Published August 17, 2005
Another Day, Another Terror Threat — With the recent increase in security measures, we are reminded how dealing with terrorism has become a normal part of our world. But how far do we go to protect ourselves and where do we begin? FOX Fan Central invites you to watch the videos below and then speak out!
E-mail us at email@example.com and let us know what YOU think.
FNC's Neil Cavuto: I want to be vigilant, but what to do in a city where the unusual is usual? Watch the video.
Ex-NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik weighs in. Watch the video.
How do cities protect their transit systems from suicide bombers? Watch the video.
Are authorities doing enough to secure U.S. mass transit systems? Watch the video.
How do police choose who to search without racial profiling? Watch the video.
Check out what FOX Fans are saying:
Security vs. Liberty
"Safety? If you don't do random searches, how will you stop them? Doing nothing invites more cowardly attacks. Besides, who's doing the attacks? The Cub Scouts? Come on people, I'd rather live and have my rights violated." — S. (Montana)
"Although we don't want an array of cameras everywhere we go, the Brits have accepted them and now they seem to have paid off. I visited London in 2003 and was surprised how many cameras there were and I'm a security expert. In a public setting, I don't consider them intrusive. As for the NYC subway item inspection, it's sad that it's come to this. The random inspections are a deterrent strategy but need to be applied objectively and not on the elderly, but more on the profile of the subway bombers of London. When bombers look like Aunt Maude from Des Moines then we should search Aunt Maude, but until then, let's concentrate on the real threat." — Phil (McLean, VA)
"The ACLU doesn't want our bags searched because it would be a violation of our civil liberties. Of course, if we should happen to catch a Muslim extremist homicide bomber in the act before he had a chance to blow up New Yorkers, the ACLU would step in and claim that the police used racial profiling against the 'victim' and that they violated his civil rights. Should a homicide bomber actually succeed in blowing up a commuter train, the ACLU would be right there to sue the city, state and federal governments for not doing enough to protect our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who says the ACLU is not on our side? I think we should only require bag searches of card-carrying members of the ACLU." — Johnny (San Juan Capistrano, CA)
"Since all the 9/11 and London terrorists were Arab males 18-30, the NYPD should be targeting these individuals and not making random searches. In a normal war, you attack uniformed soldiers, not innocent bystanders. The terrorist's uniform is young, Arab, male. Why hassle innocent bystanders" — Tony
"The security precautions are absolutely necessary. Has the ACLU lost its mind, or simply lost their way? I am incensed that they would even imply that randomly searching subway passengers is a violation of civil liberties, preferring instead that every passenger or no passengers be searched. If I don't want to be searched on a subway in New York, I'll take a cab. If I want to take the subway in New York, I might be singled out for a search. In which case, I'll thank the officers for doing their duty and tell them I appreciate their efforts, even if it means I've just been late for an appointment. If the ACLU sues the City of New York, how do I contribute to the NYC's legal fund?" — Dan
"'Give me Liberty or give me Death' - Patrick Henry, 1775. This quote is as true today as it was back then. To sell our liberty for the price of safety is totally un-American. Thousands upon thousands of American lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in countless wars in order to protect our freedoms and liberties. The people in this country now seem more than willing to give away everything sacred to REAL Americans because of the new culture of fear. If the goal of the "terrorists" was to destroy America and everything for which we stand, then they have succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations." — Skully
"Why haven't we just put a stop to allowing ALL suitcases and backpacks on subways? — Dolores (Ann Arbor, MI)
"The fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution gives us protection against 'unreasonable' searches and seizures. In our current situation, I don't consider random searches of people riding trains, busses, or planes unreasonable." — Alan (Houston, TX)
"The only travesty in the random searching campaign in NYC is that they are random. You'd think we could put aside political correctness for the sake of national security. If law enforcement has a profile of a terrorist such that 99% of them are from the Middle East, is it really worth the potential loss of hundreds of lives to ignore this fact for fear of it being called discriminatory?" — Brent (Minneapolis, MN)
"The safety precautions are absolutely necessary. I would rather be inconvenienced by leaving for the airport earlier than I would wish to, waiting in line longer and submit to a search than be dead or see my children and /or grandchildren dead. We were lulled into a false sense of security and 9/11 happened; we cannot afford to be lax again." — Diann
"Given that the number of people who ride subways and buses is many times those who travel by plane, this may seem like an invasion of civil liberties. But I fail to see the technical difference between surface and air mass transit with regards to random searches. The real test will be in the ability of the transit workers conducting their searches to avoid other constitutional issues as to what constitutes as random." — Charles
"I think all these things are necessary to protect us. As long as we have Bush and Blair getting us into wars we don't belong in the first place and causing other countries to hate us so much we are in this for the long haul." — V.
"As long as random checks of baggage being carried onto mass transit is not compromised by political correctness I'm all for it. If the P.C. crowd gets a hold of it, it will be useless. You'll be checking little old grandmas and letting terrorists go because we don't want to offend them. My family, friends and I have nothing to hide and don't mind a little inconvenience for increased peace of mind while traveling. Unfortunately, I have no faith that this can be carried out correctly simply because we haven't had enough to tell the whiners to be quiet." — Scott (McHenry, IL)
"I think the NYPD safety precautions are necessary. In fact, I believe that these safety precautions are not stringent enough. Instead of randomly checking people with book bag and backpacks, I submit that EVERYONE who carries any type of oversize bags or backpacks should be checked. In addition, I believe that racial profiling should be used to determine whom to search. Think about it, are you willing to risk the lives of hundred of people for the sake of not being accused of racial profiling?" — Ken
"Security will always take a back seat to convenience and public opinion. The mob will protest and the searches will stop. Then when bombs start exploding in our subways the mob will cry out for a scapegoat." — Helen
"Are new security checks a violation of civil rights? We don't have any security yet. We are more concerned with racial profiling and silliness like that. When the bombers start going off in our transit system our attitude will change drastically." — J.
"Mass transit is mass transit. There are no objections to random searches at airports. It is not an intrusion on our civil liberties. A terrorist would be less likely to board a subway with explosives at the risk of a random search. The same people who cry about civil liberty breaches are the same people who demand to know why we didn't protect our country from attack on 9/11." — Emily (Grove City, OH)
"These precautions are necessary and may well become a way of life. We do what we have to do to stay safe." — Sandra (Dayton, NV)
"All these so-called experts don’t live in the real world. Let them take the bus or subway back forth everyday and I bet they wouldn’t like to be harassed on a daily basis. The government is suppose to protect us but not by stripping us of our civil rights." — Richard
"It’s a necessary idea and probably will need to be expanded and made more sophisticated. For instance, do we have the same kind of network of high-resolution cameras in and around our subway and train stations as the British do? It's hard to have civil liberties or to worry about them if you are dead. Of course, there's a balance of security and liberty, but I'm not concerned at this time that we are anywhere near the danger point. I AM concerned about the security issues." — Ed (Edina, MN)
Discover FOX News Channel's Internet Magazine!
Click over here.