing for the United States to check the claims that Iraq was building weapons. By August, as the number of troops around the border increased and it appeared that the United States (and those of the coalition that supported it) would be going to war, Iraq started letting American journalists into the Iraqi area to search the suspected weapons sites. But bombings and attacks continued in response to Iraqi violations of the no-fly zones. On September 12 th 2002, during an address to the United Nations, Bush made a case for war against Iraq. On September 16 th Iraq, under great pressure from the possible war with the coalition, finally allowed the United Nations inspectors unconditional allowance to search for weapons of mass destruction (Timeline, 2005). On September 23 rd the military handed President Bush a detailed plan on how to remove Hussein from power. The United States asked for new rules regarding the United Nations inspections on Iraq. These rules called for inspection of all sites, military bases, factories, and Saddam Hussein s Presidential Palaces under the threat of military action and without the backing of the United Nations. Iraq rejected these conditions but allowed the inspectors to visit some of the sites. The United Nations decided not to accept the United States resolution, but was hesitant, and because of this President Bush got approval of congress to go to war even without United Nations support. France and Russia both disapproved of the proposed resolution from the United States. The United 25

27 States revised the resolution and removed the terms that would result in military action. On November 8 th 2002 the United Nations approved the revised resolution and gave Iraq seven days to accept it. The plan was that once the resolution was accepted, Iraq would have 30 days to declare all its programs involving weapons of mass destruction. The plan also gave the United Nation inspectors 45 days to continue their inspections, meaning the inspectors would have until December 24 th Iraq accepted the resolution and the searches commenced. Even though Iraq accepted the resolution, the United States continued prepare for war by building command centers, and the hostilities between the Iraqis and the coalition continued. Even though the inspectors were still searching and Iraq seemed to be cooperating with the United States, President Bush officially declared on December 4 th 2002 that if Saddam and Iraq did not comply or if the information from the inspection was not credible and complete, the coalition would disarm Saddam (Timeline, 2005). On December 7 th 2002 the Iraqi government gave the information regarding any plans for development of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations in compliance with the resolution rules. Upon reading the 12,000 page document, both the United Nations and the United States declared that the information was obsolete and that the document left out several chemical developments. The coalition believed this document to be a material breach and did not accept the document as a complete description of Iraq s capabilities. On January 16 th 2003, the inspectors found 12 warheads designed to carry chemical weapons that were not included in the 12,000 page document. On January 19 th 2003 the United States offered Saddam Hussein immunity 26

28 from prosecution if he left Iraq. According to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, this was an attempt at avoiding war (Timeline, 2005). On January 28 th the United Nations requested more time to complete a thorough investigation. A day later, President Bush stated during a State of the Union address that for America s safety and the safety of the world, the coalition would disarm Iraq if Saddam did not fully disarm. By February the coalition had enough troops set up near Iraq to start a war at any time. During the same month, France, Russia, and Germany told the United Nations that they did not support war and offered a counter proposal that asked for more time to look for the weapons of mass destruction. During this time certain weapons were found in Iraq, and France and Germany urged Iraq to destroy them in order to avoid war. Saddam appeared on CBS on February 26 th 2003, saying that Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and would not allow them any refuge. Saddam also said that he would not destroy the weapons. On the same day, Bush declared that only the full disarmament of Iraq would stop the possibility of war. After months of continuous threats against Iraq to totally disarm, the United States pulled out all non-essential embassy personnel from Kuwait, Syria, and Israel on March 17 th, and the next day Bush gave the Hussein Regime 48 hours to leave Iraq. The same day Iraq destroyed some of its weapons, but not enough to deter the decisions made by the coalition. On December 20 th 2003 Bush declared that the United States was at war with Iraq and that the war would end only when Iraq was fully disarmed and the Hussein regime had stepped down (Timeline, 2005). At the time of writing this paper, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and we have yet to find a significant amount of conventional (long range rockets, surface 27

29 to air defense) weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The United States soldiers death toll is more than a thousand, and some of the countries that were part of the coalition have withdrawn troops. Now, as well as prior to the beginning of the war, there have been several rallies opposing the war. While America for the most part supported the war, we did not have United Nations support and many countries did not support America s plans. There have been innocent casualties and any American, or any person whose country is part of the coalition, is at risk in Iraq. While we have removed the main source of power, we have not been able to quell the rebellions of certain citizens in Iraq. A new government has been put in place to replace the regime; it is a democratic government. As of yet we have not put an end to the fighting and terrorist bombings in Iraq. 28