The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We save limited resources in terms of who we are physically screening. The approach will allow us to pay more attention to those potential terrorists.
I imagine that the intention is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them.
I think cutting our defense capacity not only demonstrably diminishes our national security, but it has a tremendous negative impact in the long run on our economy because we end up having to fight wars and clean up after terrorist disasters.
We will strengthen our security by building missile defense, restoring our military might, and standing by and strengthening our intelligence officers.
Judy, we think that since the 11th of September, 2001, we've faced a similar heightened threat level. And we've been enhancing both the exchange of intelligence and security information and the assessment of that information, because that's the crucial element.
Although we must change the ways we protect our country, we must also guard against policies that appear attractive but offer little real protection and may even impede our ability to protect ourselves.
We don't push back hard enough against the government. We could use, the country in general could use a more adversarial press corps, especially when it comes to matters of national security.
Unless we have a well-educated people, we're vulnerable on our national security.
The use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.
I certainly believe that improving our intelligence is of important national interest.