Do you feel safer in America now than you did 1 month after 9/11?

Answer 1

I feel more confident that Al Qaeda can't mount an attack on the U.S. as easily. In those days following 9/11, we didn't really know what Al Qaeda might be capable of. Besides the 9/11 attack, there had been the anthrax incidents, which are still unsolved, by the way.

I also think that airline passengers would respond differently to a hijacking attempt. Prior to 9/11, most American hijackers just wanted to go to Cuba. Heck, that's sort of an adventure. Since 9/11, passengers are in no mood to let a hijacking take place without a fight.

In conclusion, yes, I feel more confident and safer, but if you want me to give the credit for that to George Bush, I am not prepared to do that.

Answer 2

I don't feel any different now than I did before 9/11. An attack could happen anytime. It was a shock when it happened on 9/11, and I feel bad for the victims and their families, but it doesn't make me feel any safer or any less safe. We were just lucky that that's all that happened that day. It could have been far worse. I mean another country could have easily just started sending bombs over on us. You know what I mean?

Answer 3

It depends on where in America you live.
NY is a MUCH safer place now, so are airports, our security is better.
AZ is a much more violent place and VERY unsafe because of all the illegal immigrants and it's very high crime rate.
In general I think our security and watchfulness has made America as a whole much safer, but there definitely are areas that are rough.

Answer 4

Yes,,, I will not have what life I have be turned into,being scared or feeling unsafe all the time. I think we have taken measures to help keep us safer, not sure if they will work, if and when the time comes, but I pray they will.

Answer 5

in some ways, yes (like in terms of airport security), but in other ways no. crime is still a big deal in major cities, so until that's under better control i won't feel any safer than before.

Answer 6

I feel just as safe now as I did then.
Feeling safe is relative. I could feel safe as im walking across a street and get hit by a bus. Ones life can not be ruled by fear or manipulation otherwise you end making bad decisions.

Answer 7

Yes and No. Americans take life for granted and all the frills that go with living in the greatest country in the world. We also expect protection from the military and police forces (all of which are understaffed, underpaid and un-appreciated). As a result we have become complacent and look at anti-terrorism as a gnat, an intrusion, an inconveience. Because I have God in my life and know that I am going to a better place, I check fear at the door and lean on my faith in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.

Answer 8

I wont feel safe until we clean out this country. I was in Manhattan that day...what a nightmare. Ive been on the Twin Towers a ton of times and I still get sick thinking about it.

Answer 9

nah...extra plane security costs too much and isn't doing a lot of good. That's about all that's changed...people freaked out and made all these changes that really aren't helping a lot.

Answer 10

There are an estimated 500 men detained in U.S. custody at Bagram. Though some have been held for years, none of these men has ever received a hearing of any sort. Bagram has been the site of notorious examples of abuse - including abuses that led to the December 2002 deaths of two Afghan detainees.

CCR Staff Attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez said: "Bagram should be synonymous with Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. These are abusive environments where the rights we all hold dear are regularly violated. Habeas is the only chance the men there have of ever responding to the allegations against them and demanding accountability for their treatment in court."

Mohammed v. Rumsfeld raises challenges to the Military Commissions Act's sweeping definition of "unlawful enemy combatant," denial of due process, and rejection of accountability for torture and abusive interrogations:


The MCA's sweeping definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" would include many people not engaged in hostilities against the United States. The MCA writes the term "unlawful enemy combatant" into law for the first time - and with a definition so expansive that it includes U.S. citizens and those who are not directly engaged in hostilities against the United States but who "materially support" hostilities. Further, the MCA sanctions the President or Secretary of Defense's unilateral declaration that an individual is an "unlawful enemy combatant." The MCA even attempts to deny due process to individuals who are not yet classified as unlawful enemy combatants under this broad definition, but also those who are "awaiting such determination" - a definition that could be read to include all non-citizens held in U.S. custody in the U.S. or abroad.


Despite being held indefinitely in U.S. custody, all detainees at Bagram would be denied habeas relief - or any ability to challenge any aspect of their detention or treatment. The MCA purports to revoke the right of non-citizen detainees to bring a habeas petition to challenge the legality of their detention. For detainees not held at Guantánamo, the MCA further purports to deprive them of any right to challenge any aspect of their detention, treatment, trial or conditions of confinement through any means.


The law severely limits accountability for torture and abusive interrogations for those detained in U.S. custody at Bagram and around the world. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits violence to detainees and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The MCA permits the President to interpret any violations of the Geneva Conventions which do not constitute "grave breaches" and amends the War Crimes Act so that only grave breaches of Common Article 3 can be prosecuted. The President's prior interpretations prompt great concern about unchecked executive interpretations of Geneva Convention violations. As the MCA does not allow those held in U.S. custody to sue over the conditions of their detention, torture prohibitions such as the McCain Amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act will be unenforceable without habeas rights.
CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren said: "Last week, Congress voted to have the United States join the ranks of the nations of the world that have authorized indefinite detention without trial and torture without accountability. For over two hundred years, our Constitution has guaranteed that we would not sacrifice our democratic principles even in times of crisis. In this first challenge to the MCA, we demand that the Administration uphold the Constitution which has, and should continue to be, the pillary of living in a democratic society."