News & Politics - Topic of the Week #18: Security Measures in America - Have they improved since 9/11?

**vc318** · 08-23-2008, 10:41 PM

I recently read this article about a woman who was recently arrested for plotting to kill some U.S. agents. The part that floored me was the fact that she earned money to purchase weapons and such by working with children in an elementary school. Here's the article if you're interested in reading it:

FOXNews.com - E-mails Show MIT Grad Taught School While Raising Money for Terror-Linked Group - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Now, I have to say that since 9/11, security measures just about everywhere were on a high level. But it seems that every year since that horrific incident happened, the procedures that should be taken to protect people have gone downhill. Like in the case of this article - how is it that this woman managed to get a job in an elementary school with other people's children?! If I was the parent of a child in that school, I'd be suing someone right about now. Yes, that may seem harsh but it's careless actions like this that cause many problems later. Even in hospitals, security guards take a glance at your I.D. and you're on your merry way. Anyone could walk in and blow up the place and they could care less. Has harsh times really brought this sort of recklessness to the country?

Please share your thoughts.

**sunnykerr** · 08-24-2008, 07:28 PM

It's the world's worst kept secret that security measures have absolutely not improved since 9/11.

Between the backlog of information created by the Patriot Act and the lack of Arab-speaking personel, there simply isn't any room for a productive and efficient system of security. Even airport security continues to be ridiculous.

**vc318** · 08-25-2008, 06:08 PM

There's a demand for better security yet there's no talk of improving salaries for law enforcement and so forth. So, why should security guards and police officers make any more of an effort to protect people if they're undervalued? In schools, tons of security guards were fired due to budget cuts. That's not right. Who is going to protect where we work anymore?

sum1 · 08-26-2008, 05:24 PM

Yes measures have improved. Or else there'd be a long list of terrorist attacks in the US since 911. There haven't been, because the security services have worked hard at preventing them. And over in Britain security efforts have been greatly beefed up since the July 7 2005 attack there that was Britain's equivalent to 911. Multiple deadly attacks have been stopped in Britain. People should be grateful for the work that has been done to prevent terrorist attacks. And in Iraq US military forces and British forces have worked hard to fight terrorism and protect the citizens of Iraq from terrorist attacks. They've had considerable success against the terrorists, though a lot of people don't want to admit that because it's politically inconvenient. Also, some people seem to have a problem with what the US army is doing there and seemingly would prefer if the Iraqi people were not protected from terrorist attacks.

**sunnykerr** · 08-26-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

There's a demand for better security yet there's no talk of improving salaries for law enforcement and so forth. So, why should security guards and police officers make any more of an effort to protect people if they're undervalued? In schools, tons of security guards were fired due to budget cuts. That's not right. Who is going to protect where we work anymore?

I don't think it's a problem with security personel myself. Taking aside their very valid concerns over pay and, one would assume, work conditions, I still think that if the system they're meant to implement was clearer in its guidelines, better supported by the government and just generally more logical, there would be more security.

And I don't believe the absence of attack is any proof that security measures are working. An attack would certainly be a test to see if the measures were working. But there was an eight-year gap between the 1993 and the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre. Does that mean that the measures were all fine and well during that time since there were no other attacks?

**vc318** · 08-28-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

Yes measures have improved. Or else there'd be a long list of terrorist attacks in the US since 911. There haven't been, because the security services have worked hard at preventing them. And over in Britain security efforts have been greatly beefed up since the July 7 2005 attack there that was Britain's equivalent to 911. Multiple deadly attacks have been stopped in Britain. People should be grateful for the work that has been done to prevent terrorist attacks. And in Iraq US military forces and British forces have worked hard to fight terrorism and protect the citizens of Iraq from terrorist attacks. They've had considerable success against the terrorists, though a lot of people don't want to admit that because it's politically inconvenient. Also, some people seem to have a problem with what the US army is doing there and seemingly would prefer if the Iraqi people were not protected from terrorist attacks.

I think due to rising costs over the years, people just aren't flying, which is why we never hear of the attacks. But violence has increased in the the workplace such as banks and offices where security officers have lost their job due to budget cuts. If they have their job, they're salary has been cut severely. Some of these places aren't even protected by anyone security officals. Might explain why some of them don't care if the workplace is attacked or not. I don't see that as an improvement. I think when 9/11 happened, the security level was high in the places that mattered but it's gone downhill since.