"Since September 11, the U.S. has significantly improved its security to prevent another attack"
About this Quote
Murphys assertion points to the sweeping transformation of American security after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The United States reorganized how it guards against threats, building a layered system designed to detect, disrupt, and deter plots before they reach execution. A new cabinet department consolidated border, aviation, and emergency functions; cockpit doors were hardened and airline screening reimagined; watchlists and no-fly lists expanded; visa vetting and biometric checks tightened; and intelligence agencies were pushed to share information instead of hoarding it. Legal authorities broadened investigative reach, and a dedicated counterterrorism architecture took shape through fusion centers, the National Counterterrorism Center, and a strengthened interagency process.
Measured against the singular benchmark of another 9/11-scale assault by a foreign network on U.S. soil, the record appears strong. Numerous plots have been foiled, and the absence of a comparable catastrophe suggests these layers have raised the bar for would-be attackers. Yet prevention is a paradox: successes are often invisible, classified, and hard to verify, while failures are public and painful. The United States has suffered deadly attacks since 2001, from Fort Hood to the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, and Orlando, with a notable shift toward self-radicalized or loosely connected actors who require different tools than those built for dismantling hierarchical groups.
Security gains came with costs. Expanded surveillance authorities spurred civil liberties debates, and errors in watchlisting and profiling strained trust, especially in Muslim and immigrant communities. The initial focus on foreign-directed jihadism has gradually broadened to include cyber threats and domestic violent extremism, forcing a continual recalibration of priorities and methods.
Murphys statement reads as both a defense of the post-9/11 security redesign and a reminder that security is not a finish line. Improvements are real, but they demand constant oversight, transparency, and adaptation to new threat patterns so that safety is pursued without losing the liberties it aims to protect.
Measured against the singular benchmark of another 9/11-scale assault by a foreign network on U.S. soil, the record appears strong. Numerous plots have been foiled, and the absence of a comparable catastrophe suggests these layers have raised the bar for would-be attackers. Yet prevention is a paradox: successes are often invisible, classified, and hard to verify, while failures are public and painful. The United States has suffered deadly attacks since 2001, from Fort Hood to the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, and Orlando, with a notable shift toward self-radicalized or loosely connected actors who require different tools than those built for dismantling hierarchical groups.
Security gains came with costs. Expanded surveillance authorities spurred civil liberties debates, and errors in watchlisting and profiling strained trust, especially in Muslim and immigrant communities. The initial focus on foreign-directed jihadism has gradually broadened to include cyber threats and domestic violent extremism, forcing a continual recalibration of priorities and methods.
Murphys statement reads as both a defense of the post-9/11 security redesign and a reminder that security is not a finish line. Improvements are real, but they demand constant oversight, transparency, and adaptation to new threat patterns so that safety is pursued without losing the liberties it aims to protect.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Timothy
Add to List
