Peter Beinart Quotes

In the area of national security, I urge the swift passage of an anti-terrorism law that will protect rather than subvert, enhance rather than weaken, the rights and liberties that terrorism precisely threatens with extinction.

When we faced a possibility here in New York of chemical and biological attack, three days after September 11, I called in all of the experts, academic experts, Nobel Prize laureates, and doctors who had dealt with anthrax, doctors who had dealt with various forms of chemical and biological attack.

Although every step must be taken to protect against a chemical or biological attack in America, our nation would survive the use of those weapons as we did when anthrax was mailed to our Capitol and other targets.

And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.

Here are some additional things we (the National Security Agency) can do for the War on Terror but we may not do them because we do not have the authority

… the war on terrorism will serve as the justification for restraints on civil liberties.

The lack of U. S. Capability to rapidly recognize, respond, and recover from a biological attack is the most significant failure identified in this report card. Especially troubling is the lack of priority given to the development of medical countermeasures … the vaccines and medicines that would be required to mitigate the consequences of an attack.

Back from 2001 to 2003, I wrote multiple editorials for The Washington Post about biological warfare and pandemic preparedness - issues that were at the top of everyone's agenda in the wake of 9/11 and the brief anthrax scare. At the time, some very big investments were made into precisely those issues, especially into scientific research.

Should any terrorist strike or act of war occur in which American lives are lost, we must be on guard for any attempt by the government to turn that tragedy into justification for sweeping action.

For the vast majority of places in America, there is no way you can build a security system such as we have here because of the high priority this rates in terms of terrorist interests.

In the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us.

Military confrontation is not a suitable alternative in confronting terror and current security threats.

If the Bush Administration cannot ensure Americans that they will be safe from the flu, how will they protect our country against a possible bio-terror or chemical attack? The American people deserve better.

First of all, I don't think that America is truly prepared for a biological or a chemical attack. However, we are moving in the right direction.

I would say national security is work in progress.

But the truth of the matter is, we're an open society, we want to remain an open society, and there will continue to be vulnerability. That's why we have to meet the threats when they are not yet taking place on our territory and on our soil.

The greatest fear that haunts this city is a suitcase bomb, nuclear or germ. Many people carry small gas masks. The masses here seem to be resigned to the inevitable, believing an attack of major proportions will happen.

Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection.

I have no doubt that if you’re going to fight terrorism you must have a secure, national personal, identification system

Now we must worry as much about hard-to-detect small-scale biological weapons producers as we do about the large-scale nuclear weapons programs

There was before 9-11 and after 9-11. After 9-11, the gloves came off.

We are much safer in the United States, but not yet safe.

When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them.

Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9-11. And those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right and that is not simple.

I am ready to debate how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty.