Introduction: Need for Critical Thinking in National Security: Why It Matters The date of September 11, 2001 marked a turning point in the history of security. Because of these devastating attacks, not only have national defense, security and military strategies changed, but our way of thinking has also changed. We cannot afford to fail in our planning and imagination of what criminals can do. To improve security, we must look for new tools to assist us in our thinking processes. Critical thinking skills can counteract business as usual. Critical thinking helps us become an active learner not only to absorb information, but to probe and shape knowledge. The critical thinker overcomes “hype” and emotion and goes beyond gathering “facts” and memorizing information in an attempt to understand causes, motivations, and changes. Critical thinking skills provide a foundation for creative planning by helping us anticipate future events. The critical thinker asks many questions, and the questions are often easier to formulate than the answers. Critical thinking requires us to “jump out of our own skin” to see the world from the perspective of others. While this is not an easy process, we are much better informed prior to our conclusions and decisions. Critical thinking should not be used as a tool to open the doors of criticism in the workplace. It must be applied discreetly to understand the world and meet challenges. A professional's success depends on his or her thought process applied to daily duties and long-term planning. Critical thinking adds another benefit to the repertoire of tools available to security and loss prevention professionals. Security challenges have become increasingly complex… middle of the paper… reveal what the analyst believes the event or recording should reveal. Assessing reliability involves determining whether different means of collection produce the same results. If, on the other hand, if the evidence is testimonial, different criteria apply. The first thing to establish is whether the source is truthful. Truthfulness is not absolute. Rather, it depends on time and context. A source may believe they are being truthful about an issue or may have legitimate reasons for not being truthful about that issue. At another time and on another issue, these impediments to truthfulness may not exist for that source. Therefore, establishing the veracity of a source can represent a significant challenge for the analyst.--Conveying solid, well-reasoned arguments--Executing solutions--Focusing on the reasoning process with the intention of improving the process