How The September 11 Attacks Reshaped American Law And Targeted Muslim Communities

A photo showing the collapsed portion of The Pentagon during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is often defined as the use of violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological goals. It emerges from political conflict and long standing disagreements, largely shaped by foreign policy decisions and global inequalities. In the years after the September 11 Attacks (9/11), the United States took swift action to address terrorism, which while commendable in some respects, were ultimately detrimental in others.

In the early 1990s, international terrorist attacks aimed at the United States were carried out with a political ideology attached to them. Terrorist cells and organizations based in Middle Eastern countries were the primary concern for U.S. officials. American citizens were the targets of violent acts for a multitude of reasons: America’s support for Israel, the presence of American troops in the Arabian Peninsula after the Kuwait invasion, and its overall imperialistic practices. By the end of the 1990s and into the early 2000s, terrorism shifted as secular and political movements declined and Islamist groups reframed political grievances with the United States as a global religious struggle, with the deaths of U.S. citizens being part of their divine mission.

On September 11, 2001, terrorists linked to the Islamic extremism group Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of the planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which collapsed after they were set ablaze by jet fuel. This enveloped the city in smoke and dust for days following the incident. The third plane destroyed the western wing of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers fought back against the hijackers, preventing them from reaching their target and ending the lives of hundreds more civilians. Nearly three thousand lives were lost in these attacks, including those of passengers, workers, firefighters, and police officers. It was the largest terrorist attack the United States had ever seen, and its aftermath would encompass major changes in security and how immigrants were treated in America.

9/11 didn’t just affect the families of those killed in the towers and the citizens who survived the horrific act. In the days and weeks following 9/11, Arab-Americans and immigrants who “looked” Arab or Muslim were the victims of hate-speech, bullying, and violent crimes. American citizens were terrified because no one knew when or where the next attack, if one came at all, would be. No one knew who the terrorist could be, but many Americans thought anyone who fit the physical description would suffice. The fear Americans felt and the suspicion of Arab individuals became reflected in new laws and systems developed during the War on Terror.

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is short for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This act all but nullified previous laws and agreements which restricted how the federal government could conduct surveillance and collect personal data. Understandably, this act added computer and terrorist crimes to the list of offenses for which law enforcement officials could seek a court order to conduct eavesdropping through wiretapping, web monitoring, and trap-and-trace devices. These means of surveillance were beneficial for identifying and arresting actual terrorists, but soon, officials would end up using these tools to erode the civil liberties of Arabs who weren’t associated with terrorist organizations.

A photo showing people protesting against Islamophobia.

In the months following 9/11, mass detentions and interrogations became common. Thousands of immigrants, particularly men of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, were questioned or held without formal charges. Many were detained for extended periods of time without access to legal counsel and suffered physical and verbal abuse by law enforcement officers. Attorney General John Ashcroft would go on to rule that undocumented immigrants could be detained indefinitely, without bond, if evidence proved that their release would be a threat to national security. This wasn’t overseen thoroughly and immigrants who weren’t associated with any terrorist groups were held for dozens of days.

Nearly one year after the USA PATRIOT Act, the government introduced the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). This program required non-citizen immigrants from primarily Muslim-predominant countries to undergo special registration, fingerprinting, and interviews when entering or exiting the United States. All males sixteen years of age or older were forced to register and risked deportation if they didn’t regularly check in with immigration personnel. Though it was positioned as a counterterrorism measure, NSEERS failed to produce an adequate number of terrorism-related convictions, and it was discontinued in 2011 under the Obama administration.

The Military Commissions Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, authorized military tribunals for individuals labeled “unlawful enemy combatants.” This law applied primarily to noncitizens and sharply limited their legal rights, including access to habeas corpus. In effect, the act created a separate legal system that disproportionately impacted Muslim men detained during the War on Terror. By allowing justice to be decided based on citizenship, the law institutionalized discrimination within the legal framework. 

While these measures were instrumental in increasing the security of the United States and the safety of its citizens, they also contributed to discrimination and the targeting of marginalized communities. The responses of the government highlight the fine line between upholding public safety and the violation of civil liberties, showing how fear can shape policy in ways that directly and indirectly affect certain groups. It is crucial for government officials and citizens alike to recognize that in targeting innocent civilians to advance their anti-terrorism agenda, they risk becoming the very kind of perpetrators they claim to oppose.