
In recognition of the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School faculty share their insights into how 9/11 has impacted the law, particularly in their areas of expertise:
Henry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy Anita L. Allen:
Quattrone Center Research Fellow Seema Saifee:
As the nation honors the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks, whose images remain burned in our collective memories, human rights advocates, everyday citizens and (hopefully) government officials reflect on how our nation responded to those attacks, a response that has burned our legacy.
The United States’ response did not end there. As the longest war in American history has now reached its end, the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan calls into question the legal basis for the continued “law of war” detentions in Guantanamo. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, using a “global war on terror” frame, President Bush asserted the unilateral power to capture anyone from anywhere in the world and hold them indefinitely without any legal or judicial review. Nearly 800 Muslim men were kidnapped abroad, largely by bounty hunters, many far away from any battlefield, and sent to Guantanamo. The vast majority would never be charged with any crime. The highest levels of the U.S. government authorized the use of torture, in violation of international human rights and domestic laws, as the CIA began a secret detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition program whose “enhanced interrogation techniques” included “rectal feeding.” Insiders who later exposed the torture and once-secret surveillance programs (risking their careers and futures) were aggressively prosecuted, while those who inflicted and authorized them continue to evade accountability. After the men imprisoned without charge or trial in Guantanamo won the constitutional right to challenge the legality of their detention in Article III courts, and over 60% of the habeas petitions heard on the merits were granted by the district court, habeas “winners” remained confined when the federal appeals court decided that it had no power to remedy even an unlawful detention. When President Obama was inaugurated, his administration would continue to defend this holding. And, 20 years later, the embattled September 11 military commissions, convened to prosecute five men actually charged in connection with the 9-11 attacks, have yet to produce a single trial.
As we reflect on the past 20 years, we are challenged to re-imagine how our nation might better have responded to the September 11 attacks than through the reflexive use of suspicionless surveillance, bombs, torture and cages. It is impossible to capture the human, moral, and democratic costs.