Expert: Security Checkpoints Near Soft Targets May Soon Become The Norm

A Day May Come When You'll Be Patted Down Going Into Stores

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Counter terrorism experts say a retaliation attack for Osama bin Laden’s death is inevitable. Terrorists are expected to aim for more vulnerable soft targets like shopping malls or museums.

They are places jam-packed with people — pedestrian malls, shopping centers and stadiums.

“Yeah, I feel safe. But of course in the back of my head I know that things can happen,” one person told CBS 2’s Hazel Sanchez.

Counter terrorism expert Juval Aviv said terrorists seeking revenge for Osama bin Laden’s death will turn to attacks less dramatic than the destruction on Sept. 11 — focusing instead on soft targets like hotels, places of worship and mass transit hubs.

“It’s easier and less complicated to carry out,” Aviv said. “What they’re going to achieve if they’re successful is to kill as many people as possible.”

Security consultant David Boehm said the future could include security check points entering all soft targets — like your local department store. Boehm said even with a police presence, the areas are vulnerable.

“The reason they’re called ‘soft’ is because it’s so easily accessible to anyone. There has to be security checks for the safety of all people,” Broehm said.

Added security is a turn-off for some New Yorkers.

“There’s a police presence and they search someone with a backpack. Somebody that looks suspicious, but it’s random. I would go if that if that is the case; not if everybody is being searched,” one New Yorker said.

“It’s better to be safe than to be sorry,” another person said.

Despite the challenges to secure high-volume soft targets like Times Square, security experts said one of the best lines of defense is already in place and doesn’t cost a thing.

“We are millions and millions of eyes and ears. We need to assist the police. We need to assist each other and keep each other safe,” Boehm said.

It’s freedom, coming with an increasingly heavy price.

Would you be okay with security checkpoints outside department stores or places of worship? Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.


One Comment

  1. Hello! Thanks for the heads up!

  2. Jay Rafferty says:

    No, this is just about Obama realizing his dream of an American dictatorship for himself. Not everyone is stupid, Mr. President. We’re watching you, too.

  3. TheBigWedding says:

    But, if the facts do indicate that Osama was a CIA asset, has been dead since, at least December of 2011; that it can be demonstrated that “al Qaeda” was and is still a secret CIA army, that there is ample evidence that 911 was an inside job…does this demonstrate that this story is just more propaganda meant to keep the fear hyped up, to continue the police state grid imposed in the wake of 911 and the so-called anthrax attacks?

  4. jg says:

    Blah, blah, blah… the left calls it fascism, the right calls is Marxism.

    The word is “totalitarianism” and it doesnt lean left or right.

    You wacko right wingers ushered in this era with the “war on terror” you were so excited about when Bush was in office… you went to town with the patriot act among other anti-terror legislation… not you are seeing the end result of it and dont know what to do… so you call it Marxism…. very good.

  5. theoneandonly says:

    If you think it’s bad now, wait until the months leading up to 12/21/12… when all of these religious extremists and bible thumping “people shouldn’t own guns” morons start going nuts saying the world is gonna end. You think this security “step-up” is bad? Wait for marshall law. Riots, mass suicides, raiders, etc… ultimately resulting in marshall law with a sundown curfew for “our safety”. Society will come to a halt… and who’s going to fight back? The people who still believe in the Constitution. Who’s going to win? The Government. Why? Brainwashed military personnel. I love our military, they give us peace-of-mind when we sleep (mostly), but we’re headed for a prison camp country. If you think I’m nuts… I suggest you research the underground prison facilities and missile silos that have been remodeled. All empty, waiting for the sheep. When the hoarding and raiding and rioting starts, guess what the sheep will be doing? They’ll be getting hearded into “safety” in underground “safehavens”. Wake up now, or wake up a prisoner.

  6. Cor says:

    awesome lilly

  7. Ian MacLeod says:

    To answer the question after the article: HELL NOT! No, I would NOT “be okay” with it! You do NOT protect freedom by taking it away! Personally I sick of these lying, cheesy attempts by corporate-owned politicians and already unaccountable, power hungry cops of various stripes trying to turn America into the Fourth Reich. This is almost exactly the same kind of lying propaganda and tactics used by the Nazis, by Mussolini, in Russia and on and on – fascist takeovers. It’s time and far past time for Americans to remember who the Hell we are and stand up against this intolerable corporate government!

    The elections are manipulated and fixed, the MSM reports nothing the government doesn’t okay and usually twist if it isn’t made up in the first place, they ignore us totally – our voices, our needs, our Constitution. They’ve destroyed the economy, the industrial base, the schools, what there was of medicine…

    Once more, NO!


  8. Stu says:

    Anyone who attempts to “pat me down” going into a store will be picking themselves up off the deck… in handcuffs.

  9. NNNyc says:

    A BIG MIDDLE FINGER, we know The Federal Reserve the private Bank that hijacked this country 100 years ago is the reak enemy. They setup a police state here to keep power, some sheeple might fall for this fake war on terror. But theres millions of Americans just like myself that aware of the false flag terror thats being brought upon the American people. If you want to be a coward and not research these things on your own, then you deserve having your freedoms taken away

  10. gjm says:

    No !

  11. pamela says:

    I totally agree with Lilly. this is insane! If of course people really really cut back on shopping because of it, you’ll see big business put a stop to it.

  12. Catherine says:

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
    Benjamin Franklin

  13. DB says:

    Not only no but hell no. We need a revolution…

  14. mindy says:

    Amen! I refuse to allow terrorists to take away my freedoms!

  15. Abby says:

    It’s a sad day when a daily routine such as going to the store or church requires pat downs & scans because of a yet to happen threat.
    I’m threatened with death everytime I get into my automobile and share the road with drunks or text-ers. As for the airport, getting a pat down doesn’t guarentee the plane won’t fall out of the air anyway. I worry more about the radioactive rain coming down from Japan then someone with a gun or bomb blowing me up in the cereal section at the local supermarket. I live in tornado alley AND on the New Madrid fault AND near the flooding Mississippi River. A terrorist is the last thing I concern myself with. This is not freedom at a high price. When a price is attached, it’s no longer freedom.

  16. Amanda says:

    OH it already started. They stopped my husband for a traffic violation the other day. They said he didn’t use a single, but I don’t know how that is relevant because he wasn’t even turning or switching lanes! He had been going straight for at least 10 minutes. They asked to search the car and he said no, I don’t have time for this. The pig reached his hand in the car took out the keys and forcefully removed my husband. We contacted a lawyer, but guess what!!! In Michigan this is ok, all the cop will have to say is that he felt threatened.

    1. Conch Republic says:

      My word! Give a cop a badge and he thinks he owns the world! I would fight this tooth and nail!

    2. Ed-M says:

      He was probably in a lane that split off from one freeway and dumped onto another with no lane changes necessary. Common sense suggests the police can’t stop you for that, but I bet they can and do!

  17. PG says:

    It must be much safer to be friends with everybody, compared to bombing them into your enemies. If you are considdering leaving, you better hurry up before borders are closed

  18. jsbrodhead says:

    That South Dakota Legislation, which would require EVERY adult citizen to own a gun, doesn’t seem so “crazy” now, does it?

  19. Jason says:

    Unfortunately, its not so simple to leave the country. To get citizenship in another country, you need wealth or connections. Even the countries that only require investment for citizenship still want hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    You’re pretty much stuck here.

  20. Miranda says:

    The excuse to take away all your liberties, negate the constitution and bring in a dictatorship all goes back to 911. Look how easy it is to bring down a free society. You don’t need to invade it, you just need to knock down a few buildings to “scare the hell out of the American people,” as the late Aaron Russo would say (look him up on YouTube). A lot of people have been screaming about 911 being an inside job, including engineers who have carefully examined the physical evidence. Building 7 went down without even being hit and toppled to the ground in its own footprint, the only time in history that’s ever happened in a highrise fire.

    Interview with Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a U.S. government insider, who confirms the deception of our own govt in its quest for more power and control:

  21. Dagney says:

    Islam is a religion of peace.
    Making a true difference in the world.
    Share the information so others can learn and bring understanding to the world.

  22. Jim says:

    absolutely not!!! if a store or church has security checkpoints, it won’t see me shopping or worshiping there.

  23. Alex says:

    Dear CBS,

    Please retract the last sentence of this article: “It’s freedom coming at an increasingly heavy price.” This is a factually misleading statement which makes it sound as though a society where people are searched and interrogated for going about their daily business is “free”. Please correct this to convey clearly that this suggestion is, in fact, the opposite of “freedom”. It would be more accurate to use the phrase “restriction in the name of safety” or “limiting freedom”. Edward R. Murrow would be ashamed of you.



Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE