http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/09/are_we_safer_t o.html <http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/> Change of Subject A Chicago Tribune Web log Are we safer today than we were on 9/11/2001? I heard the "are we safer?" question batted around quite a bit on chat shows over the weekend and even batted it around myself on "Beyond the Beltway <http://www.beyondthebeltway.com/> ," and have come to the conclusion that, yes, by many measures, we are safer -- the risk of a terrorist attack against American citizens on American soil is lower today than it was five years ago. We are more vigilant as citizens to potential threats and security is tighter virtually everywhere one goes. The U.S. and allied forces have killed thousands of terrorists and terrorist leaders and hampered their ability to communicate, to train and to infiltrate. The problem with that answer (with which most of you disagree, according to the accompanying click poll) is that it's similar to the answer that a homeowner might give after installing high-tech, ultra-secure locks on all his doors after a burglary: He and his possessions are safer, yes, so long as the next burglars follow the script, attempt to break through the doorways and then skulk away in frustration to seek another target elsewhere. If the next burglars who come along prefer to break and enter through the windows, the homeowner's increased sense of safety becomes simply an illusion, and his vulnerability the result of a combined lack of imagination, determination and resources. Given that our nation is, analogously, a house with thousands of doors and windows that can't all be perfectly secured, the more relevant safety question is whether there are now more terrorists wanting to kill us -- to break into this metaphorical house -- than there were five years ago today. My fear -- bolstered by the speculations of those who follow this stuff more closely than I do and by the reports of increases in <http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14390584.htm> terror incidents worldwide -- is yes. Yes, there are more terrorists in the world now than there were five years ago today. Why? Terrorists were emboldened by Al Qaeda's success on 9/11, and their surviving leaders have used anti-American sentiment (fueled by our misadventures in Iraq) as a recruiting tool. Nations and armies can be beaten into surrender. Terrorist forces can only be hindered and marginalized. Our success in hindering them -- which leads me to feel, personally, safer today than I did on the terrible afternoon of 9/11 -- has been offset by our failure to marginalize them. That effort will require deft leadership, skillful diplomacy and international consensus of the sort we haven't seen since shortly after the towers fell. I pose this question: Flash back five years ago plus one day. If I'd asked you, on the evening of Sept. 10, 2001, if you thought Americans were safer from the threat of domestic terrorism than they were in the wake of the earlier bombing of the World Trade Centers parking garage and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, what would you have said? I would have said yes. And it would have been little better than my answer today -- a fairly wild, basically hopeful guess. Either way, would your answer have been any better? Did you have any idea what barbaric plots were being hatched in the darkest resources of terrorist cells? What makes you think today is, really, any different? "Real" poll results: ABC News: Compared to before September 11, 2001, do you think the country today is safer from terrorism or less safe from terrorism?" Safer Less Safe No Difference Unsure % % % % 9/5-7/06 55 37 6 2 6/22-25/06 59 33 7 1 3/2-5/06 56 35 8 1 1/23-26/06 64 30 6 - 8/18-21/05 49 38 11 2 1/15-18/04 67 24 8 1 9/4-7/03 67 27 4 2 CBS News/New York Times "In the five years since the attacks of Sept. 11th, do you think the threat of terrorism against the U.S. has increased, decreased, or has it stayed about the same?" Increased Decreased Same Unsure % % % % 8/17-21/06 41 14 43 2
| Permalink <http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/09/are_we_safer_ to.html> Comments As you implied, we're only safer against yesterday's threats. Which is as true today as it was on 9/10/01. People keep saying that 9/11 changed everything. It did not. The terrorists finally got lucky - terribly lucky (they really didn't think the towers would fall down did they?). And our bubble of invincibility was broken. Let's hope it forever remains broken. But somehow I doubt it. Complacency always awaits. Posted by: JimMc <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 12:16:05 PM _____ Your comments about only being safer if the presumptive terrorist uses the same blueprint as in the past have been expanded upon greatly over the last few years by Patrick Smith, who writes on aviation issues for Salon.com. One of his main points is that never again will anyone be able to take over a plane with boxcutters, knives, you-name-it, because the passengers now know--as the folks on Flight 93 learned and acted upon, the goal of hijackers can no longer be assumed to be merely safe passage to Cuba. A good point, and one with which I heartily agree. However, I think the question you ask is too simple. The real question is two-fold: CAN we be made more safe, and if so, what are the costs? To a certain extent, one cost of increased safety is merely financial: most would gladly devote more resources to better port security, more technologically sophisticated air-travel security, more inspectors and government oversight for nuclear and chemical facilities. On the other hand, when the cost becomes a significant loss of personal freedom and civil rights, those willing to pay that price drops. MY fear is that there are still a great many willing to trade the one thing that makes our nation unique, for what ultimately may be very little real extra safety. If the president is right, and the terrorists hate us for our freedom, doesn't stripping us of those freedoms do the terrorists work for them? ZORN REPLY -- It's a good question, but kind of gauzy, really. I would put the question back upon you and other readers: What specific freedom of yours is so integral to your sense of the life worth living that you would seriously risk your life to defend it? That it is worth a substantial cost in human lives to maintain? I'm just asking at this point -- not sure of the answer myself. If, tomorrow, the government said, for instance, that from now on it will monitor every phone call, every postal letter, ever e-mail and every conversation in a public place as far as technologically possible, would you give your life to fight that act? Posted by: Tim <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Howe | Sep 11, 2006 12:38:09 PM _____ The number of terrorists wanting to kill us certainly is important but that would not be my biggest concern. Most security companies called by a homeowner in the wake of a burglary though a door would also secure the windows, even if there was no evidence anyone had tried to break in through them. It is not clear to what degree the government is doing that -- trying to predict the next terrorist approach and guard against it. We would not necessarily know since much of the information would legitimately be secret but the experience at the airport is not encouraging. At least the visible screening seems to be reactive. If shoe bombs are enough of a threat to screen shoes that closely, why did we only start doing it AFTER the shoe-bomb attempt? Same question for liquids on planes. If these are really security threats, why did Al Quada think them up before our government did and if they are not really security threats, why are we wasting resources on them? Posted by: JL | Sep 11, 2006 12:47:50 PM _____ "Killed thousands of terrorists?" How do you figure? Most of the people we've killed in Iraq were indigenous fighters who weren't going to go any further than the next village. And, you know, that's not including the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed. So, I ask you again, where do you get the idea we killed thousands of "terrorists"? (Of course, this doesn't even consider the fact that we've actually created far more terrorists than we've killed, as you admit, making Bush's whole Mideast endeavor a net gain for the terrorist ranks.) Posted by: BB <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 1:08:39 PM _____ We are not safer, and the threat has expanded to two fronts: 1. The terrorists: The Iraq war has only increased the anger and resentment, leading to more recruits, and doing nothing to stop terror. The attacks in London and Madrid show the fallacy in the argument that it would "keep the terrorists" over there in Iraq. 2. On the home front: While I am all in favor of smoothing out problems that keep governmental agencies from sharing important information and working together effectively, I am appalled by this administration's view that anything and everything they wish to do is automatically authorized by the congressional legislation giving Bush permission to fight the war on terror. It would be one thing if these policies and programs were subject to oversight by the appropriate congressional committees or even the DOJ oversight officials who were refused security clearances to do their job, but to have the Attorney General sit there in front of the committees with a straight face and say otherwise is appalling. I agree every security procedure doesn't need to be splashed all over the pages of a newspaper, but when members of Congress responsible for oversight, even from the Republican party, state that the policies don't follow the law, that they aren't being informed as they should be about these programs, and then the most "loyal" of them start talking about making the law fit the policy retroactively - how are we safer? How is our democracy safer when an administration can do what they want, without oversight, and if it gets too hot, have the law rewritten retroactively to clear them of any wrongdoing? The terrorists can kill, they can destroy buildings, but only we can destroy or choose to maintain a country based on a rule of law, a healthy respect for system of checks and balances. Posted by: Kay | Sep 11, 2006 1:58:26 PM _____ I would expect that the life expectancy of the average American citizen would either go up if we were safer or down if we weren't. What other measure is there? Posted by: Mark <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frazzetto | Sep 11, 2006 2:17:24 PM _____ There is an oddity about talk of safety in this context since even in 2001 the threat to the average american from terrorism was tiny, when compared with many things we actually deal with in our lives. The threat here is more a sense that while everyone has to deal with gun violence and car accidents, americans shouldn't have to worry about terrorists. And certainly there is something more offensive (or perhaps just more for the government to protect us from) in the case of terrorists than even hurricanes. The biggest way we are more safe is that we are more aware that there is a threat and so more likely to spot things we might have missed. One of the best things from the perspective of being proud to be an American that has come out is the better job that we have done of incorporating our muslim population into the culture than say England or France. One worry, is that this is not something we can count on indefinitely. Israel used to say the same about its Israeli Arab population (that is the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel because they live in Israel proper). But the flares in fighting with the non-citizens palestinians has frayed relations with the Israeli Arabs. The biggest danger to the US would be if something similar happened here. If American muslims were to become radicalized America would be much less safe. To date, American muslims have instead been a big advantage. But seeing Right-wing republican representative Darrell Issa split with the administration over policy towards Lebanon, he is of Lebanese descent, reminds me that there is no guarantee of this being a perpetual thing. If American muslims become convinced we are engaging in a war on Islam we will have created a real problem. (Just as we would with American jews if they became convinced we were at war with Israel based on anti-jewish sentiment.) Posted by: Lon <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 2:36:34 PM _____ Framing the limitation of freedom's question as "would you give your life to fight that act" reads much like the simplistic false choice that is traditionally advanced by republicans. Well OF COURSE if given the choice between someone tapping my phone calls and my death I would always let someone listen in on my phone calls. But, choices are never that absolute. Would you rather die or have us invade Iraq? Would you rather die or let the government arrest you for a day? Would you rather die or let the government put security cameras in your house? Would you rather die or have our government secretly torture people in other countries? Utilizing such absolutist reasoning allows for justifying any government action. The relevant question for an honest debate is whether the freedom I am giving up is generating the proportionate amount of safety. So far, I haven't heard a good explanation from the administration that listening in on our phone lines without court approval is making us safer. Such tapping was authorized with great regularity (even retroactively) by the FISA court. Why would the administration have to circumvent such a deferential process? Are we to believe that it's a surprise to terrorists that we may be tapping phone lines? Such an honest debate is not present in today's conversation because the administration isn't pressed to answer these questions and what seeps into the collective consciousness is that one must choose between the administration's policies and making oneself safer. ZORN REPLY -- Lance, I agree with you for the most part, but the hypotheticals help focus the attention, turning it away from another false dichotomy and that is the one between ramped up security measures and an abandonment of the values and principles that set us apart from, say, the Taliban. The fact that most people would rather live and than die free, to invert the famous license plate slogan, doesn't mean freedom means nothing or ever little -- though it does tell me that such debates as the one you propose need to be entered into with an open mind from both sides. I keep hearing people on one side (mis)quoting Ben Franklin that anyhone who gives up one jot of liberty for any jot of safety deserves neither, and people on the other saying they prefer a suspension of all civil liberties to any possibly preventable risk to life or limb. Posted by: Lance <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Manion | Sep 11, 2006 2:52:28 PM _____ Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. government decided it was easier to round up all the asian americans than try and figure out who was the enemy. Sure some innocent people were inconvenienced, but many more were safe, or felt safe. Where is this type of thinking today? If there is another incident on our soil. I'm all for rounding up anyone that looks like they fit the profile and retaining them for a while until things get sorted out and the majority feel secure. The apologies and meager restitution can be doled out later at a cost much less than my price of safety. Posted by: Marty <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 2:57:50 PM _____ In mathematical terms you are right: we are safer. 5 years ago, in a scale from 1 to 100 the level of 'safety' against an attack from an Islamic fundamentalist terror organization was probably below 20. And today it is probably somewhere in the 30's... so sure things have improved. But change is slow. And in the meantime, it is imperative that the citizens become PROACTIVE and take responsibility for their lives. Being AWARE, planning in advance and taking those few steps to ensure your safety and that of your loved ones can mean the difference between life and death in an emergency scenario. So, be proactive! Be prepared! Your life is worth it! Posted by: Joe <http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&id=22270254> | Sep 11, 2006 3:09:09 PM _____ ..."I'm all for rounding up anyone that looks like they fit the profile and retaining them for a while until things get sorted out and the majority feel secure"... ...does this mean that after the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing that every white male that looked like Tim McVeigh and his kind should have been rounded up?... Posted by: BZ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 3:09:42 PM _____ What kind of "success" could those idiots possibly have had? If their killing hundreds or thousands of people is considered a "success," then their biggest success has been duping a bunch of people who are too weak-willed to stand up for their own right to exist. Americans need to see these people as they are, not as some crafty and brave "holy warriors," but as a bunch of insignificant vermin who can only get attention for their pathetic ideas by killing or threatening innocents. Every day we live freely, peacefully, and vigilantly, is a day that their pathetic cause is defeated. I am not against the sentiment that may have motivated the Bush administration's reaction to the attacks five years ago. However, I would say the administration failed, not so much in the military sense that some people suggest, but in a public relations sense. By inventing the so-called axis of evil and war on terror, Bush has given recognition and cohesion to a bunch of misguided individuals who previously might not have made the grade as common criminals. Posted by: ttj <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 3:50:02 PM _____ As a security expert, my job is to protect the invisible walls surrounding my customers' information every day. Unfortunately, the methods we are spending money on--creating one line of defense--is the least effective. The problem with this method is that if you penetrate this one wall, you can compromise the whole system. we must spend more efforts on protecting this country every step of the way, instead of creating a single wall around each mode of transportation. There is one measure Americans have put in place which creates defence in depth, and that is their own villigence. No matter where people go, they are being watched by Americans concerned for their own safety. If the events of 9/11 were to occur again, I think all Americans would do what the passengers on the flight which was downed in the fields of Pennsylvania did. This viligance alone makes us safer. I also hope that our intelligence has infiltrated the ranks of the enemy. Preventing an attack before it is even hatched is the best method of protection. While I don't know what goes on in the ranks of our government, it seems to me that we have beefed up our intelligence operatives to a large degree. If nothing else, they've lost the attitude that "it can't happen to us." After gathering all of the evidence from the 9/11 commission, I believe it was this attitude within the ranks of the Clinton and Bush administrations that led to the success of this attack. The only thing working against us, making us less safe, is the increased determination of our enemy. Posted by: cpfoutz <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 3:54:02 PM _____ Marty, are you a white male? So was Timothy McVeigh. So was Eric Rudolph. So was the Unabomber. The only difference between what those guys did and the Sept 11th hijackers, was the number of casualties. They were all terrorists. Does that mean we should round you up and put you in a camp somewhere? Posted by: Patty | Sep 11, 2006 4:16:01 PM _____ Mark brings up a good point about measurement. Is there an actuarial risk calculation we can consult? Have the insurance premiums for terrorism protection gone up or down? Despite Bush's and Cheney's assurances, I really ought to consult my State Farm agent first... Posted by: JimMc <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 4:20:50 PM _____ I think most of the terrorist threat in the U.S. is blown out of proportion for purposes of manipulation. If they were out there in our country, we would have been attacked in the last five years. The press releases from Iraq or Afghanistan always state that "suspected" militants were killed, or "suspected" terrorists. What the hell does that mean? And just what is a "suspected militant?" There are a lot of nebulous claims made all the time in these acounts of the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It reminds me of the war in Viet Nam, when the Pentagon would routinely claim that hundreds of Viet Cong were killed in a battle, and maybe