[jthomas1600]

So I've wondered...After 9/11 there were new government agencies established, new laws enacted, new policies and procedures at airports and harbors etc. All at some cost and inconvieniance to the public. All this happened quickly and easily it seams because we were given the impression that another attack of simmilar proportions was probable if not imminent. Since then we have not seen an incedent on U.S. soil that comes any where near 9/11. So... was the threat never as bad as we were led to believe, or has homeland security been that effective?

[JerryLove]

You miss the option that the threat was bad but did not occur for reasons other than DHS.

It's important to remember (I'm always amazed everyone forgets) that the preious such attack was 8 years earlier. Such attacks are rare at best.

[jthomas1600]

[QUOTE=JerryLove;3237135]
It's important to remember (I'm always amazed everyone forgets) that the preious such attack was 8 years earlier. Such attacks are rare at best.[/QUOTE

It seems that would mean the threat was not as bad as we were led to believe. It seemed to me that we were led to believe we should expect to be attacked again soon. To be attacked more frequently with more severity.

[JerryLove]

The threat was and is real, and was potentially immenant. None-the-less, this fear and nationalism was used to shoe-horn in a massive redistribution of power from congress and the judiciary to the president, and to end-run the constitution and trample our liberties.

Most of what has been done to thwart terrorism as a result of 9/11 does little to nothing to thwart terrorism.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Most of what has been done to thwart terrorism as a result of 9/11 does little to nothing to thwart terrorism.

Amen. Airport security being high on that list.

[doulos14]

It merely stops airline based terrorism, I'm sure that terrorists could easily use other options, and all of the protection thus resulting from homeland security are responses to these attacks and are not preemptive. Say for example the shoe bomber, when he attacked they decided to begin checking shoes, but never considered them beforehand.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by doulos14

It merely stops airline based terrorism, I'm sure that terrorists could easily use other options, and all of the protection thus resulting from homeland security are responses to these attacks and are not preemptive. Say for example the shoe bomber, when he attacked they decided to begin checking shoes, but never considered them beforehand.

But it doesn't really, and the shoe issue s a good example.

Either we can detect the explosive in the shoe (when on a person) or we cannot. If we can, no need to take off the shoe. If we cannot, then any bomber will just shove the explosive in his pocket / down his pants.

Same with "liquids".

We also, for a while, put soldiers with assault rifles at airports... to solve a problem that never occurd (though we created the potential for some new ones).

[doulos14]

As I saw in the Crankshaft comic a few days ago, the old grandfather said to a woman in line behind him as he held his shoes, "thank goodness that terrorist didn't hide the bomb in his underwear"
Terrorism is a mindset and a set of actions it will find a way

[mulletman]

I wouldn't mind airport security if it were actually conducted in a logical/effective manner. Seriously. But consider the following: As soon as a pilot steps into his aircraft, the fire-axe mounted behind the door is immediately at his disposal. However, pilots still have to surrender their toothpaste tubes at the checkpoint....

[LaserRacer]

Not to mention the incredible lack of standardization within the system. The second an aircraft can seat fewer than 30 passengers, security screening is no longer mandatory (causing a huge boost in sales of tickets for such operations).

Realistically though, aviation is no longer a significant threat to national security. One of the main reasons that an attack using airliners was successful was that it hadn't been done before on a large scale... The pilots operated under the premise that the hijacking would end with an unscheduled stop in a third world country. Pre-9/11 Pilots were briefed to comply with terrorist demands. That is no longer the way pilots are trained (as clearly shown by the now revived FFDO program).

Either way, my point is that if people still consider aviation a threat (which I do not) then we should stop giving lip service to security and actually implement a system which protects passengers instead of cavity searching every passenger who carries over 3 fl.oz of liquid onboard.

[Steve353]

What I find the most interesting about all of this is just how much was changed in so little time from a single event. A few more incidents like 9/11 and who knows what kind of changes we'd be willing to accept.

[LaserRacer]

The thing is...It is all perceived change...sure we go through more hassle prior to boarding flights, but does anyone honestly believe that it really has any positive impact on aviation safety or national security?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by LaserRacer

The thing is...It is all perceived change...sure we go through more hassle prior to boarding flights, but does anyone honestly believe that it really has any positive impact on aviation safety or national security?

It is possible that we have created the illusion of better security and so encouraged people to hit softer targets.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It is possible that we have created the illusion of better security and so encouraged people to hit softer targets.

That is indeed possible. If there were any so-called 'softer' targets being hit, I might agree with you.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

So... was the threat never as bad as we were led to believe, or has homeland security been that effective?

It is so hard to determine if preventative measures actually work or not.

I see this with a nonprofit counseling and mentoring organization I'm associated with: they work to mentor at-risk young men to set them on a positive life course. It's very hard for them to raise funds because - besides anecdotal evidence - there is no solid "proof" that the program works, because you can't definitively prove that one factor led to someone not doing something. On the other hand, organizations that reform ex-offenders and reintroduce them to society are easy to track because you can measure recidivism - how many people go back to a life of crime with or without the program, for example.

Anyway, the point is this: we can't know what could have been, because we can't go back and time and make a different choice. Part of me believes that there can't yet be a "post-game analysis" because we are still in the first quarter of the game. You can't interview the coach about his strategy for the game while it is happening, in other words. I can understand how the agency would be reluctant to share too many details about thwarted attacks because our enemies could use that information to plan around the kinds of measures HS takes to prevent attacks.

On the other hand, I understand the frustration of voters and stakeholders who wonder what they have gained in the trade-off between security and personal liberties. We (willingly or not) traded some liberties to ensure our security as a nation (wire-tapping, profiling, etc.). I think it's too soon to tell if this trade-off was worth it or not.

Personally, I think it best to err on the side of caution; within reason. I don't think the reach of Homeland Security should be expanded, but neither do I think it has fully served its purpose and can be disbanded. However, I think a more holistic "homeland security" is a focus on getting rid of our addiction to foreign oil, stopping our multinationals and international banks from loan-sharking developing countries, and focusing on education at home. It's not peace through arms, but peace through making educated, democratic decisions that result in peace.