A Second Major Terrorist Attack

The second major terrorist attack in just over a decade has taken place on U.S. soil. The immediate questions being asked at the highest levels of the administration were: Who did it? And to what end? One week on from the attack, what has been resolved? The identity of the perpetrators, apparently — they were apprehended or killed in a Boston suburb. Cameras situated at the crime scene for exactly this kind of eventuality have ostensibly provided photographs and videos which identify the attackers. But, what a surprise! The investigation led, not to al-Qaida or similar cells operating in the United States, but to a pair of young Chechen brothers who, according to young friends of theirs, had no links with outside groups — the internal explanations of the attack have yet to come to light.

If my memory serves, Osama bin Laden claimed credit for the World Trade Center attack 10 to 15 days after that tragic Sept. 11, 2001 day — though, of course, the authorities and the media had accused him of being behind the massacre from the outset. In the case of the Boston Marathon attack, nobody seems to have claimed it, nor has there been any formal indication of its origins or the motives behind it. Locating the perpetrators — if they are in fact the perpetrators — has so far relied more on technological advances than on any allegations or political positions.

This perhaps explains why practically the whole U.S. territory has been on red alert with even stricter security measures than before. The trauma of the 9/11 attack continues to be a syndrome that has left its mark on American security sensibilities — maybe forever — most particularly, on security officials of all ranks.

One factor which has had a calming effect is that the authorities appear to be a long way from reacting with the hysteria and violence of 12 years ago. Or maybe it is too soon to determine the style and the extent of reach of the security officials presently in charge? In any event, it is fortunate that President Barack Obama’s reaction seems a far cry from the hardline fascist madness characteristic of George W. Bush in his day.

It would do well to remember that, a month after the destruction of the twin towers, Bush signed the so-called Patriot Act and, scarcely a year after the tragedy, a National Security Strategy which between them contain the key points of the most radical Republicans’ internal and foreign policies and made Bush the perpetrator of systematic — and shameless — violations of the United States Constitution and international law. Both documents placed Bush on the brink of overt fascism and beyond.

The law extended the authority of the United States’ security agencies for the purposes of fighting terrorism, both at home and abroad. Its provisions granted security agencies unprecedented authorization to conduct audio and email surveillance, as well as access to medical and financial records, etc. The authority of the Department of State to regulate financial transactions, particularly those generated by individuals and companies, was similarly increased; immigration authorities also saw an extension of their powers to detain and deport persons suspected of having either committed or been accomplices to acts of terrorism. The law was supported by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, despite criticisms that it weakened human rights and due process, above all in its provisions for the indefinite detention of immigrants and the power to search homes and correspondence with neither the knowledge of the affected parties nor a judicial order. The federal courts have decided in several rulings that a good number of the law’s provisions are unconstitutional.

Fortunately, to reiterate, the reaction of the actual leaders of the United States does not so far resemble that of their predecessors in the Bush administration, even though there is clearly already a tightening up of internal security. It is too soon to make definitive predictions, but all the indications are that things will develop with more moderation, particularly in the sphere of human rights. I hope I am not proved wrong.

Immediately after the Boston Marathon explosions, a good number of U.S. analysts and academics were of the opinion that the attack seemed to have its origins in the extreme right, who have missed no opportunity to show their opposition to Barack Obama, even more so since his re-election. But no, the U.S. press and television are already pointing to the guilt of two Chechen youths — one already dead and the other gravely injured in the police pursuit — and pressing home their ethnic origin and Muslim faith. In other words, they are once again directing the accusation at the traditional enemies of the United States and providing continuity between the recent attacks and the colossal blow of September 2001.

The New York Times on Saturday, April 20, for example, states that the case of the suspects in the Boston attack is similar to that of other youths caught between their life in the United States and their allegiance to their Muslim coreligionists in a far-off homeland in a conflict of loyalties which can turn into violence in a heartbeat.

According to Boston police reports, large quantities of arms — and even several bombs similar to those that exploded in the streets during the marathon — were discovered in the Tsarnaev brothers’ home. The real question is this: Will we ever know the true meaning and origin of the grievous attack on the Boston Marathon?