However the alteration of the U.S. security system after 9/11 and various fresh national security agendas have produced extensive anxiety over the safeguard of international human rights, democratic standards, and several rights preserved in the U.S. Constitution that outline the civil liberties of the American citizens. Since the United States has not experienced any more attack on U.S. soil, which shows the efficiency of different U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
But the 9/11 terrorist attack led the U.S. administration to review several existing laws and strategies and to make fresh ones, mistakes and exceeding the limit associated with these labors added grave erosion of faith in U.S. guiding principles and direction. In foreign countries, exposures of extrajudicial apprehensions and detainee mistreatment have damaged U.S. status and sincerity. Further it hindered counterterrorism collaboration with allies, and endowed with provocative misinformation that helps terrorist radicalization. Internally, policy deviations over security and civil liberties have been recurrent, extensively revealed, and sensitively charged, creating a situation of animosity and doubt that has confronted the people’s faith in the administration, caused division among supporters, and destabilized collaboration among the political branches of government. (Prieto, 2009).
Criminal laws of US normally focus on dealing with criminal actions that have already happened, and are less effective in attaining the counterterrorism aim of preventing future attack. Criminal laws face a lot of disputes in tackling the terrorist threat. Even after a person is detained, a number of challenges face a successful criminal trial. Before 9/11, criminal trials relied on involving the defendant to a specific violent act or a plot to perform such an attack. The admissibility of evidence causes an additional challenge. Information that may be suitable in an intelligence framework may fail to suit the