9/11 ten years on

11 September 2011 by

It is ten years since the terror attacks of 11 September 2001. Like many people, I have been thinking back to where I was on that day.

Bizarrely, given what followed, I spent 11 September 2001 only a few miles away from the United States military base in Guantanamo Bay. I was travelling through Cuba with friends, and we had reached the Eastern tip of the island, the seaside village of Baracoa. We had even visited Guantanamo Bay’s entrance the previous day; it was a tourist attraction which the Lonely Planet guide billed as the place where you could find Cuba’s only MacDonalds.

We spent September 11th franticly updating the BBC news website in one of the island’s brand new internet cafes and watching a delayed feed from Spanish CNN in a local resident’s home. The hour delay meant that we saw the second tower fall after finding out from a phone call to my family that it had already fallen. The locals were just as shocked and upset as anyone else, belying the state-sponsored USA bashing we had been soaked with throughout our trip.

Also like many people, my life changed direction as a result of those events, although thankfully not because I lost a relative, as sadly was the case with one of the friends I was on travelling with. When I returned to university the following week I decided to change my course from English Literature to politics and philosophy, as like many others I was desperate to figure out what was going on in the changed world. This was the first step which led me to law and an ambition to specialise in public law and human rights.

Many people have already written about the enormous and ongoing effect 9/11 has had on our legal system, mainly focusing on how the state has chosen to fight terrorism, the balance between liberty and security and the ripple effects from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As for me, my early career has been dominated by two public inquiries arising from the actions of soldiers in Iraq; the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry, which reported last week, and the ongoing Al-Sweady Public Inquiry.

Whatever your view on the results of those inquiries and of the actions of the security services and military during the “war on terror”, it is important that those inquiries are happening and that lessons can be learned from the events following 9/11. The Detainee Inquiry has also been launched and will look into the alleged “rendition” of detainees by the security services in the years following 9/11.

The Human Rights Act preceded 9/11 by just over a year and it is interesting to speculate whether it would have made it onto the statute books if it was proposed in 2002 rather than 1997. Thinking back to the febrile atmosphere following the attacks, I doubt that a statute which risked limiting the potential actions of the security services would have made it through Parliament. Even now, when terrorism is fairly low on the public agenda, the HRA is still widely unpopular for its perceived protection of terrorists and “foreign criminals“.

This blog is about human rights, and it is no surprise that we have written about terrorism more than any other topic. 72 posts and counting, which you can read here or through the links below.

One of the undeniable effects of 9/11 on our justice system has been to put the Human Rights Act through its paces. And one important outcome has been, arguably, to embolden our judges and erode their traditional deference towards the state and in particular the security services. As evidence of this trend, read of some of the posts linked to below, showing how judges are approaching security issues now, and then read this passage from Lord Denning in the 1977 case of R v SSHD ex p Hosenball [1977] 1 WLR 766 at 783:

There is a conflict between the interests of national security on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The balance between these two is not for a court of law. It is for the Home Secretary … In some parts of the world national security has on occasions been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England.

As Alex Balin QC pointed out in a recent talk, it is stunning to compare this with Lord Bingham’s observation in the 2005 Belmarsh appeal:

… Parliament, the executive and the courts have different functions. But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself

The events of 9/11 will still be having an effect in another 10 years, and the liberty versus security debate will continue to vex politicians and judges. Hopefully, the UK Human Rights Blog will cast some light on that debate.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. Frank Jones says:

    9/11 – Noraid pigeons coming home to roost…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: