CNSNews.com
April 19, 2007
Monisha Bansal
Touting the success of legislation aimed at protecting manufacturers of anti-terror equipment and systems from litigation in the event of a terror attack, a Department of Homeland Security official Wednesday called the law a gift from the government to the private sector.
The Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act is "an incredible present from the administration and the Congress to the Department of Homeland Security and also to the manufacturers, the innovators, the economic engine in America that is working so hard to provide solutions [for] counter-terror efforts," Jay Cohen said at a briefing at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Cohen, who is undersecretary for science and technology at the DHS, said the 2002 law was put in place to provide legal liability protection to qualifying providers of anti-terror technology and services.
The DHS explained that the act creates liability limitations for claims arising out of an act of terrorism in a case where anti-terror technologies have been deployed.
Cohen said 144 technologies, covering "a very broad spectrum of security devices," have been approved.
The types of technologies include detection systems, sensors, screening services, detectors, software, threat assessment services and blast mitigation materials, according to a DHS document.
"The SAFETY Act has had a significant impact on improving the nation's anti-terrorism capabilities, readiness, and by extension, the safety of the United States," Cohen said.
Raymond Biagini, an attorney with McKenna, Long and Aldridge - a law firm that defends government contractors - said the law's purpose was to encourage American and foreign companies to invest in, develop and deploy anti-terror technologies.
But more needs to be done, Biagini added.
"Some companies are saying they aren't going to deploy internationally because of the liability concerns," he said, noting that the law cannot protect companies from being sued for injuries abroad. This may deter them from investing in new technologies.
"Right now companies, if they go through the process here in the U.S., they will fall under the protection that's in place," said Rudolph Cohen, a director at Raytheon and a member of the Homeland Security and Defense Business Council.
The same would not apply in the European Union, he said.
Rudolph Cohen said terrorists will attack again. "We have to be prepared for that. We have to try to mitigate it. We have to try to make it so that they are spread far enough apart that they are not happening all the time," he added.
Brian Finch, an attorney with Dickstein Shapiro LLP, defended the law as it stands, saying that Congress and industry should be cautious in raising concerns.
"When considering the SAFETY Act, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," he said.
"There is always room for improvement," said Finch, "But the department has done an awfully good job when it comes to the SAFETY Act."
"We need to be careful how we couch our recommendations for improvement because there is a tendency to make issues that are good for improvement seem overwhelming and [that] can undermine all the good things the department has done," he said.