What Was The Cause Of 9 11 Criminology Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The September 11 attacks are presumed to be the series of well coordinated suicide attacks through al-Qaeda strategies upon the United States in September 11 2001. On the morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists took the chance and hijacked four commercial passenger jet airlines which they used to bomb… (William 2001). The report released by CIA's inspector general could not make sense if 3,000 people never perished on September 11, 2001. The CIA report blamed the top leadership of agency for the main lapses of al-Qaida fighting and shows how the intelligence officials failed to thwart towards the many opportunities against the two hijackers of September 11, 2001.

The CIA claimed the agencies and Tenet under his supervision failed to plan for a comprehensive plan to overcome the al-Qaida who were behind the attack. As Dan reported, Osama was admitted in a Pakistani hospital on September 10 in 2001 which connected with the likelihood of being in hospital in Rawalpindi of 11th September when the bombings were done… (William 2001). The CIA was more interested in hunting down Osama together with his group terrorists… (William 1996). The CIA said Dubai was the backdrop for the secret meeting between the local CIA in July and Osama bin Laden. The Dubai meeting seems to be logical for a certain American policy.

Aim of your term paper

Who was to be blamed for the attack of 9/11? On the September of 11, 2001 reaction of those in charge of the United States security upon the terrorist attacks was to literally and figuratively scrutinize their structures and inquire for more instructions. All that prevented the terrorists from achieving for their objectives fully and thus a group of ordinary Americans emerged on Flight 93 and gave their lives towards that process… (William 1996).

A study done on the day's occurrences reviewed that the terrorists had spent years to plan and train for the September attack. It as well showed there were several warnings and signs which the United States law enforcement and intelligence agencies discounted or ignored in those particular years. That sort of institutional arteriosclerosis never happened overnight neither did it happen in a single administration rule of that country… (William 2001).

The chaotic prediction started in 1970s when the nation's intelligence gathered emphasis and switched it from the human intelligence towards the radio intercept intelligence. In 1980s, the terrorism was directed out of national security threat issues to law enforcement issues while in 1990s it morphed into the challenge of doing the task concerning the post Cold War world. Thus it became the third rail in issues of national security and intelligence issues.

Unfortunately, there was the cost of that neglect by the nation's government regarding that threat. On September 11, 2001, however the cost of loosing people through the bombing was paid. Some observers indicated that the people who were in charge of nation's security ignored to acknowledge terrorism as threat up to when the hijacked aircraft bombed the two buildings. They more so view the change of presidential election in 2001 and the 9/11 could have done.

The Issues to be highlighted towards Solution finding

Since the occurrence of 9/11 came upon the toxic legal climate in United States, that directed the federal judge to rule that the families which had lost their loved ones in the attack to sue the American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York…(William 1996). The federal judge claimed the airlines had an obligation to protect their passengers, victims and crew on the ground by efficient means of screening passengers… (William 2001). That is emphasized by the fact that the defendants took control of the people entering the planes and all what was to be carried aboard. More so, they had the duty of taking some considerable care during screening.

Hellerstein blamed the Boeing and airlines, manufacturer for planes for what happened. He insisted, it was clear the terrorists had never deliberately hijacked airplanes before and the airlines had the chance of foreseeing the crashes which caused death and destruction on ground an hazard that could result if the hijackers took control of the plane…(William 1998). This is clarified by instructions of the terrorists in the cockpit which doubled the volatility of hijacking situation. That created a foreseeable harm which the hijacked airplanes could crash and jeopardize the innocent people as well as the airplanes… (William 1996).

Depending on the lawsuit, the Boeing had manufactured a defensive product which had insecure doors into the cockpit which give room for hijackers to easily access the controls of the flour planes. Apparently, the judge had admitted the Boeing ought to bear that responsibility. More so the Port Authority got blame for evacuation procedures and having looked doors into the roof though it is unclear whether the rooftop rescues and how the dramatic they are could give room for rescue depending on the day's prevailing conditions… (William 2001).

A brief outline of current research

Again, the stamp of the U.S. government is possibly found likewise to Environmental Protection Agency, within its jihad against the asbestos. The claimed stated during the construction it stopped the asbestos insulation of girders to hold up the twin towers at almost two-thirds up the buildings. However, it is not clear whether the asbestos could have prevented the huge heat of jet-fueled fires.

The initial thing to remember is the airline traffic in USA is greatly regulated by Federal Aviation Administration, which controls the entire procedures including construction of planes themselves. However, the airlines have some excuse concerning the fares and routes which is the extent of vaunted industry… (William 2001). That meant the placement of every piece of steel; every wire and every doorway on Boeing planes utilized as weapons for mass destruction on that fateful day was overseen and proved by FAA.

Relevance of the term paper topic

The lawsuit claimed the United American ought to have kept off the plane perpetrators, though even here they were under the law. Any unilateral attempts by aircraft maker to come out without FAA directions are usually met with small action against the manufacturer… (William 1998). On the other hand it would be illegal for the Boeing to construct planes which were impenetrable cockpit doors (if that was at all possible) before 9/11 the fact which Schiavo, her fellow attorneys and judge Hellerstein knew… (William 1996).

