The events surrounding the September 11 attacks on the United States of America have often been shrouded in a cloud of controversy and mystery, with no one individual seemingly able to apprehend the “true” details of the terror attack. Many proposed theories have been brought forth, the most widely accepted being that of co-ordinated attacks by terrorist organisation “Al-Qaeda”. “9/11”, as the event is commonly known, is simply one of many global terrorism attacks that have seemingly consumed the contemporary world. Thus, it is up to the acts and responsibilities of governments and legal organisations to undertake action in attempt to achieve justice and equality throughout the world, ensuring the safety of all people. Although, it is clear that there are many so-called “grey areas” in the legal issues surrounding this event, this essay will seek to clarify any misconceptions that were misconstrued by media-related sources, in terms of how justice WAS achieved post September 11.
After the world as we knew it took a dramatic change on the 11th of September 2001, many feared for the worst. Initially denying any direct involvement in the co-ordinated attacks; Osama Bin Laden, leading the terrorist group “Al Qaeda”, later confirmed that they were indeed responsible for the attacks. This assault on the United States of America was the largest in modern history. Al-Qaeda, through Osama Bin Laden, cited the United States’ support of Israel, the presence of American militant forces in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as the key motives behind the attacks. Making a public statement about the cause, Bin Laden said "we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."
As such, many concepts and preventative measures, henceforth referred to as mechanisms, have been, currently are, and are intended to be, implemented into the problematic array of issues that were discovered post-9/11. Relevant to the attacks, these are clearly intended to increase the ability to achieve justice both in the legal system, national security, and in the safety of citizens throughout the world. In direct response to these attacks, the United States of America’s government launched the aptly named “War on Terror” initiative, involving attacks on, and the “invasion” of, Afghanistan aimed primarily at disposing of the Taliban, which in fact harboured Al Qaeda at the time. With the long-term goal of finding Bin Laden and executing him, many countries worldwide had begun to strengthen anti-terrorism legislation, and expand the powers of law enforcement agencies, particularly those concerning acts of terrorism.
However, it was the legal responses from a multitude of nations across the globe that saw true action come into place. As aforementioned, many countries strengthened, if not created, anti-terrorism legislation within the nations. Specifically, notable examples include the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act (the nation’s first), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in Britain, and the Terrorism Suppression 2002 in New Zealand. Working to clarifying any doubt in the legal system, one of the most interesting legal responses involved the nation of Germany. As many of the 9/11 terrorists had allegedly resided in Germany in an attempt to use advantageous liberal asylum policies, the German government enacted a considerable amount of law reform. The first of two anti-terrorism packages sought to remove the loopholes in the wording of acts which allowed terrorists to live and earn an income freely; whereas the second of the two sought to address the dire need of the effectiveness and communication of intelligence and law enforcement.
In meeting, the NATO council decided that, under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, the attack on the United States of America was in fact recognised as being an attack on all other NATO nations. This was in fact the first...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document