one of two American servicemen. We know now that hundreds of thousands, surely over a million and maybe more than two million, Viet Namese civilians were killed in that war, and there were hundreds of thousands of American casualties. Carpet bombing, defoliants, napalm, and chemical weapons were excessively used in Viet Nam by the US military. Wait untill the health toll from depleted uranium used in today's weapons comes to bear on the populace. It will make Agent Orange look quaint. We are neither safer nor more vulnerable today that we were on 9/11, but the encroachment of militarism on our constitution and the increase of power concentrated in the Executive Branch continues as it has since the Spanish American War. Where are the checks and balances on the CIA and the NSA? Secrecy promotes tyrrany, my friends. It can happen here. Where does it all end? Concentration camps for Muslims? With us dropping the big one somewhere? Martial law in the USA? Posted by: Elbow <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roomer | Sep 11, 2006 4:34:58 PM _____ Eric - I agree that "hypotheticals help focus the attention," just not your hypothetical - as you presented it: "would you give your life to fight that act." My point is that when a choice is presented in such absolute terms - would you rather die or (using your hypothetical) have the government "monitor every phone call," it advances a false choice, or "false dichotomy" as you put it. Such a choice only serves to manipulate the debate to a predetermined conclusion rather than to foster a reasoned honest debate. An honest debate of this issue, as mentioned before, would be a discussion of how we are to be made safer by the civil liberties we are asked to sacrifice. If that question is asked in the context of the NSA spying scandal (analogous to the communication monitoring in your hypothetical), there has been no answer to this question from the administration nor demanded from the press. Take the example of profiling people on flights. It's an awful thing to go through, and contrary to traditional liberal principles, but if the balance is between airline safety and some inconvenience, it's a reasonable debate to determine whether such a sacrifice increases our safety. But, to say that the government can arbitrarily and without oversight start monitoring domestic communications in the name of safety is absurd, and without a reasoned explanation one has no choice but to wonder what non-security purposes are behind such actions. Posted by: Lance <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Manion | Sep 11, 2006 5:22:16 PM _____ If the US government would simply vacate the Middle East (diplomats and the military), end it's meddling, stop it's interventionism and emperialism we would be much safer and we could once again be more free. And we could end this foolish discussion over our safety, for which anyone knows our lack of safety was caused by our illegal and immoral US foreign policy. Intervention is not the cure it's the cause of all our troubles. Posted by: Anonymous <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 5:28:15 PM _____ Prior to March 2003, there were only 3 terrorists in Iraq, Saddam Hussein & his 2 violent sons. Now there are thousands of them! And Marty, you're wrong, the feds didn't round up asian-americans, they rounded up Japanese Americans. Then in one of the best bureacratic ways of all time, they drafted them out of the internment camps. J. Edgar Hoover was against it, but Earl Warren, California's governor, asked for it. He called it his worst mistake. It was probably really done as a land grab to get some prime farm land from the owners. Posted by: jeff | Sep 11, 2006 5:35:59 PM _____ Repubican appologists, operatives and neo-cons are great at sloganeering. This past week a CIA operative interviewed on a Sunday morning show, discussing personal liberties, declared that "our Constitution is not a death pact". What, exactly, doest that mean? If it means that our government, beant on an illusory persuit of safety, is willing to comply with the Constitution when, and only when, it suits it purpose, then what distinquishes us from the "freedom haters" in the midle east? Posted by: Nick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Falcone | Sep 11, 2006 6:16:39 PM _____ We're more likely to die from heart disease, cancer and traffic accidents than we are from a terrorist act. That doesn't mean we shouldn't let down our guard. We need to be vigilant. Ultimately, I don't feel any less safe since 9/11. Posted by: Bob S. <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sep 11, 2006 6:40:35 PM _____ The thought that we, as a country, are somehow safer now than we were before 9/11 is preposterous. Yes, over 2800 lives were lost that day. But how many lives and casualties have been lost since the current administration started its misguided war on terror? More than were lost on 9/11. I'm not saying that the "war on terror" was/is a bad thing. Only that we knew where it needed to be fought, i.e., Afghanistan and environs, but decided to fight elsewhere, i.e., Iraq. It's hard to imagine that SOMEBOY couldn't foresee the consequence this stupidity. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
