Society

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 70–79 | Cite as

The Fear of Counterterrorism: Surveillance and Civil Liberties Since 9/11

Global Society

Abstract

In the post-9/11 era, claims can repeatedly be heard that counterterrorism and related surveillance practices involve illegitimate invasions of privacy, free speech, and other violations of civil liberties. This puzzling theme of a fear of surveillance is echoed in both the relevant scholarly literature and civil liberties activism. We analyze the contemporary discourse on surveillance and civil liberties in confrontation with reports on empirical cases of claims of abuse that are made against surveillance and intelligence activities. We argue that these civil liberties claims are not only a function of the incidence of actual violations, but are also a reflection of a civil liberties culture and an accompanying fear of counterterrorism and surveillance. Allegations of civil liberties violations in the post-9/11 era, therefore, do not have a wholly justified basis in the reality of surveillance practices, but should instead also be viewed as a manifestation of certain cultural sensitivities related to privacy rights and personal liberties.

Keywords

Surveillance Counterterrorism Civil liberties September 11 

Further Reading

  1. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Website of the American Civil Liberties Union. Available online: http://www.aclu.org/.
  2. ACLU. 2003. Justice Department Report Outlines Rights Violations Under PATRIOT. Available online: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/16802prs20030721.html.
  3. Archibold, R. C. 2006. Wait Ends for Father and Son Exiled by FBI Terror Inquiry. The New York Times, 2 October, 10.Google Scholar
  4. Armas, G. C. 2007. FBI chief: Patriot Act Ruling Misguided. NewsOK. November 7, 2007. Available online: http://newsok.com/fbi-chief-patriot-act-ruling-misguided/article/3165986#axzz2CPXCH02d.
  5. Associated Press. 2006. ACLU Withdraws Lawsuit Challenging Patriot Act. The Washington Post, 29 October, A10.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, K., Haggerty, K., & Lyon, D. (Eds.). 2012. Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bowman, K., & Rugg, A. 2013. What Do Americans Think of NSA Surveillance? American Enterprise Institute, AEIdeas. Available online: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/what-do-americans-think-of-nsa-surveillance/.
  8. Browning, D. 2007. Judge Denies Terrorism Suspect’s Coercion Claim. Star Tribune, 6 June, 4B.Google Scholar
  9. Contemporary Sociology. 2007. A Symposium on Surveillance Studies. Contemporary Sociology, 36(2), 107–130.Google Scholar
  10. Deflem, M. (Ed.). 2008. Surveillance and Governance: Crime Control and Beyond. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  11. Deflem, M. 2010. The Policing of Terrorism: Organizational and Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Denniston, L. 2003. Arab Groups in US File Lawsuit Seeking to Curb Patriot Act. The Boston Globe, 31 July, A3.Google Scholar
  13. Doherty, C. 2013. Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era. Pew Research Center. Available online: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/balancing-act-national-security-and-civil-liberties-in-post-911-era/.
  14. Dunér, B. 2005. Disregard for Security: The Human Rights Movement and 9/11. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17(1–2), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durkheim, E. (1893) 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Website. The Electronic Frontier Foundation website. Available online: http://www.eff.org/.
  17. Eggen, D. 2004a. Coalition Seeks FBI Files on Protest Groups. The Washington Post, 3 December, p. A03.Google Scholar
  18. Eggen, D. 2004b. Key part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional. The Washington Post, 30 September, A16.Google Scholar
  19. Eggen, D. 2005. Protesters Subjected to ‘Pretext Interviews’. The Washington Post, 18 May, A04.Google Scholar
  20. Eggen, D. 2006. Retaliation Case of Arab Specialist at FBI Advances. The Washington Post, 18 July, A03.Google Scholar
  21. EPIC Website. The Electronic Privacy Information Center website. Available online: http://epic.org/.
  22. EPIC. 2002. Paying For Big Brother: A Review of the Proposed FY2003 Budget for The Department of Justice. EPIC website. Available online: http://epic.org/reports/paying_for_bb.pdf.
  23. Factcheck.org. 2004. ACLU Ad on ‘Sneak-And-Peek’ Searches: Overblown. Available online: http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html.
  24. Gallup. 2013. Civil liberties. Gallup website. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx. Accessed 10 July 2013.
  25. Geli, E., & Perez, L. 2006. FBI Ends Use of Student Financial Files. USC Daily Trojan, 20 September.Google Scholar
  26. Gharib, A. 2007. Al-Arian Remains in Prison, Despite Lack Of Guilty Verdict. Inter Press Service, 20 December.Google Scholar
  27. Glater, J. D. 2006. Education Dept. Shared Student Data with the FBI. The New York Times, 1 September, 11.Google Scholar
  28. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. 2000. The Surveillant Assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. 2006. The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility. In K. D. Haggerty & R. V. Ericson (Eds.), The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility (pp. 3–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Johnston, D. 2003. F.B.I. is Accused of Bias by Arab-American Agent. The New York Times, 20 July, 16.Google Scholar
  31. Kaye, J. 2007. Al-Arian Documentary Details Dismissed U. South Florida Professor. The Oracle (University of South Florida), 13 November.Google Scholar
  32. Lichtblau, E. 2005a. FBI Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show. The New York Times, 20 December, 1.Google Scholar
  33. Lichtblau, E. 2005b. FBI, Using Patriot Act, Demands Library’s Records. The New York Times, 26 August, 11.Google Scholar
  34. Louwagie, P. 2006. Terrorism Suspect’s Lawyers Allege FBI Mishandling. Star Tribune, 5 April, 4B.Google Scholar
  35. Lyon, D. 2003. Surveillance After September 11. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  36. Lyon, D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  37. Markon, J. 2010. FBI Probes were Improper, Justice Says. The Washington Post, 20 September.Google Scholar
  38. McNamara, E. 2004. Random is All Relative. The Boston Globe, 9 June, B1.Google Scholar
  39. New York Sun. 2008. Justice Department Taking Steps to Charge Sami Al-Arian. The New York Sun, 4 March, 4.Google Scholar
  40. Newport, F. 2010. Nine Years after 9/11, Few See Terrorism As Top U.S. Problem. Gallup website. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/142961/Nine-Years-Few-Terrorism-Top-Problem.aspx.
  41. Newport, F. 2013. Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs. Gallup website. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx.
  42. Observingsurveillance.org. Observing Surveillance Project. Available online: http://observingsurveillance.org/.
  43. Reza, H. G. 2006. On Behalf of Muslims, ACLU Seeks FBI Surveillance Data. The Los Angeles Times, 16 May, 4.Google Scholar
  44. Saad, L. 2011. Americans’ Fear of Terrorism In U.S. is Near Low Point. Gallup website. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149315/Americans-Fear-Terrorism-Near-Low-Point.aspx.
  45. Slater, D. 2007. FBI’s Abuse of PATRIOT Act even Worse than We Thought. Electronic Frontier Foundation website. Available online: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/06/fbis-abuse-patriot-act-even-worse-we-thought.
  46. Solomon, J. 2007. Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say. The Washington Post, 11 July, A03.Google Scholar
  47. Troia, N. 2007. Law, Retaliation Doom Whistleblowers, Panelists Say. The First Amendment Center website. Available online: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060317-whisleblowers.htm.
  48. US Department of Justice (DOJ): Office of the Inspector General (OIG) website. Special Reports. 2002–2012. Available online: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/special.htm.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social ScienceAllen UniversityColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations