Yes, because the tragedy revealed that the agencies our tax dollars funded were not up to the task of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorism. Now we have leaders who are more aware and at the least don't want to be the one "who dropped the ball," and more communication and cooperation of agencies with one another and their information. And the
Patriot Act, as long as it is in "good hands," is a invaluable tool and weapon for the benefit of Americans. We need to never slip back into an attitude of complacency in these matters.
Kevin Ragle, Symmes Township
---
Missed opportunities
By casting the crucial issue of homeland security primarily as a "war on terror," the Bush administration has missed important opportunities to make our nation more secure. A state of war can exist only between or among sovereign states, not between a state and a radical ideology.
The misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq serves only to make the United States a leading target for Islamic terrorists around the world. And the nearly $200 billion already wasted on this open-ended war might instead have been used to harden our vulnerable ports and public transportation systems.
Bill Dundas, Florence
---
No, on many fronts
1. Our ports are not secure.
2. Our nuclear and chemical plants, by all accounts, are not secure.
3. Many first responders are serving in the Guard and Reserves in Iraq, leaving a shortage in their communities here at home.
4. Our southern border is frighteningly not secure. Last year 20,000 non-Hispanic illegal immigrants were released into the United States after being arrested crossing over; 90 percent did not show up for their hearings.
5. The assault weapons ban is expiring, meaning terrorists will be able to more easily obtain such weapons.
I've just scratched the surface. The answer is no.
Nancy Gack, Anderson Township
---
Yes, but not enough
The short answer is yes, both physically and mentally.
Physically we have more detection devices, bomb sniffing capability and screeners to operate them. Our first responders have, in many cases, had their communications equipment updated and been given training.
Unfortunately, physical preparations are primarily focused on prevention, which must work 100 percent of the time for us to be "safe." It is the change in mental equipment where we've become much safer. Before Sept. 11, our response to terrorists was driven by a law enforcement mindset.
It is the Bush Doctrine, adopted in the aftermath of 9/11, that makes us safer. This willingness to take the fight to the enemy has already paid dividends in terms of three years without attacks here in the United States.
Are we safe? No. Are we safer? Yes, but it will be our mental fortitude that will provide the greatest protection for the long haul.
Maj. Joe R. Richardson, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Fairview Heights
---
Still a long way to go
I think the better question would be: Are we safe enough to prevent something like this from happening again? Since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been considerable work done to fix problems that left us open to attack. It's not time to pat ourselves on the back and say "Job well done." There are miles and miles to go.
The 9/11 commission report suggests that lack of human intelligence is a large contributor to our vulnerability. We do not yet have the human intelligence required. It suggests that our systems operated under antiquated Cold War policies and procedures. Those things have not yet changed.
Has security in airports improved? I think so. Have the communication systems within the FAA, etc., improved? I'm not sure.
We have traded our civil liberties for security. Is our democratic system safer? I don't think so.
Jen Mazzuckelli, West Chester Township
EDITORIAL PAGE HEADLINES
Time for Mike Allen to resign
Securing the homeland 3 years later
Clinton might have stopped 9/11 attacks
Letters to the editor
More letters: Are we safer three years later?
