To look at the front page of the New York Times of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 is to reach back into another era – an era, in many ways, which doesn’t look very different to that of today.
The president was under pressure over the economy, there was violence in the Middle East and the New York Giants had lost to the Denver Broncos.
But even before many New Yorkers would have opened their newspaper on that clear, sunny September morning, America and the world had been changed forever.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is the legacy of 9/11?
At 8.46am and 9.03am, two hijacked airliners were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Another jet was crashed into the Pentagon near Washington DC and a fourth was brought down in a field in Pennsylvania.
What had seemed unimaginable – an unprecedented terrorist attack on American soil, striking at the very heart of society and witnessed on television screens around the world – was a shock the country has still not absorbed.
Advertisement
The results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll are astonishing. Some 60% of Americans say the attacks permanently changed the way the country lives, more than the number who felt that way on the tenth anniversary.
The youngest, and those who weren’t even born on September 11th, felt that impact the strongest of all.
More on 9/11 Attacks
Related Topics:
Twenty years on, the debate continues about how much America and the world was altered by the events of September 11th but in myriad ways, big and small, the scars of that day are still evident.
Endless War
Who would have thought that when the US launched airstrikes on Afghanistan within a month of September 11th that it would be almost 20 years before the last American troops would finally leave the country?
The initial aim of the invasion, ordered by US president George W Bush, was to crush al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the terrorist group and its leader blamed for planning and carrying out the attacks, and deny them the base from which they had operated. Prime Minister Tony Blair was a key ally of the US in offering military support.
But Mr Bush had already told the US Congress and the American people that the country was engaged in a new type of military action that went far beyond a few targeted strikes against a single enemy.
The “war on terror” was born and it would not end, he said, “until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”.
The war in Afghanistan became the longest in US history. Some 800,000 served there and nearly 2,500 died. More than 20,000 are listed as wounded – the true cost of psychological wounds is far higher.
The more than 400 UK service personnel who died in Afghanistan add to thousands of Afghan civilians, police and military personnel, aid workers and contractors over the 20 years.
While the war in Afghanistan enjoyed public support initially, that waned over the years, especially after the killing of bin Laden in 2011.
That the “war on terror” encompassed the far more controversial invasion of Iraq – in the supposed hunt for stocks of weapons of mass destruction that were never found – would cost a further 4,500 American military lives, some 179 British and 100,000 Iraqi. A million Americans served in Iraq.
Everywhere you look are remnants of the war. The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay just one we almost forget these days.
The pursuit of the “war on terror” would define American foreign policy and arguments rage about whether it was won or lost.
It is undeniable that the spectre of a repeat of September 11th, the fear of an attack on the homeland, has driven American actions abroad for far longer than anyone expected.
Air travel
Anyone who has flown into, out of or around the US in recent years will be familiar with those blue-uniformed custodians of the body scanner, the TSA.
Before September 11th, not only did the Transportation Security Administration not exist but airport security was a pale shadow of the operation we see today. Fewer than 10% of checked bags were screened back then.
The TSA was built from scratch within months and in direct response to the September 11th attacks. It is now a behemoth with a budget of $8bn and has undoubtedly made air travel safer.
The law that created it also mandated that all bags be screened, cockpit doors be reinforced and air marshals be put on planes.
If you can remember flying pre-2001, or if you watch an old film with an airport scene, it was a time of no lines at security, no need for a boarding pass to get to the departure gate and far less stress.
But as previously-unseen threats manifest, so too have security measures. Things that could be used as a weapon, like blades, were banned. Shoes had to be removed, a move that followed the failed shoe bomb attack in 2001, and electronics received extra screening.
The limit on liquids which could be used to make a bomb have been accepted, sometimes grudgingly, by passengers along with those growing queues and the need to arrive earlier at the airport.
While some success is obvious – 3,200 guns seized at airports last year, almost all loaded – much of the security infrastructure is hidden from view with vetting and background checks and behavioural analysis part of the system. This has also led to suspicions and complaints of racial profiling.
And like the booming business in trusted-traveller programmes – where passengers pay fees and disclose background information to bypass the checks – it has come at the cost of another big aspect of change in our post-September 11th world: privacy.
Surveillance and privacy
Just 45 days after the September 11th attacks, the Patriot Act was signed into law with the stated aim of tightening US national security.
It expanded the surveillance reach of law enforcement including permitting the tapping of international and domestic telephone lines. In essence, it made it easier for the US government to monitor US citizens.
Opponents say it was the birth of a “mass surveillance regime”, expanding powers to carry out electronic searches without court orders and property searches without someone’s consent or even knowledge.
In the years that followed, those programmes were expanded and supported by the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress.
The revelations of whistle-blower Edward Snowden in 2013 reverberated around the world, his allegations of the broad extent of the US National Security Agency’s efforts to gather data on a massive scale revealed the expansion of the power granted to the intelligence services.
Civil liberties groups began a fight against the scope of the laws arguing they undermined privacy rights and are, in some cases, unconstitutional.
But, as Congress quietly renewed many of the powers, public opinion remained broadly supportive of the intelligence services right to snoop in the name of national security.
A quarter of Americans, though, did say they had changed the way they used technology in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Congress has now acted to rein in some of those powers and the more controversial data collection techniques have been abandoned.
But in an era when data is exploding, and with a greater awareness of transparency and privacy, the tension between civil liberties and national security is alive and well.
Anti-Muslim sentiment
In 2000, 12 anti-Muslim assaults were reported to the FBI in the US. In 2001, the number had leapt to 93. It has never returned to pre-2001 levels.
A decade and a half after September 11th, half of Muslims in the US said they found it more difficult to live in the country as a result of the attacks.
But it initially appeared the backlash against the Muslim community that everyone had feared could be averted.
Six days after the attack, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington and condemned harassment of the Muslim community. “The face of terror is not the truth faith of Islam,” he said. “That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”
Polls taken two months after September 11th showed 59% of Americans had a favourable view of Muslim Americans, up from the number before September 11th.
But in the years that followed, polls showed a growing suspicion of people of Middle Eastern descent and a growing number of Americans who associated Islam with violence.
Even though the Muslim population has grown in the years since September 11th, researchers say many Americans know little about Islam and that views about the Muslim community have divided along political lines.
A survey by Pew Research in 2007 found that half of Americans believe that Islam is “not part of mainstream American society”, but that view was held by 68% of Republicans and just 37% of Democrats.
American psyche and patriotism
It is one very visible testament to the impact of September 11th on every street in America
The flags that fly on porches and front lawns, the protocol of never leaving them there unlit after dark, gained an added meaning for many. There is also a greater suspicion of those who don’t fly the flag, who don’t wear their patriotism proudly in post September 11th America.
Millions of words have been written about the surge in patriotism after September 11th. President Bush harnessed the spirit, with a bullhorn in one hand and his arm around a firefighter at Ground Zero, to rally Americans around the flag.
It has often been said that the US military saw a surge in enlistment after September 11th. In fact, despite a surge in calls to recruiting centres, the increase in the number who actually signed up was negligible. In 2005, the US fell short of its annual recruitment goal.
But there is no doubt many of those who did enlist in 2001 and 2002 were motivated by a desire to seek revenge. And, after all, the US had not been actively engaged in an official war until the invasion of Afghanistan.
Bush’s exhortation that “you are either with us or against us” struck a chord.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, there was a surge in the number of people looking to volunteer for charities and donate blood. A similar rise in attendance was seen at churches.
When researchers looked at all of those numbers again nine months after September 11th, only the levels of patriotism remained as high.
This took root in American culture as even Hollywood focused on patriotism rather than violence.
And the overt reverence for the military and first responders and their service is an undoubted legacy of what Americans witnessed on September 11th.
Changed the world
While the ways in which September 11th changed America are unmistakable, the impact of those attacks around the globe is a varied picture of the subtle and brutal.
For the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, years of war and its terrible costs are a living embodiment of America’s reaction to the attack on home soil. The repercussions have been felt throughout their neighbours and beyond.
The loss of life of British military personnel, and those of other allied nations in those wars, are scars with which hundreds of families still live.
If few people in the broader population paid attention to the names of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden before September 11th, many countries have seen first-hand in the years since the devastation of the sort of attacks they inspire.
The world has also drawn lessons from the withdrawal from Afghanistan and whether the “war on terror” succeeded. Wherever we are in the world, even if it is something as minor as taking our belt off at airport security, the impacts of September 11th are with us.
Twenty years on
One third of all Americans alive today were children or hadn’t been born on September 11th 2001. Everyone else, as they always say, knows exactly where they were when it happened.
At the time many feared it was the beginning of a wave of such attacks but, for whatever combination of reasons, it hasn’t been. Americans have been protected, even if it has come at a cost.
