To what extent has the war on terror had an effect on the idea of citizenship?

against humanity but also the unfortunate questioned loyalty and persecution of Muslim

citizens and residents in the west.

    One of the main changes in the citizenship and immigration laws of the U.S was

influenced by the discovery, through a series of investigation, that the terrorists that high-

jacked the planes were resident in the U.S and had taken flying lessons just weeks before

the attack. They were not only afforded the opportunity to monitor their target, they were

also given the chance to get possibly one of the best flight training.

This raised questions about the accessibility and vulnerability of the United States thus

there was little surprise when a month later, the Patriot Act was passed by congress and

signed into law by George Bush on the same day. The Act not only granted unlimited

access to private property to most federal law enforcement agencies, it also amended the

immigration Act thus limiting the entry of foreign nationals to the United States. The

state now had the power to enter and search homes, businesses, and other privately

owned properties without warning or explanation. It also granted the law enforcers

powers to tap phones, check e-mail messages and monitor internet websites people

visited.

The amendment of the immigration act meant the refusal of entry not only to those who

had connections with terrorist groups but also to those that funded, supported or were the

spouse or child of such individuals.

According to Strauss, ‘the (American) ‘courts have long recognised the power to expel

aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute…An alien whose presence in the United

States has no colour of lawfulness…has little claim on either agency of courts for relief’.

It can be argued that The Patriot Act, to say the least, is a dangerous step towards

totalitarianism for the citizens of the U.S. The basic fundamental rights to freedom of

expression and the right to have ones opinions, beliefs and political preference is being

seen as unpatriotic whilst the right to privacy is being greatly compromised. It therefore

becomes a conflict between governmental supremacy versus fundamental rights.

The creation of the U.N, deriving from the Nation States after the Second World War,

was created to create a forum for all countries to address issues in a peaceful and

democratic way. Its intention was to prevent the events of the first and second world wars

from being repeated. Its intention was not only to create peace between the countries, but

an underlying theme was to avoid the ‘excessive patriotism’- something  that led Nazi

leader Adolf Hitler to want to create a racially pure Germany by killing the Jews

and other non-Aryan races. His invasion and colonisation of surrounding nations such as

France and Poland, and the elimination of people whom he believed to be ‘Germany’s

enemies’, highlighted Hitler’s excessively patriotic view. Sentiments of which, began to

surface on the face of America in light of the terrorist attack. Although Hitler’s extremity

was for the expansion of his country, Bush’s is arguable for the safety of his. One of the

benefits that was meant to come fro the creation of the UN was the reduction of over

patriotism. The uniting of many nations was to create peace and find a common ground

between the countries. The 9/11 attacks encouraged what the world has been dreading for

years after the world war; over-patriotism and subsequent conflict. Is this citizenship

gone too far? Although not at the same scale as the world wars, the subsequent war on

Iraq can be seen as affirming this. It has been argued by the media and other critics of the

war on Iraq argue that the war was simply for the attainment of oil from Iraq and if this

indeed true, then it correlates with the idea of America putting itself and the needs of its

people before everyone else and ignoring the basic rules of a ‘just war’ as outlined by

Thomas Aquianas. On the other hand, if it was for the removal of a president that

possessed weapons which he threatened to use on the west, it still shows an element of

over-patriotism as America didn’t wait for proof before embarking on conflict…against

the advise of the U.N.  

The idea of citizenship in America thus came into question as unified patriarchy is an

expected response from a country being attacked by another.

According to CBS-11 News, federal authorities ‘have invoked a rarely-used federal

statute – mainly used in past decades to deport former Nazis - to de-naturalize native

Palestinian Rasmi Khader Almallah. The government's “Complaint to Revoke

Naturalization” claims Almallah paid a woman for a “sham marriage” in 1981 that helped

him gain permanent residency and then American citizenship in 1988.

     A similar reaction was felt on the shores of Britain. Prime Minister Tony Blair

supported George Bush in his quest for war and sent British troops to fight in

Afghanistan and Iraq. Closer to the home front,  and the government introduced

an emergency legislation that enabled foreign nationals-legally resident in the UK to be

detained for an indefinite period of time without being charged or given a trial.

During this period of great instability, ten men, suspected of posing a terrorist threat to

Britain were arrested and imprisoned. They were not tried and are yet to be charged

however, according to the Home Secretary, they were a risk to national security. The U.K

knew they were ok to do this as the only other option for the men is deportation to their

countries were they will almost certainly face the death sentence for the alleged crimes.

Such practice is against Article 9 of the International covenant on civil and political

rights,1966 of  states that;

9.2.Anyone who is arrested…shall be promptly told of the charges against him.

9.3.anyone arrested… shall be brought promptly before a judge…and shall be entitled to

a trial within a reasonable time or to release. 

Section 13 however, states that although a legal alien can choose to be or simply be

expelled from the requirement of the covenant. This seems contradictory as the need for

the human rights act in the first place was to protect human rights, not jut that of the

citizens. As Dicey, 1915 argued, the due process of law is characteristic of the English

constitution. ‘No man can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law

established in the ordinary legal manner by the ordinary court of the land. In other words,

an individual is innocent until proven guilty and should remain so within English law.

However, as stated above, these weren’t British citizens thus such rights to a fair trial

were diminished. Reports coming from Belmarsh prison in south London where the

majority of the detainees are held, indicate that several are close to mental breakdown,

indeed, one has been admitted to Broadmoor, a high security mental hospital. It is known

that some of the others are literally beating their own heads against their cell walls.

Questions are therefore raised of the morality behind such an unlawful detention which

contravenes basic human rights to freedom. It also questions citizenship and the people

we as British citizens have chosen to be representatives of us.  

The introduction of these legislations were intended to send out a sharp message to

potential terrorists. A message that Britain would not tolerate such acts or treats of

terrorism. However, the main hurdle for such legislation was the stigma that was now

attached to Muslims and the suspicion that was placed among them due to the fact that

the terrorists were Muslim and had claimed that their acts were carried out in the name of

their religion. The terrorist’s had called for Muslims around the world to join them in

their ‘holy war’ and this therefore left Muslims in the west being under great suspicion

and unfortunate victimisation. Some even questioned if Mosques were breeding grounds

for terrorists however the Muslim community frequently made statements condemning

the act of 9/11 stating clearly that it was against their religion for such acts to be

committed.

It didn’t help however, when four British nationals were captured fighting against the

British in Afghanistan. This fanned the flame of suspicion and caused many to doubt the

loyalty of the British Muslims. This proved that citizenship did not always equate to

loyalty.

Police raids seemed more and more to be concentrated around Muslim areas and this

created resentment within the Muslim community for the British government and society.

They began to feel like they were being treated like second class citizens and this is a seen

And some argued that this simply encouraged young British Muslim males to be more

readily enticed by the idea of fighting for the Taliban and other Muslim terrorist groups

against the west.

The British government also launched an ad campaign that called for people to be

vigilant and report suspected terrorists. This also aided in the social exclusion of muslims

as people were more suspicious of them than an other group and put reports in against

them more than any other group.  

The invasion of Iraq was greatly unpopular with the British public who protested in their

thousands against it. Many saw it as illegal and this in itself highlighted that the idea of a

united Britain. They were united in something that they commonly believed was morally

and legally unjust. This more than anything, showed the meaning of citizenship for the

British people. It did not mean blind loyalty as can often be thought, but rather, it meant

having a democratic right to protest against something you didn’t believe in or agree

with.

In conclusion, the war on terror had an immeasurable effect on the idea of citizenship. As

is often the case, when there is a period of social and political upheaval, people tend to

stick together and there is an increased sense of patriotism. This was no different in the

wake of the war on terror. The Americans created the Patriots Act and although some

opposed the fact that the act legalised the invasion of their privacy, they supported the

governments effort to protect them and they came together against the common enemy.

Stricter controls put on those who weren’t citizens of America also shows that the outside

threat of terrorism caused a re-evaluation of the trust placed on ‘outsiders’

In the same way the British people exercising their democratic and civil right to oppose

the decision made by the government, shows their utilisation of the benefits of living and

being a citizen of a western democratic society.

Citizenship after the war on terror has also caused many to feel like outsiders and others

feel ignored. For example, even after great opposition by the British people about the war

on Iraq, the government still embarked on war. A decision that made many get the

impression that their democratic right as citizens were being compromised.

---