Even without the issue of secure doors, it was necessary to view at the role acted by the government regulations and actions which assisted to lead into hijackings. It is clearly known that most of those involved in the case had legal problems and expired visas though the government did nothing. James Bovard indicated that at least a flight school official tipped off the FBI agents regarding the possible of hijacking conspiracy though the unbelievable bungling (FBI) did nothing. On the other indication, the idea of somebody hijacking planes and using them to bomb was not taken out of the possible realm though the U.S. law enforcement agents failed to stop the conspiracy in its tracks…(William 1996).

Main Body

Interpretation of primary literature

The lawsuit claimed the United American ought to have kept off the plane perpetrators, though even here they were under the law. For instance, the time box cutters which were the apparent weapons choice for hijackers were already approved by FAA which could rather not have allowed the airlines security agents to confiscated them… (William 2001). Secondly, supposing the screeners had not found the box cutters and the Islamic death shrouds which the hijackers carried, to have kept them away from the planes, it would have meant the airlines violated the U.S. anti-discrimination laws which could find most of interviewers on receiving end of federal discrimination lawsuit.

Thirdly, after the hijackers made their actions clear aboard the planes, all the people on board observed the law by obeying the hijacker's orders. Ironically, the passengers on UAL's doomed Flight 93 ignored the law and attacked the assailants. It is though doubtful whether the passengers could have been criminally judged if the flight would have ever landed safely… (William 1996). Nonetheless, the prosecution of Todd Beamer among others who charged cockpit could be a legal option for U.S. authorities. Similarly, in the view of U.S. law, Todd Beamer was not considered as a hero but a felon.

Methodological problems

The Hellerstein had permitted the lawsuits to continue hence another proof that it never meant good for USA for the private citizens to obey the law. Rather, the federal authorities tend to come up with the law as they proceed. However, the government is doing its level best to keep the airlines from preventing another similar hijacking. From dragging its feet in allowing the pilots to armed themselves, coming with air screeners with government employees (that is creation of Transportation Security Administration), addition of inane methods utilized by TSA in screening of potential hijackers, government is utilizing huge amounts of resources to come up with illusion that does something to prevent the airline hijackings…(William 2001).

Current state of research

Assessment of the government's role in 9/11 does not involve the critical view at the U.S. foreign policy not mentioning its association with Saudi Arabia which came up with 15 of the 19 hijackers. Thus the unaccountability of U.S. foreign policy is in itself worthy for examination that could dwarf any absurdities done by transportation regulators. One can be assured should the airline hijackers involve again in similar attack, the sole entities which would carry the blame are the private firms which followed the law… (William 1996).

The hindsight of following the U.S. government policies at all levels; United and American airlines inadvertently assisted those individuals who killed almost 3000 lives via their vicious actions. Yet, in perception, we know to have prevented those attacks would have made some of United and American employees into felons. Bush and Clinton administrations apologized to those families who loosed their beloved ones in the terror attacks. The government claimed to have failed people though it tried hard.

My viewpoint

  The two days of the commission's hearing to investigate the attacks were invaluable to assist the American people to understand better most of wrong guesses, miscommunications and misleading priorities which left the country feebly protected upon terrorist. By Mr. Clarke admitting to be accountable, the give the America people the freedom of holding their leaders responsible of the terror attack. More so, Mr. Clarke has been haunted by the feelings that the attacks could have averted if enough caution had been taken into account… (William 2001).

However, there are numerous questions to be answered of what happened especially concerning the apparent short of necessity during the Bush administration's antiterrorism labors before 9/11. The Clinton administration also made mistakes as though aware of the harm posed by Osam bin Laden, it never created and carried any effective strategy to prevent for any terror attack… (William 1996). Bill Clinton was distracted by threat of impeachment and failed to inform the American people adequately concerning the danger and what it could take to fight it.

Senior officials from Clinton and Bush administration testified that the 9/11 occurrence could have been avoided if they had done enough to run down Mr. bin Laden since they knew their country and its allies could not have supported it. At least there was some evidence of Clinton's administration's commitment to fight the terrorism occasionally like in the case of December 1999 alert which seems to have prevented attack on Los Angeles airport which bared results. However, the approach of Bush administration seemed tougher to take the consequences… (William 1996).


The real impression gleaned that the Bush administration was different towards threat terror and its officials hardly understood the oncoming terror. Ironically, Ms. Rice was trained as Sovietologist and most of the top advisers of Bush were also former cold warriors that stood loyal to that agenda of gulf war era in the early 1990's. Their set of mind never allowed the possibility of any extra-national threat orchestrated by any kind of government… (William 2001). After the occurrence of 9/11, they planned for efficient attack on Afghanistan where Bin Laden operated before they directed their attention towards Iraq a country that nobody in Mr. Clarke's operation considered as incubator for international terrorism… (William 1998).