But 9/11 shook the confidence of the world’s superpower and not even the passing of twenty years has fully restored that.
Elon Musk can keep giving away $1m to voters in battleground states, a judge has ruled – as a lawyer admitted the winners aren’t chosen randomly.
Musk – a supporter of Republican candidate Donald Trump – launched the giveaways last month via America PAC, his political action committee (PAC).
He has already handed out $16m in the scheme, which is open to registered voters in seven key battleground states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – who sign a petition pledging to support free speech and gun rights.
On Monday, Pennsylvania Judge Angelo Foglietta ruled the giveaways could carry on, rejecting a district attorney’s request that he shut it down because it allegedly violated state election law.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:39
Elon Musk hands out $1m cheques
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, said it was “a political marketing masquerading as a lottery”, adding “That’s what it is. A grift.”
Judge Foglietta did not explain his ruling on the matter but Chris Gober, a lawyer for America PAC, had argued the winners are not chosen by chance and are instead hand-picked based on who would be the best spokespeople for the group – despite Musk’s assertion that they would be chosen randomly.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Mr Gober said the final two winners before Tuesday’s presidential election will be in Arizona on Monday and Michigan on Tuesday.
He said the recipients “are not chosen by chance”, adding: “We know exactly who will be announced as the recipient today and tomorrow.”
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
15:08
Musk: Mark Stone’s deep dive
America PAC director Chris Young said recipients are vetted ahead of time to “feel out their personality, (and) make sure they were someone whose values aligned” with the group.
In closing arguments, Musk’s legal team said it was “core political speech” as anyone taking part had to sign a petition endorsing the US Constitution.
Given there will be no more Pennsylvania winners before the programme ends, Musk’s lawyers said any legal bid to stop it under Pennsylvania law was irrelevant.
Launching the plan in the state on 19 October, Musk said they would be “awarding a million dollars randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.”
Donald Trump says he would end Russia’s war in Ukraine should he return to the White House – but any rushed deal will likely leave Kyiv much weaker and European security in even greater peril.
Another major flashpoint a Trump presidency would immediately seek to influence is the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.
Mr Trump came close to direct war with Tehran during his first term in office and prior restraint could well give way to direct confrontation this time around.
Then there is the overwhelming longer-term challenge posed by China, with North Korea another growing headache especially after Mr Trump tried but failed to woo the leader of the hermit state during his first stint as commander-in-chief.
With the US election on a knife edge, hostile and friendly capitals around the world have been gaming what a second Trump White House might mean for their respective national interests and for the most pressing global security threats.
Mr Trump’s track record of unpredictability is a challenge for traditional foes – but also for Washington’s closest allies, in particular fellow members of the NATO alliance.
The Republican nominee has made no secret of his frustration at how the US has for decades bankrolled the security blanket that protects Europe.
During his first term as president, Mr Trump threatened to withdraw the US from the alliance – a move that would almost certainly sound its death knell. His rhetoric did help to spur allies to dig deeper into their pockets and spend more on their militaries, though.
Advertisement
But the damage of years of underinvestment is deep and the pace of recovery is too slow for European NATO allies and Canada to credibly stand on their own as a potent military force any time soon.
In terms of immediacy when it comes to global crises, the impact of a Trump victory on 5 November would be felt most acutely by Ukraine and also by Iran.
The presidential candidate has repeatedly claimed that he would quickly end the Ukraine war, though without explaining how or what peace would look like.
In an indication of where his priorities lie, however, he has accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of being the “greatest salesman on earth” for securing tens of billions of dollars in weapons and other assistance that Washington has given to Kyiv.
Yet – coupled with Ukraine’s willingness to fight – that military aid is the biggest reason why Ukraine has managed to withstand almost 1,000 days of Vladimir Putin’swar.
Stop the flow of American weapons, and Ukrainian troops – despite their own ingenuity and the support of other allies – will simply lack the firepower to keep resisting the onslaught.
By contrast, US vice president Kamala Harris, who is vying for the top job, has made clear that she views continued support to Ukraine as being as vital to US and Western interests as it is to Kyiv’s – a far more familiar stance that echoes the view of her NATO partners.
While US support for Ukraine would undoubtedly change under a Trump administration, that is not the same as facilitating a complete surrender.
The former president – who portrays himself as the ultimate dealmaker and has adopted a new election slogan – “Trump will fix it” – will not want to be held responsible for the total absorption of Ukraine into Mr Putin’s orbit.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:22
How does the US election work?
