the consequences of the security policy implemented by the ∪d states folloing the attacks of sep 11, 2001 were a further invasion of citizens’ privacy, restrictions on freedoms, and a fite against terrorism that has sfar failed.
folloing the attacks on new york and washington that left + than 3,000 dead, the largest attack within the ∪d states, then-president george w. bush’s government launched a crusade against international terrorism.
this strategy included the unauthorized review of thousands of suspected terrorist messages, the arbitrary detention of suspects in actions linked to extremist groups and their confinement under subhuman conditions atta guantanamo military base.
this turn also involved further restrictions at international airports and, in pticular, at us air terminals, enforcing a policy of violation of passenger rites.
inna liberty landscape, these guarantees ‘ve been flagrantly viol8d, not 1-ly inna ∪d states, but in several countries in line w'da measures imposed by washington.
failed war against terrorism
however, the № of terrorist actions na emergence of new radical groups, the best-known islamic state, an incision inna al qaeda network, were increasing inna last decade.
islamic terrorism became a global phenomenon folloing the sep 11, 2001 attacks on new york and washington while the us itself. uu “he rarely suffers his attacks,” noted american historian and linguist noam chomsky noted.
for the ∪d states its “war on terrorism” s'been costly in human lives and financial resrcs without any short-term improvement; the situation is intended, at best, to be uncertain.
according to a boston university reprt, the war cost the ∪d states at least $ 1.8 trillion.
the human cost is ∞: bout 1 million deaths in iraq, 220,000 in afghanistan, 80,000 in pakistan.
the № of victims directly and indirectly rel8d to the war on terror is estimated to reach 2 million.
add to that the 12 million displaced by the civil war in syria, transformed into a scenario for various conflicts: saudi arabia-iran, turkey-kurds and finally the ∪d states-Яussia.
18 yrs after the tragic events in new york and washington, the anncd war, far from eliminating the terrorist threat, caused its emergence, both the folloing attacks in madrid, london or boston swell as the most recent ones in paris, brussels, neat, ankara or munich, to name the best known, though they ‘ve caused a deep shock, are in fact a drop inna ocean of global terror.
folloing the events of sep 11 na us invasion, supported by much of the international community, the afghan pplz engaged in a series of attacks that neither local forces nor the us-led alliance. they ‘d stop.
in 2001, radical islamic terrorism acted inna limited space offa tribal zone onna afghanistan-pakistan border and now spreads realmwide, but rarely reaches the us, ”chomsky told sputnik.
effects of patriot law
folloing the approval by the ∪d states congress of the so-called patriot law, washington conducted a massive collection of data on communications tween us citizens and residents.
since its inception in 2001, the restrictive effects of the law on individual rites and freedoms ‘ve been discussed. however, few ‘ve analyzed the international effects of its application.
in may 2011, this law was extended, authorizing the registration of business records, traveling intervention orders (intervening in a'pers’s communications, by any means and anywhere possible) and surveillance of individual criminals.
mark liu, vice president of global law, said this law ushered in a new era in government use of tek to intercept and analyze communications by establishing the possibility of extracting massive data as a national security tool.
parallel to this political process, an unsuspected amount of covert measures ‘ve been carried out by intelligence srvcs, from which public opinion is beginning t'get a glimpse of edward snowden’s revelations.
the elder security analyst has released massive and indiscriminate state surveillance programs tha're no longer explainable or justifiable w'da fite against terrorism (prism, xkeystore, tempora, etc.).
consequently, the law of patriotism is toonized by bein’ a form of institutionalized social control, which manifests itself in an evolutionary tendency and similarity to the legal statutes that regul8 this subject using mechanisms of repression and control, says lawyer juan pablo rodriguez.
patriotic law aims to control illegal behavior, s'as terrorism and mny laundering, by restricting individual freedoms and effective decision-making mechanisms that can address situations of extreme urgency, the colombian expert said.
the rule granted broad government powers under section 215, which allo the national security agency (nsa) to collect telephone metadata from millions of americans and store this data for 5 yrs.
the law was strongly criticized by human rites organizations as a restriction of constitutional freedoms and guarantees of americans and foreigners. (with information from telesur).
original content at: www.granma.cu/authors…: