http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/world/europe/10paris.html?_r=2&ref=world
Victoria and I found this article, and thought that it was very relative to our class discussions about cultural differences that we've been having lately.
The most interesting part came towards the middle when the author questions whether or not American National Security is to "[give] the appearance of security". She states that Europeans "wrote the book on security" and that they "don't mess around". This is quite a difference from the typical American mindset about our National Security, especially at airports. We assume, that since we lived through 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, that our security is going to be the tightest and most advanced in the world. According to the article, however, this just isn't true. Europe HAS been around for a lot longer, and they have lived through many more attacks on their soil than we have.
After reading the article, we had a few questions of our own that we wanted some feedback on.
Do you think, after reading this article, that foreign security is too strict? Or is ours too lax? What improvements, if any, have you seen in our National Security in the past ten years? And finally, what could we do to improve our security? Are any improvements necessary?
We would appreciate your feedback!
14 comments:
I think that foreign security is strict for a reason and ours is a work in progress. Europeans have a lot more experience dealing with attacks. The effects of 9/11 left our country devastated but at the same Americans are not as willing to make the necessary changes that foreigners had to make. I think America is than it was 10 years ago but that we are a long way to go.
American attitudes toward security like airport security can be traced back to our founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Michael makes a good point in remarking that Americans aren't as willing to accept strict security measures as Europeans. Remember the huge ordeal about the full body scans and patdowns in airports? Americans seem to have some trouble balancing the tension between security and freedom.
I think our security at airports is a work in progress. Their has been lots of changes since 9/11. I know when I traveled to France this summer that it seemed a lot easier getting into France than getting back to the U.S. Coming into the U.S. you basically were interrogated before going in to your terminal at the airport. To me it seemed much more strict here than in Europe. Again, I think that we still are a work in progress with our airport security.
No, I do not think that foreign security is too strict because all they are trying to do is protect their people from danger. Yes, Europe's security is far more strict than ours, but again they have gone through more attacks and learned lessons from each attack. No, I do not think America security is too lax, but is work in progress as others have mentioned. I believe our security has already found many of the improvements needed to become a better force and with time, they will learn more. I believe America has a good airport security and will continue to be good.
I agree with those that have posted comments above that foreign security is not too strict. They have learned from attacks in the past and have had time to make adjustments. When the 9/11 attack happened it seems like we just threw all of these security measures in place and they've been there ever since, good or bad, with little or no change. Ten years later we still have to arrive at the airport hours before the flight just to go through security, we still have to remove our shoes and belts, and we still have restrictions on the amounts of liquids we can carry-on. I think all of this is a good start but it needs to be tweaked.
To add to Ricky and Michael's point that Americans aren't willing to make the necessary changes that other countries made I will say that is very obvious if you've gone through airport security recently. There is always that one person who is complaining about taking their shoes off or being told to throw away the 20 oz Coca-Cola they just bought. If we aren't willing to make simple changes, we aren't going to make the big changes.
In my opinion, I feel like each country has its own method of securing safety and maintaining order. Our strict security is a result of the horrible events of 9/11 and as stated in the article, Europe and other places have a long history of terrorist attacks. It could be that it is not necessary for American security to be as strict because terrorism is not as big of an occurrence for security to be close in practice to our European counterparts. Unless the purpose is to be more proactive than we are already, I feel that American authorities are doing a great job, minus the incidents similar to the elderly woman having her adult diaper checked.
I did not think that the foreign security was too strict, they need to take every precaution necessary in order to protect the people from terrorist threats. Although I did not think it was the best idea to use a charge designed to detonate a bomb, what if it had been a large explosive, even if the area had been cleared they still could have destroyed a railroad terminal. I feel they should have tried to neutralize the threat in a way other than detonating a possible bomb. I think our nations security has greatly strengthened post 9/11, but it is unfortunate it took an attack on our nation in order to implement this level of security. I think people would have complained that security at the airports was too strict, with the new airport clothes scanners being installed, if 9/11 had not taken place. I think the U.S. has done a good job securing our safety while traveling after 9/11 since there has been no further attacks, however I feel they should take whatever means necessary to ensure our safety.
Hmm, it's interesting. I can see where Steves gets the "giving the appearance of security" from. The article has very strict examples of security that many in the United States, and Canada, would seem as a little over bearing. Our policies seem to have a stronger emphasis on "examples" that meant to be followed, such as full-body pat downs and the increasing list of "You've gotta be kidding me" items not allowed to be check on board. As important as it is to mandate a strict airline policy, Europe seems to have a more methodical approach.
I do not consider US security strict, just more visibly apparent and intrusive. This is indeed to offer the appearance of security versus actually securing our points of entry. Just in December 2009 we had the underwear bomber who successfully boarded a plane in the Netherlands bound for Detroit with an explosive. Granted he didn't board domestically, but it was a US flight and only one mistake could mean devastation. I think we can point to Israel as an example of more effective airport security. We could utilize some of their techniques including profiling as well as an emphasis on individual questioning rather than some baby's formula.
I think that the security is better than we give it credit for. Consider the fact that the US has not suffered anymore terrorist attacks in the ten years since 9/11. It is an accepted truth that the nation's enemies intend to inflict as much damage as possible on US soil. Therefore, the fact that they have not done so successfully in the post 9/11 decade speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the security upgrades.
Many Americans today, as they travel through airports, have the mentality of "I'm obviously not a terrorist, so why do I have to go through all of these extra security measures?" I have definitely been frustrated with the hassle that airport security checks bring, but I do not share this attitude. It is important to remember that these checks are put into action for a reason, and that is for the protection of American travelers. I don't know how well they compare to European safety measures, but nothing has happened since 9/11 so something has to be working correctly. It would not be fair to only screen travelers who look Middle Eastern or foreign, because that would be discrimination.
After reading this I was not surprised at the strength of foreign security and I did not think it was too strict. I agree with the statement that Europe has been around much longer than the States; therefore, has had more time to develop and execute procedures for national security. I also do not think that we have a lax security program. Compared to the countries in Europe the US is an enormous amount of space to cover and when it comes to terrorist attacks there are far too many places that could be attacked. Even though law enforcement should have been prepared before the 9/11 attacks, since then there has been dramatic improvement in airport security with more advanced scanners and better procedures. My uncle works for National Homeland Security and the developments in equipment they made should be a comfort to Americans traveling. The only problem is people that complain that these x-ray machines and other devices are an invasion of their privacy. Which in that case, don't fly. It these procedures are attempting to keep myself and other passengers safe then I have no problem with it.
I agree with the last comment. If it keeps the general public safe then it's ok. I'm not saying i completely agree with how TSA "randomly" selects people. The system isn't perfect but it's improving. Don't like it then take a grey hound bus .
Anonymous said...
I agree with the last comment. If it keeps the general public safe then it's ok. I'm not saying i completely agree with how TSA "randomly" selects people. The system isn't perfect but it's improving. Don't like it then take a grey hound bus .
September 18, 2011 11:34 PM
Post a Comment