ABSTRACT
In today’s world of high-stakes terrorism, there are few individuals or organizations in either the private sector or law enforcement that will question the need for planning in order to meet the threat of terrorism. „e events of 9/11, the London transit bombings, and the Mumbai attacks, and even such unsuccessful attempts as the Christmas Day “underwear” bomber in 2009 and the Times Square car bomber less than six months later, have demonstrated that the tactics of terrorists know no bounds and out-of-the box planning is now the rule rather than the exception. In fact, there is no other area in which there is a greater need for cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement and the private sector than terrorism defense. In the pre-9/11 days, when questions arose, they were generally about costs and potential bene–ts resulting from these expenditures. In the a¡ermath of 9/11, questions of cost have been put aside, but as we move on from 9/11 and terrorist attacks diminish or the perceived threat subsides, budget issues are again being raised-in times of –nancial downturn when money is tight. History shows, unfortunately, that security operations are frequently the –rst to feel the budget axe. It must be remembered, however, that the moral obligation to protect people’s lives cannot be evaluated in dollars. For law enforcement’s consideration, there is a legal obligation to protect lives. It is the foundation of the police mandate. On the part of the private sector, the obligation can be derived from what the courts have called “foreseeability” in vicarious liability suits. In this light we can ill aœord to let our guard down.
