Social Question

JesusWasAJewbot's avatar

Do you think its right to increase security AFTER a terror attack?

Asked by JesusWasAJewbot (1500points) December 29th, 2009

Why does it seem like the government feels the need to punish everyone with “extra/increased” security AFTER something happens? What ever happened to the CIA, FBI and other Intelligence agencies that are suppose to be preventing these things? Is it fair to now make everyone go through all these new security measures, AFTER something happens?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

21 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

I think it is ridiculous. That guy already was on a terror suspect list, it was already known that he was a potential danger. And yet those involved did nothing. This is not a case of insufficient security measures, but simply a case of human failure. No amount of increased security measures will protect against the failures of the human components. Hire more personnel, and the existing system will be more than adequate.

Ansible1's avatar

You should look at it as doing something BEFORE the next one.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

Because people are clamoring that “something be done”. The fact that an offender has already violated a dozen or so existing laws in doing what he did is irrelevant. Our fearless leaders must be seen as doing something.

HighShaman's avatar

With the exception of doing a Strip Search of EVERY person who will board a plane ; it is almost impossible to have PERFECT security…

The invasion of personal space and privacy has already exceeded the limits of Security Enforcement in my opinion….

I was boarding a plane last year and had to remove SANDLES ; BUT the guy ahead of me wearing a turban , did not have to remove it…. I’m not trying to be racist ; BUT that seemed a little bit strange to me…

I don’t really know what else we could do to INCREASE security at this point .

markyy's avatar

So all gadgets are now banned on flights in and out of the States? I wonder how long it will take before they render you unconscious or asleep for the duration of the flight. Which, by the way, would be more humane than locking people up in a small space without any form of distraction or entertainment (ok, we still have books, until someone whacks a passenger over the head with one).

I fully agree with @stranger_in_a_strange_land. To me the fact that he was able to sneak something on board is less relevant than his presence on board.

CMaz's avatar

“I wonder how long it will take before they render you unconscious or asleep for the duration of the flight”

I would be all for that!

I just want to get from point A to point B.

markyy's avatar

@ChazMaz If I had to sit next to you, I would prefer it too ~

willbrawn's avatar


I don’t care TSA!

CMaz's avatar

@markyy – Ditto my friend. I prefer to sleep on a plane. Not socialize.

Pretty_Lilly's avatar

It’s just the old adage of locking up the barn after the horse bolted !

ChocolateReigns's avatar

Sounds like I’m just staying on the ground. I’d rather drive from the USA to France than fly nowadays. Yes, I know that’s impossible, I’m just making my point.
Like I heard on the radio the other days, remember when you could bring your own food and could leave your shoes on?

CMaz's avatar

I always liked bringing a big sandwich on the plane.
Use to be able to bring your own booze too.

jctennis123's avatar

@markyy Good idea. Tranquilization would be better than boarding us like cattle. I’m in if you guys are.

willbrawn's avatar

Thought everyone might find this article to be interesting. President Obama, its time to fire the TSA

Kelly_Obrien's avatar

LOL @JesusWasAJewbot
Do you really think that the CIA, FBI and other Intelligence agencies that are suppose to be preventing these things really can prevent every single act of terrorism?

Zaku's avatar

It is not “right”. It’s mainly an excuse to cash in (the security industry), look like they are doing something, make us think they are protecting us, get people to like them and associate the government and security forces as a good thing that is against “terrorism” (rather than noticing the attacks are largely in response to the government’s policies, for instance), increase their power and dominance over the people, etc.

filmfann's avatar

Don’t think of it as the horse already out of the barn.
Think of it as a weakness discovered, and it will be taken advantage of if we do nothing to fix it.

jerv's avatar

I would answer, but @stranger_in_a_strange_land took the words out of my mouth.

philosopher's avatar

We have to always be on alert.

rottenit's avatar

It depends on how we do it, we can learn from mistakes but the way the TSA has been operating its just plugging holes but the dam is still cracked.

This is a quote about the recent pants bomb from Bruce Schneier:

“I’ve started to call the bizarre new TSA rules “magical thinking”: if we somehow protect against the specific tactic of the previous terrorist, we make ourselves safe from the next terrorist.”

Reactionary security is usualy not that effective I love to see people install fire alarms/burglar alarms after they have had a loss..

It makes us feel better but is usually useless and/or too late.

chewhorse's avatar

I think it’s wrong to be over protective as in it’s wake we begin to feel similar effects of terrorism from our own protectors.. Be protective, yes.. be cautious and alert, but also be professional. Don’t subject us to gestapo tactics while nipping away at our constitutional rights.. it’s wrong and it sends a clear message to our enemies, telling them that they accomplished their task.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther