Osama Bin Laden: His Influence on Post-9/11 Changes in the Laws of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada

Osama Bin Laden: His Influence on Post-9/11 Changes in the Laws of the United States

, the United Kingdom and Canada

1 Biography

Osama Bin Laden, a citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was born to a self-made Saudi construction billionaire. His family life appears to have been somewhat unstable as evidenced in the fact that his mother was his father's tenth wife and were divorced early in his childhood. With three half brothers and sisters from his mother's side and over fifteen from his father's, it would be hard to assume that he, in anyway, benefited from a stable home environment. Nevertheless, while his family life may have been unstable, familial wealth afforded him countless opportunities and experiences. These included education in the best private schools in Saudi Arabia, education in Europe and the United States as well as unlimited world travel and contact with the global economic and social elite (Jacquard, 2002). Despite these and countless other opportunities, however, Bin Laden exhibited a persistent tendency towards religious fanaticism and upon the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, joined the mujahedeen forces. His career in terrorism began at this point.

2 The Time

Bin Laden was born into a changing Middle East and Islamic world. Born in 1957, his childhood period coincided with the collapse of colonialism and the rise of Arab and Islamic nationalism. His childhood and youth, therefore, unfolded during a period of politically inspired religious and nationalistic fervor. The degree to which the stated environment influenced him is amply evidenced in his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As Gunaratna (2002) explains, Osama bin Laden immediately responded to the United States' call for the liberation of Afghanistan, a Muslim territory, from the atheistic communist forces headed by the Soviet Union and joined the ranks of the mujahideen. During this period he was exposed to extremist Islamic ideology and, according to Gunaratna (2002, p. 21), was afforded the opportunity to establish "close relationships with several religious authorities," most of whom like Omar Abdel Rahman, were living in exile having been labeled as terrorist by their states for their support of radical and violent extremist Islamic ideology.

The times into which Osama Bin Laden was born and the way he interacted with and responded to them, as in joining the mujahideen forces, determined his evolution into a terrorist. It is within the context of these times that the events of September 11th, 2001, assume a type of inevitability. From his perspective, as long as the United States supported Arab regimes which did not adhere to radical Islamic ideology and supported Israel, it was an obstacle to the rise of Islam in the Muslim World and therefore, had to be violently removed from the Middle East. September 11th was an attempt to force the US to cease all forms of intervention in the Middle East.

3 Influences

Osama Bin Laden was exposed to a number of religious influences, most of which tended towards extremism and radicalism. His early perspectives of, and introduction to, Islam were, of course, influenced by the thoughts of Mohammed Abdel Wahab, the founder of Wahhabism and one of the founding fathers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. While Wahhabism eschews violence towards others and is against the politicization of religion, it embraces and supports an extremely strict Sunni religious credo which calls for stringent adherence to Islamic tradition, not just principles; traditions as in dress code, styling of facial hair, hair, etc (Jacquard, 2002). Bin Laden was influenced by Wahhabism towards extremist interpretations of Islam, rendering him vulnerable to the subsequent acceptance and embrace of fundamentalist and extremist Islam, as interpreted and propagated by Egypt's Sayyid Qutb (executed by the state as a terrorist and traitor in the 60s) and Omar Abdel Rahman (exiled by the stated after a period of imprisonment for terrorism). Indeed, as Abu Khalil (2002, pp. 47-48) contends, while it is impossible to list all those who influenced Bin Laden's radicalism, one can safely assume that all influences were primarily fundamentalist, extremist and radical.

4 Legal Changes

The events of September 11th, and the continuing threat to national and global security posed by bin Laden and his Qaeda organisation, instigated widespread legal changes, rationalized by the imperatives of fighting terrorism.

4.1 United States

In response to the attacks of September 11th Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, Act more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT ACT (Ashcroft, 2006). The Act was signed into US law, by President George W. Bush, on October 26, 2001. The primary purpose of the law was to provide US law enforcement, national defense, and intelligence agencies with both new and improved tools to catch terrorists, and other dangerous criminals, in order to prevent another attack on US soil. The PATRIOT Act passed quickly through Congress and was heavily supported by both political parties and by a significant majority of the American public (Fukuyama, 2006).

A significant portion of the PATRIOT Act was devoted towards amending the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA), in order to give the President greater surveillance powers (Greenwald, 2006). The first significant amendment made to FISA was to give President Bush greater executive powers. For example, the executive was now able to eavesdrop on the phone conversations of Americans for up to 72 hours without prior court authorization. It also implemented "roving" surveillance, so that the government was not restricted to eavesdropping on one telephone number, but was also authorized surveillance on all numbers connected to the suspect. The justification for this capability was that it was a surveillance tool already being practiced when investigating drug dealers. Drug dealers were known to constantly change phones, so that they could operate freely during the time that the agents were applying for surveillance approval of the new telephone number. Therefore, the law was changed so that agents only needed permission for surveillance of the target and not the specific numbers. This law now applied to suspected terrorists as well (Ashcroft, 2006). Another provision included the authority to investigate and prosecute anyone found to be financially supporting terrorism and set provisions for court delayed warrants. This was needed so as not to risk tipping off suspected terrorists, which could result in the destruction of evidence, cause the suspects to flee, or take other actions to avoid being caught (Ashcroft, 2006). Additionally, federal agents were able to obtain permission from the FISA Court to acquire items, such as business records, bank records, library records, and credit card receipts.

One of the most significant amendments was the elimination of legal barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A major criticism of the government was their failure to possibly prevent the 9/11 attack through coordination and cooperation between government agencies. The new act intended that information gathered could, and should, be shared between all necessary intelligence and law enforcement officers. This provided for broader use of information gathered under FISA surveillance. This was based on the premise that all measures must be taken to prevent another terrorist attack. The fight against terrorism was now under the purview of law enforcement, as well as intelligence agencies and required close working relationships in order to catch terrorists before an attack occurred.

4.2 United Kingdom

The United Kingdom already had extensive counter-terrorism measures, prior to the attacks of September 11th, 2001, as a result of terrorist activities by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). However, by November 2001, the United Kingdom enacted a new anti-terrorism statute, known as the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001. The ATCSA shared many similarities to the US PATRIOT Act. Like the PATRIOT Act, provisions of the ATCSA included: cutting off terrorist funding, ensuring that government departments and agencies have the ability to share intelligence, updating and restructuring of immigration procedures, ensuring the security of nuclear and aviation services, extending local police powers to all relevant services and improving the security of dangerous substances that may be used by terrorists. The most controversial aspect of the Act, however, focused around Part Four, which dealt with international suspected terrorist (Home Office, 2006). This provision allowed for the confinement, without trial, of a "suspected international terrorist" if the Home Secretary reasonably suspects that the person is a terrorist, and therefore a threat to national security. Additionally, if the person is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, they can be detained for an unspecified period, without being charged with a crime (Home Office, 2006).

Following ATSCA, the 2006 Terrorism Act became a law. The 2006 Terrorist Act created a number of new criminal offenses relating to terrorism. The following are now considered criminal offenses, according to the 2006 Terrorism Act: acts of planning terrorism; the encouraging of terrorism; the distribution of terrorism propaganda. The Act allows for the prosecution of anything that gives or receives terrorist training. Additionally, the 2006 Terrorist Act extended the period of detainment, without charge, from 14 days to 28 days, although, there must be judicial authority after two days (Terrorist Act, 2006).

4.3 Canada

Following the events of September 2001, Canada passed the Anti Terrorism Act (2001) which, like the PATRIOT Act, expanded law enforcement's power and authorities, purportedly to facilitate governmental ability to fight terrorism and to securitize the country. ATA, needless to say, has numerous critics, and is widely regarded as an affront to, and attack upon, civil liberties. It eschews the principles of disclosure, thereby rendering the populace vulnerable to judicial abuse, allows for surveillance of citizens and, in essence, renders all Canadians vulnerable to eavesdropping and scrutiny by law enforcement without the protection of checks and balances.

5 Reflection

Osama Bin Laden is a threat to global security because his radicalism is such that all who do not subscribe to his fanatical ideology are labelled "enemies" and, therefore, vulnerable to attack. While he may be a product of a very particular time and set of circumstances, it his reaction to, and the way he interacted with these times and circumstances that transformed him into the global terrorist that he is today. Whether his philosophy and ideology would stand up to scrutiny is questionable because like all radicalism, it lacks coherence and logic. That it lacks logic is evidenced in the fact that while he has declared his primary enemies to be the Saudi regime and Israel, he launched his terrorist attacks on the United States and Great Britain instead. That it lacks coherence is amply evidenced in the fact that while he was opposed to Saddam Hussein and his secularism, he vocalised support for him in face of US threats and while he had earlier cooperated with and worked with the United States, he now works against it. In other words, there is no consistency or logic to his actions but, instead, a radicalism which recognises no bounds.

Works Cited

Abu Khalil, As'ad. Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War On Terrorism. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002.

Gunaratna, Rohan. Inside Al Qaeda, Global Network of Terror. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Jacquard, Roland. In the Name of Osama Bin Laden. London: Duke University Press, 2002.

Ashcroft, John. Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice. New York: Hachette Book Group, 2006.

Fukuyama, Francis. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006.

Greenwald, Glenn. How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. San Francisco: Working Assets, 2006.

"Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001." Home Office.

"Terrorism Act 2006." Home Office.

POST COMMENT

Selecting A Suitable Canada Pharmacy SEO Services Canada – The best way to Show off your site Using Free Classifieds Canada Best Krill Oil, Best Krill Oil Canada, Best Krill Oil North America, Krill Oil Canada, Krill Oil North America Fantastic Gains Come With Employing A Canada Pharmacy FlyHub Expanding into Canada, Europe Is Next Introducing The Magnificent Water Ionizer Canada Finding Great Heli Ski Canada opportunities Wonders of Canada Why Invest in Canada Kissaluvs Cloth Diapers in Canada Bummis Cloth Diapers in Canada Canada Flower Shops