United States🏛️ PoliticsLean Progressiveyesterday

9/11 changed the U.S.; can we change back?

CBS News published an article reflecting on the lasting impact of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 25 years later. The piece features insights from journalist James Fallows, who discusses how 9/11 led to significant changes in American security policies, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and increased surveillance measures. It also highlights the shift toward military interventions abroad, such as the Iraq War, and the broader cultural changes in the U.S. following the attacks. While acknowledging some positive outcomes, such as national unity during the crisis, Fallows notes that many of these changes have become entrenched and difficult to reverse. He compares 9/11 to other historical moments where the U.S. failed to uphold democratic values, suggesting that the nation must continue to reflect on its actions and values.

September 11, 2001, fundamentally altered the United States, reshaping national security policies, international relations, and domestic governance. Twenty-five years later, questions remain about whether these changes can be reversed. Former Carter White House speechwriter James Fallows reflects on the enduring impact of the day, noting that while some shifts were intended to prevent future attacks, many have persisted beyond their original purpose. Before 9/11, the U.S. lacked key post-attack institutions such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These agencies were created in response to the need for enhanced security measures. Similarly, the Patriot Act expanded government surveillance powers, marking a significant shift toward a more intrusive federal presence. Local law enforcement also saw dramatic changes, with officers equipped for combat scenarios previously unseen in American policing. The aftermath of 9/11 also led to military interventions abroad, including the invasion of Iraq, which was justified under the guise of combating terrorism. This conflict, however, resulted in prolonged conflicts often referred to as “forever wars.” Such actions, though initially framed as necessary, have had lasting geopolitical consequences. Falls notes that while the nation successfully avoided another large-scale attack, the cultural and institutional changes have been profound. The initial unity following the tragedy gave way to political polarization and diminished public discourse on the long-term implications of these transformations. Privacy advocates have raised concerns over the expansion of surveillance technologies, such as Flock Safety’s automated license plate readers, which collect vast amounts of location data. These tools, once unthinkable, now represent a new normal in American life. While historical moments like 9/11 have shaped the nation’s trajectory, Falls suggests that future generations may one day seek to reverse some of these changes. The challenge lies in balancing security with civil liberties, ensuring that the lessons of 9/11 serve not as a permanent blueprint, but as a cautionary tale.

Go to the primary sources (1)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

statementBrian Lilley's Twitter Post

6 reports

RealClearPoliticsIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 707 days ago

Why on Earth Shouldn't We Call 9/11 'a Terrorist Attack'?

The headline questions the appropriate terminology for referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks, suggesting that labeling them as a 'terrorist attack' may oversimplify or misrepresent the event. The article likely explores debates around historical narrative, legal definitions, and political implications of how such events are characterized. It may reference differing perspectives on the nature of the attacks, including arguments about state-sponsored actions versus terrorism. The discussion could involve academic or political discourse on the legitimacy of using the term 'terrorist attack' in this specific context.

Bias read (Progressive): The headline implies a challenge to conventional narratives surrounding the 9/11 attacks, which are widely recognized as terrorist acts by international standards and U.S. law. By questioning the label 'terrorist attack,' the piece may align with perspectives that seek to reframe the event within a틀

Why factuality (85): The article discusses the debate over terminology regarding the 9/11 attacks, referencing historical narrative, legal definitions, and political implications. While it does not provide direct evidence or quotes from primary sources, it aligns with broader scholarly discussions on the use of the term

Why objectivity (70): The article presents a perspective that challenges the conventional labeling of 9/11 as a 'terrorist attack,' which introduces a subjective viewpoint. The tone suggests a critical stance toward the mainstream narrative, potentially influencing readers' perceptions. This leans towards a more opiniona

The NationIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 606 days ago

Looking Back on 9/11

This retrospective piece by The Nation reflects on the 25-year anniversary of 9/11, emphasizing the publication's early stance against the U.S. government's response to the attacks. The article highlights the magazine's opposition to torture, military adventurism, and erosion of civil liberties, while advocating for a renewed focus on domestic programs. It notes that these positions, once considered radical, are now seen as mainstream. The piece recalls the initial editorial response to 9/11, which called for maintaining a realistic approach and resisting the urge for excessive retaliation. It criticizes the Bush administration's policies and suggests that the nation failed to heed these warnings, leading to ongoing issues related to national security and civil rights.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the U.S. response to 9/11 as overly aggressive and harmful, criticizing the Bush administration's policies and advocating for a more restrained, rights-focused approach. The language used implies a progressive critique of American foreign policy and emphasizes the importance of up

Why factuality (85): The article references specific historical events and quotes from past issues of The Nation, providing context about the publication's stance on 9/11 and subsequent policies. It acknowledges the impact of 9/11 on individuals and discusses the magazine's position against torture and military adventur

Why objectivity (60): While the article expresses a clear ideological stance against the U.S. response to 9/11, it does present historical context and quotes from past editorials, offering some balance. However, the overall tone remains somewhat critical of government actions without presenting alternative perspectives,

The Daily WireIndependentConservativeFactual 70Objective 306 days ago

Canada’s Complicity In Western Decline

The article discusses a controversy involving Canada's CBC News, where senior director Basem Boshra instructed staff to avoid labeling the September 11, 2001 attacks as 'terrorist attacks,' instead referring to them as 'hijackings leading to passenger jet crashes.' This directive is criticized as an attempt at historical revisionism, suggesting it reflects broader anti-American sentiment in Canada. The author argues that such attitudes contribute to a climate where attacks on American interests are justified as responses to perceived provocations, potentially posing a national security risk. The piece also connects this stance to Canada's cultural and political identity, linking it to progressive values and a distinct separation from U.S. policies.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Canadian anti-Americanism as a progressive or enlightened stance, implying that it represents a rejection of Western civilization as embodied by the U.S. It uses loaded language to suggest that Canada's cultural and political orientation is fundamentally different and morally优越 to

Why factuality (70): The article presents a claim about CBC News instructing staff to avoid calling 9/11 a 'terrorist attack,' citing a tweet from Brian Lilley. However, there is no verifiable primary source confirming this instruction. The article also makes strong accusations against CBC and Canadian society, suggesti

Why objectivity (30): The tone is highly critical and accusatory towards CBC and Canadian society, using emotionally charged language like 'historical revisionism' and 'pedagogical.' The article frames the issue as a deliberate effort to rewrite history, which shows a clear bias and lacks neutrality.