Putin and Iran
His relationship with the Russian president is a particularly interesting dynamic.
But with the right advice, might a future President Trump be able to use his connection with Mr Putin to the West’s advantage?
At the very least, it adds a new level of unpredictability – which is perhaps the most important element when it comes to assessing the potential impact on the world of a second Trump term.
On Iran, in stark contrast to his approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine, a future President Trump may well back much greater US military support for Israel’s conflict against Tehran and its proxies – perhaps even direct involvement by US forces in strikes on Iran.
Mr Trump has an even tougher stance towards Tehran and its nuclear ambitions than Joe Biden’s administration.
His decision to rip up a major nuclear deal with Iran was one of his most significant foreign policy acts during his four years as president.
It is also personal, with Iran accused of hacking the Trump campaign in recent months – an attack that would surely only heighten tensions with Iran during any second Trump term.
On election night, Sky News will have access to the most comprehensive exit poll and vote-counting results from every state, county and demographic across America through its US-partner network NBC.
You can find out more about Sky News’ coverage here.
The sprawling state of Arizona was once reliably Republican but in 2020 that changed.
Joe Biden became only the second Democrat to win here since 1948, winning by less than 11,000 votes, and polling suggests Arizona could once again be won and lost by the narrowest of margins.
Above Phoenix, Dobbins Lookout provides a panoramic view of the rugged Grand Canyon State.
Many of the people there to watch the Friday night sunset were contemplating a consequential decision.
Those include Jennifer Montero and her fiance Richie Garcia, who say their vote on Tuesday is based on their economic circumstances.
“Prices have gone up like crazy,” said Ms Montero, “and then, especially now that I’m wanting to get married and have kids, I definitely want to be able to go to McDonald’s and afford a spicy for a dollar like they used to be.”
The couple are of Mexican descent, in a state where one in four voters are Latin American and the debate about immigration is complicated.
More on Arizona
Related Topics:
For Mr Garcia, being born in America means the border is less of a concern.
“Times are changing. I think a lot of the Hispanic community was very inclined to vote Democrat due to immigration status, but my parents are citizens. I believe that immigration status doesn’t really matter to me much anymore,” he said.
Advertisement
Less than 30 minutes away in downtown Phoenix, people were already beginning to vote at a drive-through polling centre.
One of them was Renee Rojas, a lifelong Republican voting Democrat for the first time.
Ms Rojas, who is of Native American and Latino descent, says that decision is down to Donald Trump.
“Recent rhetoric and the changes of the Republican Party just made me realise that things are not going the way they should be,” she said, before adding, “My mom, my grandmother is a Republican. She’s Navajo. You know, my other family members and friends, they’re all Republicans, but half of them are voting Democrat this year.”
Ms Rojas’s thoughts on the prospect of trouble after the result are a reminder of the strong Conservative values of the state she lives in.
“I’m an Arizonan. I have a gun myself, I have several different kinds of firearms, heavy machine guns and handguns. So I am a proud gun holder and people will demonstrate the way they want to as long as they’re not hurting anybody.”
For other drive-through voters like Peter Orozco, the choice was a simple one, about stability.
He feels the current administration will maintain the foreign policy status quo.
“We can’t politically make any big changes, especially on an international scale, you know, because if we get somebody else president other than what the existing presidency is, it could be World War Three,” he said.
In Arizona, there are other voters who feel the state is worse off since the Democrats came to power.
They include Dane Jensen, a 26-year-old mortgage broker.
For the last few days, Mr Jensen has been standing outside another polling station in Scottsdale with a “Swifties for Trump” banner.
He made the banner as a joke to try to ruffle the feathers of people voting for the Democratic party, which the singer has endorsed.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
About Swift, he said: “That’s like someone like that who has a private jet and is flying around the country who is, in my opinion, creating more fossil fuels and bad energy for the environment than any one person.
“And for you to sit there on your high horse and billions of dollars, and tell people what you think should happen when you’re already set for life, I don’t really agree with that.”
“I’m born and raised here. So I know that area as well as anyone. But, you know, crime, the border economy, those are really important issues, they’re everyday issues,” he said.
It’s those everyday issues in a handful of vital places like Arizona that will decide an election hinging on the tightest of margins.
On the night, Sky News will have access to the most comprehensive exit poll and vote-counting results from every state, county and demographic across America through its US-partner network NBC.
You can find out more about Sky News’ coverage here.