Revisiting the September 11 Attacks: From Reactions to Human Rights Violations

Sahar Barati Borujeni

PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan

A Retrospective of the Attacks
On September 11, 2001, nineteen militants affiliated with the extremist organization al-Qaeda executed a series of coordinated suicide attacks on U.S. soil by hijacking four commercial airliners. Two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third hit the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the fourth crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. As the deadliest terrorist act in U.S. history, these attacks resulted in nearly 3,000 casualties (Iqbal, 2019).

Consequences for the United States
The September 11 attacks had far-reaching implications for the United States, prompting the adoption of comprehensive measures aimed at countering terrorism and reshaping its domestic and foreign policies. In direct response to the attacks, the U.S. government established the Department of Homeland Security, enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, and launched the “War on Terror,” which included extensive military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (Shaffer & Kaplan, 2023). The economic impact was similarly profound, with billions of dollars in damage to property and infrastructure in New York, leading to a significant downturn in the stock market and a subsequent recession (Rose & Blomberg, 2010).

United Nations Security Council Resolutions
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United Nations intensified its counterterrorism efforts, marking a pivotal shift in international legal norms and state obligations regarding terrorism. The key UN measures in the fight against terrorism following 9/11 include:

• Resolution 1368 (2001): Passed shortly after the attacks, this resolution formally recognized terrorism as a threat to international peace and security. It called upon member states to undertake necessary measures, including the apprehension of suspects and the enactment of counterterrorism legislation (Irina, 2017).
• Resolution 1373 (2001): This resolution mandated that all UN member states classify terrorism as a crime, prevent their territories from being used for terrorist activities, enhance cooperation in information exchange and law enforcement, and adopt measures to combat the financing of terrorism (Scheppele, 2004).
• International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism: This convention created a comprehensive legal framework obliging states to align their domestic laws with international standards against terrorism. As a result, around 140 countries enacted new anti-terrorism laws, underscoring the significant influence of UN initiatives on national legal systems.
• Establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC): This committee oversees the implementation of Security Council resolutions and assists countries in building their counterterrorism capacities.

Implications for Civil Liberties and Human Rights
The global human rights landscape has undergone a significant transformation since September 11 due to the “War on Terror” paradigm and the widespread adoption of counterterrorism measures. These changes have had profound consequences for civil liberties worldwide.
In the wake of 9/11, numerous countries enacted stringent anti-terrorism laws that expanded governmental powers to investigate, detain, and prosecute individuals suspected of terrorism. This legal framework has been widely criticized for infringing on civil liberties and human rights. In the decade following the attacks, these laws were often used to justify increased state repression, including arbitrary detentions and torture, particularly in countries with weak democratic institutions (Adelaiye & Fadason, 2024).

Moreover, the post-9/11 era has seen a rise in state-sanctioned violence against dissenting voices and marginalized groups. Governments have leveraged the narrative of national security to suppress political opposition and restrict freedoms of expression and assembly. This trend is particularly evident in regions where authoritarian regimes have used counterterrorism rhetoric to legitimize their repressive actions (Simbulan, 2002).
Additionally, the climate of fear and suspicion engendered by these attacks has adversely affected refugees and asylum seekers. The fear of deportation, arrest, and discrimination has significantly impacted their mental health and coping mechanisms (Piwowarczyk & Keane, 2007).
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been pivotal in defending the rights of individuals affected by counterterrorism policies. These organizations have actively documented human rights violations linked to the “War on Terror,” including unlawful detentions, torture, and extrajudicial killings. Through reports, campaigns, and public advocacy, they have raised awareness and exerted pressure on governments to comply with international human rights standards (Yoon, 2003).
Furthermore, these NGOs have played a crucial role in promoting adherence to international human rights standards. They have engaged with international bodies like the United Nations to influence policy debates and ensure that human rights considerations are integrated into counterterrorism frameworks. Initiatives such as the Berlin Declaration on Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Combating Terrorism, spearheaded by the International Commission of Jurists, reflect the concerted efforts of NGOs to establish guiding principles on the intersection of counterterrorism measures and human rights.

Conclusion
In sum, the global human rights situation in the post-9/11 era reflects a concerning trend toward increased repression under the guise of security. While the imperative to combat terrorism is undeniable, the methods employed by many governments raise serious ethical and legal concerns. The central challenge remains to strike a balance between national security interests and the protection of human rights.

References

• Adelaiye, S., & Fadason, D. W. (2024). Counterterrorism laws and state repression in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 17(2), 406–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2024.2351295
• Irina, I. (2017). Reaccia ONU faaa de atacurile de la 11 Septembrie. Rezoluuia CS ONU 1368 (2001) (The reaction of the UN at the attacks on September 11. The Resolution of the CS UN 1368 (2001)). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2916596
• Rose, A. Z., & Blomberg, S. B. (2010). Total Economic Consequences of Terrorist Attacks: Insights from 9/11. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-8597.1189
• Scheppele, K. L. (2004). Other People’s PATRIOT Acts: Europe’s Response to September 11. Political Science.
• Simbulan, R. G. (2002). The real threats to national security and constitutional rights: the Philippines after September 11, 2001. Political Science. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/42062/1/Simbulan.pdf
• Yoon, J. H. (2003). A critical overview of international law with regard to the problem of terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-18151
• Iqbal, M. (2019). The incident of September 11(2001) & its Socio-Political implications on Pakistan: Political Science, Education, 37, 37–51. http://al-idah.szic.pk/index.php/al-idah/article/download/196/268
• Piwowarczyk, L. A., & Keane, T. M. (2007). Impact of September 11 on refugees and those seeking asylum. Transcultural Psychiatry, 44(4), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461507083897
• Shaffer, R., & Kaplan, J. (2023). The legacy of 9/11: a retrospective. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 18(4), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2023.2234923