The events of September 11, 2001 changed our country forever, impacted many lives, and changed our response to terrorism. The attacks on our country had a direct impact on how law enforcement professionals do their job. The dynamics changed instantaneously, as a direct response to the attacks on our country that day. I recently interviewed three people, from three different generations to get their reactions, and responses to the events of September 11, 2001.
I asked them what impact the events of September 11, 2001 had on their sense of security and vulnerability. According to Dale Owens Sr., an 85 year old retired pastor, he stated “I had questions right from the start, and most importantly was vulnerability” (personal communication, D. …show more content…
Both Nathan and Donald agree that the appropriate response was exactly what President George W. Bush did. Dale strongly opposed the attacks on Iraq and stated “We did not belong there”. His opposition is based on his theory that the September 11 attacks were actually a “Cover-up”. I tend to agree with Nathan and Donald on their views that we responded appropriately and effectively to the terrorist attacks on our soil. Dale further went on to say “…if the government wanted more control over the people, including gun control, they have done both”. When asked which aspects on the United States response they felt have been least effective or even counterproductive, Dale stated “We have spent millions of dollars creating and fighting an enemy we have created, while ignoring the real enemy within”. He further stressed that “9/11 was a cover-up, safer now… hardly”. Nathan and Donald both had similar responses stating that we left Iraq to early prior to completing our mission. They both agreed they do not feel safer, because of the current ISIS group competing with Al Qaeda. Donald stated that “ISIS needs to be hit hard by the U.S. to avoid future attacks similar to 9/11”. Nathan feels we have made progress and stated “The events of September 11 opened our eyes, but we need to stay alert”. When asked what vulnerabilities they think have been addressed or should be, both Donald …show more content…
Dale explained “Our civil liberties and constitutional rights have been destroyed. A great nation, founded on Torah, has succumbed to godless antinomianism…do you really want to get me going on that topic?” To avoid getting off topic, I simply responded that I understood, and continued to complete the interview. Donald stated “some civil liberties have been lost, like privacy rights with cell phones” and expressed that “we need to really keep a watchful eye on ISIS”. I followed up with his opinion on the Patriot Act and what his thoughts are on the government’s ability to conduct surveillance and receive warrants without needing the necessary probable cause (The Patriot Act, 2013). Donald was in support of the Patriot Act, and stated “the government likely conducted these activities anyway; they just made it legal with the Patriot Act”. I feel there is certainly a possibility that the government conducts activities that may encroach on the illegal side. Nathan had a different take on privacy rights, and stated “our rights can be stripped away when necessary”. He explained that in the interest of homeland security and the safety of our country “we must not be so (expletive) sensitive when trying to protect our country”. My take on privacy rights are fairly simple, and if my rights are violated to benefit the safety of our country then so
I asked them what impact the events of September 11, 2001 had on their sense of security and vulnerability. According to Dale Owens Sr., an 85 year old retired pastor, he stated “I had questions right from the start, and most importantly was vulnerability” (personal communication, D. …show more content…
Both Nathan and Donald agree that the appropriate response was exactly what President George W. Bush did. Dale strongly opposed the attacks on Iraq and stated “We did not belong there”. His opposition is based on his theory that the September 11 attacks were actually a “Cover-up”. I tend to agree with Nathan and Donald on their views that we responded appropriately and effectively to the terrorist attacks on our soil. Dale further went on to say “…if the government wanted more control over the people, including gun control, they have done both”. When asked which aspects on the United States response they felt have been least effective or even counterproductive, Dale stated “We have spent millions of dollars creating and fighting an enemy we have created, while ignoring the real enemy within”. He further stressed that “9/11 was a cover-up, safer now… hardly”. Nathan and Donald both had similar responses stating that we left Iraq to early prior to completing our mission. They both agreed they do not feel safer, because of the current ISIS group competing with Al Qaeda. Donald stated that “ISIS needs to be hit hard by the U.S. to avoid future attacks similar to 9/11”. Nathan feels we have made progress and stated “The events of September 11 opened our eyes, but we need to stay alert”. When asked what vulnerabilities they think have been addressed or should be, both Donald …show more content…
Dale explained “Our civil liberties and constitutional rights have been destroyed. A great nation, founded on Torah, has succumbed to godless antinomianism…do you really want to get me going on that topic?” To avoid getting off topic, I simply responded that I understood, and continued to complete the interview. Donald stated “some civil liberties have been lost, like privacy rights with cell phones” and expressed that “we need to really keep a watchful eye on ISIS”. I followed up with his opinion on the Patriot Act and what his thoughts are on the government’s ability to conduct surveillance and receive warrants without needing the necessary probable cause (The Patriot Act, 2013). Donald was in support of the Patriot Act, and stated “the government likely conducted these activities anyway; they just made it legal with the Patriot Act”. I feel there is certainly a possibility that the government conducts activities that may encroach on the illegal side. Nathan had a different take on privacy rights, and stated “our rights can be stripped away when necessary”. He explained that in the interest of homeland security and the safety of our country “we must not be so (expletive) sensitive when trying to protect our country”. My take on privacy rights are fairly simple, and if my rights are violated to benefit the safety of our country then so