The September 11th Attacks Leave Lingering Fears Around the World

/PRNewswire/ -- Even though nine years have passed since the September 11 attacks, people around the world still feel its effects, according to new research with Survey Sampling International's (SSI) global online panels. SSI findings show that in all countries studied, the perception of being safe from terrorism is well below pre-9/11 levels. Though Australians and New Zealanders feel more secure than citizens of other countries, they still feel less safe today than before the events of 9/11.

The Japanese feel the least safe from terrorism, with the French and Germans also showing high levels of anxiety. In the US, the site of the attacks, feelings of security have bounced back significantly, with more than 40% of participants perceiving some level of safety, compared to about 20% in the month following 9/11. However, this is still far below the more than 70% who say they felt safe prior to the attacks. The UK shows a similar pattern to the US, with just over 40% of respondents feeling safe from terrorism today compared to about 70% before 9/11.

"The horrific events of 9/11 continue to haunt people around the world," says Mark Hardy, Managing Director, Americas and Chief Strategy Officer for SSI. "Although our research shows that some of the fear and anxiety people felt right after the attacks has dissipated, the impact of 9/11 on people's sense of security remains significant. In no country are we seeing a return to the same level of safety people felt before 9/11."

SSI's findings are based on a study of 5,000+ adults drawn from its online panels. Countries covered include the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. SSI offers extensive worldwide reach to support survey research through SSI Dynamix(TM), its dynamic sampling platform that links to its own online panels, as well as social media, reward programs, ad networks, partner panels and online communities.

In All Countries except Japan, People Believe Anti-Terrorism Policies Have Been Effective, though They Still Want Increased Security Measures

In spite of their concerns, people around the world believe their countries' anti-terrorism policies have been effective. Singaporeans are most positive about their government's policies, with almost 80% of respondents indicating their country's anti-terrorism activities are effective. The majority of British-- more than 60%--also believe their country's anti-terrorism approaches are effective. In addition, about half of American and Australian respondents give high marks to their governments' anti-terrorism policies.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Japanese are the most negative about their country's anti-terrorism policies. Japan is the only country studied where the majority of respondents--62%--believe their country's anti-terrorism policies are ineffective.

Despite the fact that most participants have faith in their country's current approach to fighting terrorism, they still want to see increased security put into effect. In every country studied, at least 60% of respondents would like stronger anti-terrorism measures in place. Support for increased security is highest in Singapore and Japan, with 85% of respondents saying they want increased security. The US places third in terms of its desire for greater security, with 76% seeking stronger measures.

Countries Differ Greatly in Their Willingness to Trade Personal Freedom for Security

Although respondents want more security, many are not willing to sacrifice their personal freedom to get it. Reactions to trading freedom for safety vary greatly by country. Singapore has the highest percentage (61%) of respondents willing to give up personal freedoms in return for higher safety. In fact, it is the only country with a majority of citizens agreeing on this issue. There is significant divisiveness in most countries on whether personal freedom or safety is more important.

Germany shows the greatest divide. Of all countries studied, it has the lowest proportion of participants ready to exchange their freedom for security (25%). On the other hand, 44% of German respondents are against sacrificing freedom for safety, and 31% are unsure. The US also shows a significant split, with 27% of respondents willing to let go of personal freedoms to increase safety, 39% unwilling and 34% unsure.

"Clearly, the topic of decreasing personal freedom to increase security is among the most divisive around the world," says Hardy. "It is telling that in many countries--including New Zealand, the US, the UK, Australia and Germany--a third or more of respondents are unsure of where to stand on this controversial issue."

-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

Statement for the Family of John P. O'Neill in Response to U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear 9/11 Victims' Case Against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill in Response to U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear 9/11 Victims' Case Against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Others


/PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Jerry S. Goldman of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., counsel to the family of John P. O'Neill, Sr.:

We are disappointed by today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case brought by the family of the late American hero, John P. O'Neill, on behalf of the victims of 9/11 against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 08-640 (6/29/09).

We are saddened to see that the Court declined to apply its traditional standards for accepting a case for review. We assume that it relied upon the arguments propounded by the Executive branch and the defendants to deny the 9/11 victims their day in Court against certain sovereign nations, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that we allege materially support terrorists.

We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

We note, too, that there are still cases pending against other defendants seeking to hold them accountable for their actions in assisting Al Qaeda.

At the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the decision of the Second Circuit was only of limited impact on the other defendants in the case. We can only assume that the Justice Department will be consistent with the arguments that they propounded before the Supreme Court. Similarly, we are looking forward to their filings as to the scope of sovereign immunity.

We are optimistic that the lower courts will allow the rest of the lawsuit to proceed, as we believe that it is obvious that a United States court is the appropriate forum for hearing claims brought for harms suffered by individuals and businesses on American soil, whether against the terrorists who hijacked planes to wreak death and mass destruction, or against those, who provided the material support enabling terrorists to wreak death and destruction.

We look forward to finally proceeding with discovery and allowing justice to prevail.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Former FBI Director, General, Diplomat, Clergy Call for Presidential Commission on Detention, Treatment and Transfer of Detainees

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Leading experts, including a former FBI director, an Army general who investigated detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, and a former Under Secretary of State, today called upon President Obama to appoint a non-partisan commission to fully investigate and examine the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees following the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The commission's proposed mandate would allow it to identify detainee policy failures and their causes in order to formulate recommendations to address problems identified in the report.

The group issued the following statement detailing their call to action:

"We urge President Obama to appoint a non-partisan commission of distinguished Americans to examine, and provide a comprehensive report on, policies and actions related to the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees after 9/11 and the consequences of those actions, and to make recommendations for future policy in this area."

The statement was signed by: Juan E. Mendez, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice; Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Judge William Sessions, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.); and Rev. Dr. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. In addition, 18 leading human rights organizations have endorsed the statement.

"The president has a responsibility to protect and defend Americans and unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered as to whether the detention, transfer, and treatment of detainees following the September 11th attacks were in the country's best interest," said Sessions, the former FBI director. "We need to understand what happened and how to prevent any illegal actions from taking place in the future."

Pickering, the former Under Secretary of State said, "the new administration cannot be effective in looking forward without a full accounting and understanding of how American policy got to where we are today." He added, "a non-partisan commission, removed from the burdensome barriers of politics, is a well proven method of accomplishing these goals."

The organizations endorsing this effort are: Amnesty International USA; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University, School of Law; the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, University of California, Davis; the Center for Victims of Torture; the Constitution Project; the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; the International Center for Transitional Justice; the International Justice Network; the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; the National Institute of Military Justice; the National Religious Campaign Against Torture; the Open Society Institute; Physicians for Human Rights; and the Rutherford Institute.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page