Editor’s note: This is Part 8 of a nine-part series reflecting on the September 11, 2001, terror attacks ahead of their 25th remembrance this year. Retired Port Authority Police Officer Bobby Egbert, a 9/11 first responder veteran, examines the lasting impact the attacks had on the law enforcement profession and the ways our country and world were changed forever.

As we approach the 25th remembrance of the September 11, 2001, attacks on America, we are reminded that what we take for granted is held within a delicate balance — a balance that quickly became lopsided when 19 terrorists who took orders from a man in a cave in Afghanistan used American civil aviation to strike the United States. The attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and aboard United Airlines Flight 93 set in motion significant changes in how we live everyday life, and law enforcement saw a sea change in operations, with security rivaling crimefighting for priority.

Each day, Americans submit to a way of life shaped by the actions, not the ideology, of those 19 terrorists. “See something, say something,” standing in long airport screening lines, abridged freedom of movement if you do not show proper identification, being required to have enhanced driver’s licenses and being surveilled by numerous devices every time you leave your residence may be viewed as infringements on rights. 

On July 7, 1775, John Adams — who would become George Washington’s vice president and then our nation’s second president — wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail, while he was serving as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress as it planned America’s break from British rule. Explaining his concern about the people surrendering their rights to the limitations set by government, he said, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.”

At the time, the 13 original colonies, not yet unified under an American government, believed a ruling authority should be limited. The British government, on the other hand, continued to exert more control over the colonies’ desire for self-governance. Apparently, Adams knew how government overreach can affect the rights of its people.

In our profession, we now see law enforcement officers who were born after September 11, 2001, many of whom will take up leadership positions, who have not experienced the multitudes of change that resulted from that day. They were born into a changed world, offering them no basis for comparison. By contrast, many law enforcement officers who were on the job in 2001 view their lives as being divided into before 9/11 and after.

Does the popular adage “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” occupy the minds of today’s law enforcement leaders? Let’s hope it is considered.

As time goes by, the concerns, discontent and questioning will fall by the wayside, leading to the institutionalization of the practices implemented as the norm. Is it possible the terrorists won?

While we go about our daily lives, making adjustments in our routines, there is one shift in law enforcement authority, the USA PATRIOT Act (an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), that has become a lightning rod for those who consider it to be a threat to our privacy. At the same time, there are those who view the Act as necessary and, interestingly, many in law enforcement who understand both.

Those who question the Act see it as a reduction of the checks and balances governing law enforcement authority and cite the use of warrantless surveillance and the collection of intelligence without normal judicial approval. There is a concern about the possibility of investigative activities that may be conducted to collect personal information and proceed with personal property searches, as well as suspecting an individual based on profiling.

Jack Ryan spent many years as a Joint Terrorism Task Force commander in the New York City Field Office in the years after 9/11. As someone who was involved in many investigations where the USA PATRIOT Act was helpful in uncovering actionable intelligence resulting in the disruption of terror plots, he is understanding of the public’s concern about some of the provisions of the Act.

Ryan said that prior to the PATRIOT Act, “agencies were basically siloed. There was not a lot of sharing.” He explained that the Act “gave us [Joint Terrorism Task Force investigators] the opportunity to use unified technology bringing certain expertise to joint operations.”

Ryan’s experience has led him to believe in the importance of the PATRIOT Act as an effective law enforcement tool.

The PATRIOT Act seems to have taken a page from the 9/11 Commission Report that cited failure of interagency communications and recommended streamlined communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Act has created certain investigative avenues agencies can travel upon to be successful in following the lifeline of terror organizations: money. Important to this is the ability to investigate foreign banking transactions of terror groups. Law enforcement officers know that following the money in any investigation can be extremely fruitful.

When securing a high-profile event such as the Super Bowl, law enforcement employs layers of protection, creating many stopgap points to mitigate threats. Today, a similar approach is used to protect Americans with the use of technology. For example, license plate readers and surveillance cameras are overwhelmingly prevalent and available to investigators. Without knowing it, you are basically on camera every time you leave your house.

Technology provides powerful investigative tools in the effort to protect our nation, but law enforcement officials are cognizant that protecting individual rights must be balanced with deterring terror. So, what do we do to protect without taking away rights?

Ryan stated there is government oversight, such as each agency’s Inspector General’s Office and other watchdog agencies, along with nongovernment organizations that investigate the investigators. He spoke of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — enacted in 1978, long before the PATRIOT Act, but expanded by that Act — which created procedures for collecting foreign intelligence within the United States. FISA did establish the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which reviews all applications for FISA surveillance warrants in addition to ensuring oversight.

Each investigative step must be reviewed by supervisors. Only if that step develops actionable information is the investigation approved to continue further. Each investigative step beyond faces the same review before being allowed to continue.

Ryan cites the long process of the Military Commission trying 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators, who have been in custody at the U.S. military facility located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Labeled as enemy combatants, they all have been in custody for 20 to 24 years and have admitted guilt but have still not been sentenced. 

Ryan explains that even with the admission of guilt, there are many procedural obstacles to sentencing. The defense is required to present the strongest defense possible, which includes examination of every action taken by military and law enforcement investigators used to bring the combatants to justice. Some of those actions that were taken under the PATRIOT Act authority face constitutional review by layers of judicial oversight. 

Ryan’s experience has led him to believe in the importance of the PATRIOT Act as an effective law enforcement tool, helping to protect our nation. Although the Act can frustrate those who use it to investigate and disrupt terror plots because of strict protections and procedural oversight that can result in lengthy prosecutions, it is important to consider there has not been a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. And, for that, we can be thankful.

Learn more about the PATRIOT Act at justice.gov/archive/ll/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf.