Terror Acts in America

    Nothing is more important than treading carefully when it comes to domestic terrorism.  A "homegrown" threat may be just as dangerous as an international threat, and enemies exist, of course, both foreign and domestic.  However, there are serious implications and ramifications when battling terrorism upon one's soil.  A democracy without internal security will become a breeding ground for domestic terrorism, but a democracy with too much internal security will cease to be a democracy.  Security at the expense of liberty is no security at all.  History has shown that democracies can easily fall apart due to domestic terrorism, and not necessarily by overthrow, but by corrosion of their own principles.  We've seen this pattern time and time again with what used to be some of the world's most shining places -- Ceylon, Lebanon, Uruguay, e.g. -- turned completely into war zones where regimes retain law and order at any cost.  Converting democracies into dictatorships is, in fact, one of the goals of Marighella-style terrorism -- getting governments to show their repressive, true colors.  "History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency... when the scourge is manifest... and the need for action is great" (Thurgood Marshall).  "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin).      

    Democracies are not perfect. They are fragile entities and experiments in progress. Democracy involves a game of numbers in which everyone is assured equal footing at the starting line (with fundamental freedoms), and then interest groups of like-minded people fight peacefully for their privileges to become rights.  These fought-for rights are called liberties.  They are always acquired, not bestowed, easily lost, and there are five types:

• Economic liberty - to follow one's calling or avocation in life
• Personal liberty - to come and go as one pleases or to follow one's conscience
• Political liberty - to vote, participate in, and change one's form of government
• Civil liberty - to enjoy an absence of regulation and the freedom to pursue new liberties
• Social and cultural liberty - to choose one's associates and be treated respectfully 

    The United States is not perfect. In fact, it's not even a true democracy where people have a direct vote on each and every issue.  It's a constitutional republic (which means the constitution is used to manage the always-imperfect balance between civil rights and due process versus security and citizen safety).  A constitution is not a suicide pact. Sometimes, order takes priority over liberty when chaos looms.  Constitutional democracies usually elect political representatives who make the hard decisions, and the battle for newfound freedoms and liberties is often a battle for access to the "hearts and minds" of politicians.  This pluralistic and sometimes amorphous situation unfortunately lends itself to partisanship, paranoia, conspiracy, and the vested interests of a few.  Some of those few (the elites) may inflate or inflame things, but domestic terrorism does this too.  Domestic terrorism tends to build and build until it reaches some sort of insoluble crisis stage.  During this crisis stage, a "do anything, do something" knee-jerk response is understandable, but it must be remembered to act carefully and not in haste.  By all accounts, American internal security has been largely successful at regularly preventing more than half of all domestic terrorist attacks (not any great indicator of success, mind you), but it did produce a 25-year low by the 1990s (CDT figures).  Improving upon such indicators would bode well for our nation. 

    It is a fact that the U.S. has been relatively free from domestic terrorism.  Other nations in the world have not, and other nations in the world have tried a wider variety of counterinsurgency efforts.  Some nations have tried more tolerance; others less tolerance.  The U.S. has simply just plugged along and done pretty well with its ordinary law enforcement apparatus.  The list of experimental efforts, however, include the following:

• Assassination - Israel, the U.S., and other countries have tried this
• Culpability of facilitators - say, if a person created a website promoting terrorism
• Indefinite detention - Canada, France, Great Britain, and the U.S. have tried this
• Infringement on rights to assemble, worship, and speak - Germany and Great Britain tried  
• Internment - detaining nonnaturalized immigrants in internment camps
• National ID cards - tried in France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain
• Racial profiling - Israel tried it; in the U.S., it's been tried along with concomitant factors
• Rendition - or extraordinary rendition, to torture somebody in a country with loose rules on torture
• Surveillance - closed circuit TV surveillance, with facial recognition, is commonly tried
• Suspicionless searches - Israel, for example, has tried eliminating standards for a stop and frisk
• Torture - Spain, Israel, and the U.S. have been known to tolerate this, or extradite for this

    Democracies always seem to have to fight domestic terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs.  That's because they must engage in adversarial review and oversight, and always justify their actions to the legislature, the courts, and public opinion.  The ultimate purpose of all this openness is to prevent two things from happening -- (1) the betrayal of democratic principles (not staying the course and remaining a democracy); and (2) the recruitment of fresh recruits for terrorism that comes from the misguided rounding up and punishing of innocent civilians.  Democracies must battle domestic terrorism as a necessary duty, and learn to do it their own way.  There is an urgent need for some ethics and professionalism in this field, and I would argue that as long as something's a necessary duty, it might as well become a pleasurable and desirable duty.  Frankly, not enough smart people are invested into their careers here.  All the glamour seems to come from fighting international terrorism.  One would be hard pressed to name one hero who was a domestic counterterrorist. 

    The "battlefield" for fighting domestic terrorism is attitudinal.  One must combat the waves of nihilism and despair that float among the populace.  This isn't easy, and there is danger in being too tolerant.  Examples have to be made.  Someone has to be the grown-up and smack down the upstarts.  Often, the only good choices will be the lesser evil. "Liberal states cannot be protected by herbivores" (Ignatieff 2004).  What's important is that democracies must maintain their course, and remain democracies, true to their founding principles.  Nowhere is this friction point better found than in the way democracies deal with their own "homegrown" problem -- the problem of domestic terrorism.              

TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN DOMESTIC TERRORISM

    Debate rages over whether the U.S. ought to use an FBI model or a MI-5 model to counter domestic terrorism.  In the meantime, the FBI model seems to be the one that our nation has come to rely on.  The FBI conducts about 10,000 terrorism investigations a year, and of that number, only about 200-400 cases are prosecuted a year.  Prosecutions for international terrorism (kidnapping, hostage taking) have run steady at about 50 a year, although they jumped to about 200 a year since 9/11. Prosecutions for domestic terrorism (explosives or weapons, threatening the President) fluctuate but seem to have been increasing in recent years, from 147 in 1997, 166 in 1998, 187 in 1999, 194 in 2000 and 259 in 2001 (TRAC figures).  Convictions rates are more certain for domestic terrorism than international terrorism.  Only one in ten domestic terrorists escape an average seven-year prison sentence.  The Justice Department’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) defines domestic terrorism as groups or individuals who seek to further their political goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or the threat of force, and there is no foreign direction or foreign involvement.  There are dramatic differences between the criminality patterns of domestic and international terrorists, as the following table, derived from Hamm (2005), illustrates:

      Domestic terrorism, according to the above figures, tends to dominate in the destructive devices, mail fraud, and RICO violations categories.  However, there is more to the story than what can be gained from looking at American figures alone.  Whereas in other parts of the world, species of domestic terrorists tend to be systemic, in the U.S., they're cyclic.  Domestic terrorism can involve right-wing, left-wing, anti-government, pro-government, anti-tax, paramilitary, anti-abortion, anti-religious, anti-ethnic, and militia groups. America has it all.  There is no common enemy.  It is unfortunate that our authorities are overwhelmed by all this, and unfortunately, for the most part, much of domestic counterterrorism in the U.S. is militia-watching.  Freilich (2003) points out that there are two (2) kinds of militias: above ground and below ground.  Each type will have different structures and recruitment methods, but what they have in common is an ideology that includes unconventional beliefs about government authority, technology, modernity, the media, societal elites, and the global economy.  Above all, they fear losing their constitutional rights and usually their highly cherished firearms rights and civil liberty to do whatever they want to do behind closed doors.

    In dealing with militias or rightwing terrorists, if you're going to watch them, it's often a good strategy to let them know you're watching them (Laqueur 1999).  This keeps them underground, and deprives them of the benefit of surprise.  It's OK to let them battle for publicity and a wider audience.  It's often said that journalists are a terrorists' best friend, anyway.  They will quickly learn that the media turns on them.  The best weapons are advanced computer technology and informants.  This is because so many domestic terrorist groups have an inordinate interest in cyberterrorism and weapons of mass destruction, so these more active countermeasures are sometimes called for.  Care must be taken, however, to avoid feeding their paranoia and avoid becoming a "snitch society."    

    American domestic terrorism was at one time a left-wing phenomenon with groups such as the Weathermen and Black Panthers active in the 1960s and 70s.  Before that, it was anti-Catholic during the 19th century, and then it became anti-black and anti-Semitic in the 20th century.  It has now evolved into diverse and divided right-wing extremism consisting of White Supremacists, Tax Rebels, Militia Patriots, Christian Patriots, Christian Reconstructionists, Anti-Abortionists, and Neo-Nazis.  Such extremism has not been confined to the United States -- it exists worldwide in places like Germany and Italy.  Israel even has right-wing terrorism.  It embraces all the exotic forms of terror -- cyber (groups operate over 200 websites at last count), eco- (they hate the "tree huggers" but share a common vision), and WMD (groups that have been caught preparing biological, chemical, or radiological weapons).  The extreme right does not have a well-delineated party line, and is best seen as a breeding ground for terrorism since there is a weak command-and-control structure. They take leaderless resistance to new levels with self-made "phantom" cells which ensure the movement's survival even if everyone else in the group is eliminated or compromised (Wright 2007).  The one thing they often have in common is HATE, although it is best to keep in mind that there are differences between hate groups and domestic terrorism groups.  Domestic terrorists usually hate liberals, Democrats, lesbians, homosexuals, foreigners, police, politicians, tax collectors, bankers, the media, anyone from Washington D.C., New York City or Los Angeles, anyone not like them, and anyone disagreeing with them.  Some domestic terrorists hate war.  Others love war.  Many of them can be best described as being "pissed-off" rather than filled with hate.  This was plainly the case with the Weather Underground (most active from 1970-1974) who thought of itself as idealistic and inspired over such matters as social justice, drugs, and sex (Ayers et al. 2006).  

EXTREMIST RIGHTWING MOVEMENTS

    It is vitally important to distinguish between extremists and terrorists.  While DHS and the media continue to argue over the proper spelling of "right-wing" (the preferred media approach) versus "rightwing" (the preferred DHS approach), many independent conservatives (who consider themselves patriots) are upset about DHS labeling them "extremists" or worse, "domestic terrorists."  Particularly upsetting is an April 2009 DHS Report (available here) which pretty much warns about the rise of rightwing extremism given an economic downturn and historical (black) presidential election.  Other issues which the report says is driving the rightwing movement are: gun control; free trade agreements; abortion; the national debt; inter-racial crime; and same-sex marriage.  The report warns that "a number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups" are targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.  To further add fuel to the fire, Alex Jones at one of his websites released a copy of a secret Missouri Information Analysis Center report (available here) which essentially equated domestic terrorism with anyone who ever supported a third party candidate (specifically the Constitution, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties).  A close-up look at some of these figures and parties is provided below:

OTHER VARIETIES OF RIGHTWING EXTREMISM

    It is important not to confuse survivalists (those with a self-reliant bent who choose to prepare on their own or in a small group rather than rely on the government to help them survive) with terrorists.  For far too long, the term "survivalist" has called to mind paranoid separatists or white supremacists who give up the conveniences of modern society, drop out of the government's databases and live in one-room, woodsy cabins like the Unabomber.  There are many law-abiding paramilitary and survivalist individuals in America, and they are not domestic terrorists.  A more useful, and yet controversial distinction to make between far right groups and individuals is in terms of their religious beliefs; i.e., religion or religious beliefs (controversial because religion cannot or should not be used in profiling, however much it is the best separator).  The most extreme and non-religious element in this regard (which includes most neo-Nazis) is the direction of either atheist or pagan believes, which have their closest affinity with Nordic mythology.  The names may change, but the story usually goes like this.  Odin, chief of the Norse gods, is said to have called all warriors to racial purification from Valhalla, Viking heaven.  Thor, god of thunder, is said to have reinforced Odin's call by slamming his hammer.  Freya, wife of Odin and goddess of love, sensuality, and trance magick, made a similar call to women.  Pure Odinism has no direct nor remote connection to Christianity, but many varieties of hybrids exist which are variants of Nordic Christianity, which adds the element of serving Christ by purifying and protecting the white race.  Many people who worship the norse deities belong to a religion known as Asatru or Heathenry, and Wiccans are also called by the norse deities, but there are subtle differences between heathenry and Wicca.  Fascist groups which worship brute force tend to share some of the symbolism in Nordic mythology and its varieties.  Neo-nazis are attracted to Odinism largely because of its Anglo-Saxon roots.

    Another typical extreme and non-religious belief is Creatorism, a hate religion that usually distinguishes skinheads from neo-Nazis.  Creatorists believe the Creator left humanity on its own, with each race fending for itself, and that the idea of an always-loving God is a lie.  They must therefore fight a racial holy war because that is what is expected from their god.  Race is religion to a Creatorist.  The White Man's Bible contains their mythology, which is based on a strange mixture of racism and herbal medicine.  Some survivalists patterns might be similar, but are not generally dangerous unless some race-related holy war, or jihad, is involved.  Certain forms of Islamic jihad mimic this form of Christian jihad, but is directed more specifically against non-believers and infidels who insult the religion. 

    Christian identity theology, popular among Aryan Nations and some Patriot and militia groups, claims that white people are the true Israelites.  It is a variation of what was once called Anglo-Israelitism, and is perhaps the world's largest hate religion (with the possible exception of Black Hebrew Israelism which holds that African Americans are the true Jews and white people are descended from the devil). Christian identity holds that Jews originated from an illicit union between the devil and Eve, and nonwhites from animals or mud.  It also posits that the pilgrims who came over in the Mayflower were descendants of the original Caucasian Israelites.

    Klan theology is an American nativist belief in the natural inferiority of black people, based on the latter's descent from the curse of Noah's son Ham, which resulted in the black race.  Shem is the founder of the Asiatic peoples and is inferior to Japheth, the father of white people. The Klan seeks to prevent the government from falling into the hands of blacks. They believe that racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and hatred of immigrants is both a religious and patriotic duty.  Klan group activity is known primarily for its cross-burning signature characteristic.

    Christian reconstructionism seeks to eliminate democracy and replace it with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing an interpretation of Biblical Law.  There would be no such things as labor unions, civil rights laws, public schools, or women allowed to work outside the home.  Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. Capital punishment would also extend to blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.  This has been the theology of most anti-abortionists.

    Freewheeling fundamentalism is a fiercely independent, highly patriotic, free thinking form of right-wing Christianity. It is a term coined by White (2002) to describe the religion of the Patriot movement. This would include the tax rebels and various militia.  It involves taking what one wants or needs from established religion to justify certain social or political beliefs.  Beliefs most often center upon fear or hate of centralized government (ZOG - Zionist Occupied Government) and conspiracies to destroy America's sovereignty (NWO - New World Order). Many of these groups oppose racism, and some claim they are not anti-Semitic. The so-called County movement, however, is interested in establishing free white-people zones in places like Idaho and Montana.  

    The role of heavy metal music:  Oi music has its origins in a genre of racist, neo-Nazi skinhead music called Black Metal.  There are other genres of heavy metal music that stoke terrorist sentiments, but Black Metal, especially when influenced by pagan themes (such as in the Norwegian band Mayhem, whose leader formed a group called Black Circle), is especially dangerous.  Black Circle believes that Christianity should be violently expelled and replaced by a hybrid mixture of  Satanism and paganism, and Black Circle has been blamed for many church burnings worldwide.  Many European countries have banned post-1994 National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM as it's called) for its extremely racist, anti-Semitic, and violent content.  The result of such music bans has done nothing except create a multi-million dollar underground, criminal music industry.

PROFILING EXTREMIST GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

    Controversies over profiling are abundant.  There is no "right" way to use profiling effectively as a weapon in the war against terror.  It may be counter-effective, who knows?  Research on whether profiling "works" is incomplete, and serious thought ought to be carried out before contemplating the development of this expertise in the field of domestic counterterrorism.  Too often in domestic terrorism, particularly, the most readily available profiling criterion is race or religion, and even though those might be the most salient factors, false impressions would reverberate throughout society that persons of certain religions or race were more criminal somehow.   There's also quite a bit of controversy over what distinguishes right-wing extremism from its "fringe" elements. Some say it's the level of violence they're willing to engage in -- baby killing or nuclear devastation, for example.  The more orthodox approach considers conspiratorial delusions and irrational spin-offs to be fringe, and by definition, you can't (or shouldn't) predict or profile anything that delusional and irrational. There's an abundance of literature on conspiracy theory and how irrational it has to get before it becomes dangerous (see Robins & Post 1997; Knight 2001).  There's also some literature on what kinds of attacks and weapons a person who thinks a certain way would use (Laqueur 1999).  It turns out that the most destructive kinds of weapons are NOT always the ones that domestic terrorists would use first.  Most groups (via their leadership) would exercise some restraint in avoiding nuclear weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, and most groups would also generally avoid localized, biological weapons that only kill hundreds.  Body counts seem to be important to domestic terrorists, so there may exist a preferred range in the number of victims they are willing to tolerate.  It may even be possible they don't really want to know who their victims are.  That's why cyberterrorism is a "natural" habitat for domestic terrorism since viruses and logic bombs can be set to detonate at certain times, perhaps on a significant anniversary date, and the weapon goes out on the Internet to target some random victims.  Randomness is definitely a factor in their targeting patterns.   

    One common trait of the less extreme is rugged individualism, of the kind that characterizes small-town Americans and farmers. Montana and Michigan are strongholds of this attitude.  The tax rebellion movement, for example, is especially strong in the Midwest.  Libertarianism is especially strong in Tennessee.  Individualists see the U.S. government as an enemy for wasting money on welfare for people who should not be in America in the first place.  They also believe any police official above the rank of local sheriff is under the control of a centralized government intent on taking away their freedoms and liberties.  They may or may not advocate armed struggle, but they will most likely favor the idea of a militia, which is part of the spirit of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.  They read and interpret the Constitution quite frequently, almost as frequently as the Bible. Their ranks include people from all social classes. 

    Far right extremists, on the other hand, have a strong streak of anti-intellectualism.  They don't read much, except for maybe comic books, and it's been said this type of extremism is like anarchism because the attitude is one of hating rules, regulations, and the increasing bureaucraticization of American life.  They blame minority overpopulation and loose immigration laws for creating a society of registration, permits, stickers, tests, queues, and answering machines. Rather than think about how to work the system, they seek to destroy it, and simplify things by engaging in sporadic acts of offensive violence against minorities, foreigners, homosexuals, government, and big business.  Often, the targets of their violence are the wrong person they intended to target.  They genuinely believe the government is preparing concentration camps for them, with the guards most likely recruited from the ranks of L.A. gangsters.  Their ranks are drawn from the working or lower middle class. 

    Fringe extremists see conspiracies everywhere, and I don't consider myself qualified enough to pass judgment on the intellectual abilities of conspiracy theorists.  Some of what they think is surely quite brilliant, but some of it is just plain nuts.  They will see, for example, secret messages on billboard signs or roadway signs.  They will hear subliminal messages in contemporary music.  They will wonder about the way produce is arranged at the grocery store.  Mentally, they seem to have a problem with the concepts of purpose and agency.  They are called "fringe" extremists because they often live in an unreal, metaphorical world involving "a striking concurrence of tendencies, circumstances, or phenomena as though in planned accord" (Knight 2001).  They represent crackpot, do-it-yourself sociology associated with delusions of persecution.  They point to Ruby Ridge and Waco as evidence of the need to move violently against an enemy before this enemy does more harm to them.  Ironically, this extremist type tends to have the most well-organized leadership structure.  Some are drawn from the ranks of drifters, but most are drawn from leadership positions in other fields, like preaching, teaching, or the military.  

MILLENARIANISM AND TERRORISM

    Extremism always takes the form of preparatory or defensive measures.  Weapons, food, tactics, logistics, identities, and bunkers are all laid out in advance.  By 1997, it was estimated that there were some 600 fully-armed extremist groups waiting for the impending government takeover and race war that would begin in the year 2000 (Laqueur 1999).  In this context, it's customary to talk about millenarianism (or chialism, which is the Greek derivative meaning the same thing) as a driving force of domestic terrorism.  Strictly defined, millenarianism is any belief in the Second Coming of Christ and establishment of His kingdom on earth as predicted in the Book of Revelation.  Broadly defined, it refers to any prophecy about the immanent destruction of the present order and establishment of a new order.  A millennium is a period of 1,000 years, and according to the Gregorian calendar, did not begin until January 1, 2001.  Others believe Christ was born in 4 B.C., so the millennium started in 1997.  Others predict the year 2033 (or maybe 2029, due to Dionysius' error) will hallmark the millennium, 33 years corresponding to the lifespan of Jesus.  Yet others make calculation on the basis of the Islamic calendar (1420), Jewish calendar (5760), or Chinese calendar (4697).  In addition, there are variety of doomsday beliefs about the year 2012, as follows:

    Apocalypticism is the belief that the end of the world and of time are immanent, and that the signs of this are visible.  In fact, the AntiChrist may be believed to be already among us.  In Christianity, the Apocalypse is another name for what happens in the Book of Revelation, with close ties to other Books, such as Daniel and Ezekiel, and in some cases, is mostly an oral tradition.  Apocalypticism is different from eschatology, which refers more broadly to God's divine plan for mankind. An apocalyptic vision, however, is kind of like a plan, or more accurately, an epiphany where one experiences a call to action, eliminates any gray area between good and evil, and is able to clearly identify one's opponent as pure and total evil.  According to the vision of future events in Christian theology, the first thing that happens is the Rapture (God judges the dead and each and every household), followed by a 7-year Tribulation Period, and then a calling of all nations and people to a final battleground where the Battle of Armageddon occurs (Yahweh will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle - Zechariah 14:2).  Shortly after the Battle of Armageddon, there is a Second Coming, another millenium, and then a New Heaven and New Earth.  Each apocalyptic vision usually contains "signs" or "markings" of significant pre-cursor events, and variations of these can usually be found by denomination.  According to Islamic theology, Sura 57 of the Koran can be read as an apocalyptic prophecy fulfilled in the Trade Center bombing.  Respected Saudi theologians, like Sifr al-Hawali, and Abdullah Azzam, Bin Laden's (now dead) mentor and the founder of MAK (the predecessor to Al Qaeda), have nourished Islamic apocalypticism in the form of a cosmic battle that pits the warriors for truth against the agents of Satan and evil in this world.

       The most dangerous aspect of apocalyptic vision is not that it makes a perfect terrorist indoctrination device, but that it promotes the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.  It also promotes suicide.  Every domestic terrorist captured by the FBI for dabbling in WMD has said they were attempting to stockpile such weapons for the upcoming apocalypse.  In 1994, there was an Ohio militia group captured with sizable quantities of bubonic plague cultures, and in 1995, a Minnesota Patriot group was preparing Ricin for use against law enforcement officials.  If there is anything that can be called a Bible for the lunatic right fringe, it's a book called The Turner Diaries.

    The existence of "Christian terrorists" in the U.S. is a phenomenon that smacks of heresy, and most Christians would probably take umbrage at juxtaposition of the words "Christian" and "terrorist."  However, Muslims must feel the same way whenever they hear the term "Islamic terrorism."  There are some remarkable similarities or parallels between Middle Eastern terrorism and domestic terrorism, not so much in a real but literary sense.  In the Turner Diaries, for example, the book ends with a nuclear suicide mission into the Pentagon, the great "Houston bombings" occurring on September 11, and the number of dead in one mission almost matching exactly the number of 9/11 victims.  The Order favors multiple simultaneous attacks, much like Al Qaeda.  In fact, if one was to substitute "Islam" for "White Race" in the Turner Diaries, one would almost have Osama bin Laden's complete apocalyptic design of restoring the Islamic caliphate (Leighton 2004).

PROFILE OF ERIC RUDOLPH: At right is a 2005 AP photo of Eric after a successful court appearance where he avoided the death penalty with a plea agreement. As with all his court appearances, he only submitted his statement in writing. This one read: "The fact that I have entered an agreement with the government is purely a tactical choice on my part and in no way legitimates the moral authority of the government to judge this matter or to impute guilt." One is likely to infer that Eric is a stone-cold, remorseless psychopath, but he claims to be a devout Christian. Other statements: (1) "Abortion is murder, and when the regime in Washington legalized, sanctioned and legitimized this practice, they forfeited their legitimacy and moral authority to govern;" (2)  "The lesbian nightclub attempted to force society to accept and recognize this behavior;" and (3) "I apologize for the Olympic Park bombing and did not intend to harm innocent civilians. It was an opportunity to shame the United States for its legalization of abortion. The goal was to knock out Atlanta's power grid and shut down the Olympics." In Florida, Eric's father died when Eric was 11, and the family moved to NC where Eric was homeschooled but attended a year at Western Carolina before joining the army where he was kicked out after a year for smoking marijuana. Afterwards, he grew marijuana and helped out his brother's carpentry business as he became increasingly paranoid and extremist.

     THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM

    There are two main impacts, beyond the toll of death and devastation: economic and psychological.  Nations are sorely tempted to spend lots of money fighting terror, and fighting both domestic and international terror at the same time will rapidly exceed even the deficit spending capacities of most governments.  Following 9/11, the U.S. Congress allocated $60 billion, roughly five times the counterterrorism budget for previous years.  Homeland security is expected to average $150 billion a year over the next decade, approximately half of the military's $345 million budget.  The money will be spent on things like protecting nuclear power plants to building up federal vaccine stockpiles.  The nation is most concerned about protecting its critical infrastructure from disruption and destruction.  The eight critical infrastructures of the U.S. include the electric power system, gas and oil (storage and transportation), telecommunications, banking and finance, transportation, water supply systems, emergency services (including medical, police, fire and rescue) and continuity of government services. Threats to these infrastructures fall into two categories: physical threats to tangible property ("physical threats"), and threats of electronic, radio-frequency, or computer-based attacks on the information or communications components that control critical infrastructures ("cyber threats").   

    The psychological impact involves short-term and long-term trauma, especially in children, who are most vulnerable to WMD attacks, and nothing exposes the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of a national healthcare system like a campaign of domestic terrorism.  Emergency rooms become overworked, vaccines run out, and decontamination teams are found in short supply.  Stress and incident-related counseling become of paramount importance for victims and first responders.

    By far, however, the greatest threat of a war on terrorism is perhaps the loss of civil liberties.  Wartime powers often erode them to the point where they cannot be regained, but as a general rule, liberties often find their way back.  Protection against intrusive surveillance measures are difficult to win back when technology has been put into place. Loosening of the rules of evidence is difficult to overcome because the legal system operates slowly by precedent.  Now is the time to carefully scrutinize anything in the name of anti-terrorism.  America, has, in the past, been able to reconcile the requirements of security with the demands of liberty, and it is important to have faith, but it is also important to have a healthy dose of skepticism. 

PUBLIC OPINION AND DOMESTIC COUNTERTERRORISM

    Most public opinion polls are unreliable and incapable of being any help, especially in the case of obtaining feedback on how a government is doing with its domestic counterterrorism.  Chances are, if the problem has already arisen, there will already be a huge gulf between what the public believes and what government officials think.  The worst thing that officials can do at this point is to isolate and underexpose themselves.  Leaders need to emerge in the public eye and make highly visible and clear, consistent statements.  Any mistakes that have been made must be admitted to quickly and apologized for.  The public must be reassured that the rule of law is being followed the best it can.

    On the question of whether it's a good idea to "ask" the public for its cooperation with CT measures (such as new forms of surveillance or wiretapping), the answer is that it's probably not.  If secret projects and operations are to be conducted effectively, they must be conducted in secret.  However, behind the scenes, there must be sufficient safeguards put in place by officials in order to act responsibly.  For example, new prototype monitoring systems such as those being developed at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) that would search for terrorists by probing through networked databases of "transactional" information need to remain secret but an advisory or oversight board ought to be in place.  Such data mining projects may make programs like DCS-1000 or Carnivore, seem antiquated, but it is important not to get too caught up in a fascination with technology and forget the "human touch."  Such programs can be considered the Net cousin to Echelon, which monitors mobile phone traffic.  Domestic terrorists make extensive use of the Internet, and it is only logical and rational for the government to make use of it too.  In fact, some of the best successes in a war on domestic terrorism would likely involve setting up so-called "honey pots" or bogus Web sites to attract the most dangerous extremists (or those who are about to turn). 

INTERNET RESOURCES
ABC Domestic U.S. News
ADL's Poisoning the Web: Hate Groups Online
Apocalyptic Islam and Bin Laden
Captain Dave's Survival Center
CIA World Factbook on U.S.
Closeup Foundation Timeline of Domestic Terrorism
Information Resilience and Homeland Security
Militia Watchdog Links Page
Native American Groups
Preventing a Reign of Terror: Why Cracking Down on Militias is a Bad Idea
Southern Poverty Law Center's Hate Group List
Surveillance and Society Journal Homepage

PRINTED RESOURCES
Abanes, R. (1996). American militias. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity.
Ayers, B., Dohrn, B. & Jones, J. (2006). Sing a battle song. NY: Seven Stories Press.
Barkun, M. (1997). Religion and the racist right. Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press.
Cole, D. & Dempsey, J. (1999). Terrorism and the constitution. Tallahassee: First Amendment Foundation.
Crank, J. & Gregor, P. (2005). Counterterrorism after 9/11. Cincinatti: LexisNexis Anderson.
Dees, M. (1996). Gathering storm. New York, HarperCollins.
Deflem, M. (Ed.) (2004). Terrorism and counter-terrorism: Criminological perspectives. San Diego: Elsevier.
Dershowitz, A. (2002). Why terrorism works. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Emerson, S. (1998). "Terrorism in America: The Middle Eastern connection." Journal of counterterrorism & security international 5:13-15.
Freilich, J. (2003). American militias. NY: LFB Press.
George, J. & Wilcox, L. (1996). American extremists. Amherst, NY, Prometheus.
Glick, B. (1989). War at home. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Hamm, M. (2005). "Crimes committed by terrorist groups." NCJ Report 211203, Washington DC: NCJRS.
Heymann, P. (1998). Terrorism and America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ignatieff, M. (2004). The lesser evil. Toronto: Penguin Canada.
Knight, P. (2001). Conspiracy culture. NY: Routledge.
Kushner, H. (1998). Terrorism in America. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Laqueur, W. (1999). The new terrorism. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Leighton, P. (2004). "The challenge of terrorism to free societies in the global village." Pp. 199-217 in M. Deflem (ed.) Terrorism and counter-terrorism: Criminological perspectives. San Diego: Elsevier.
Levitas, D. (2002). The terrorist next door. NY: Thomas Dunne Books.
Malkin, M. (2004). In defense of internment. Washington DC: Regnery.
Marx, G. (2002). "What's new about the new surveillance?" Surveillance and society 1(1): 19-29.
McGuckin, F. (1997). Terrorism in the United States. New York: H. W. Wilson.
Mullins, W. (1997). A sourcebook on domestic and international terrorism. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Perlmutter, D. (2004). Investigating religious terrorism and ritualistic crimes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Robins, R. & Post, J. (1997). Political paranoia: The psychopolitics of hatred. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Ronczkowski, M. (2004). Terrorism and organized hate crime. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Smith, B. & Morgan, K. (1994). "Terrorists right and left: Empirical issues in profiling American terrorists." Studies in conflict and terrorism 17:39-57.
Snow, R. (1999). The militia threat. New York: Plenum.
White, J. (2002). Terrorism: An introduction (3e). Stamford: Thomson Learning.
Wills, G. (1999). A necessary evil: A history of American distrust of government. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wright, S. (2007). Patriots, politics, and the Oklahoma City bombing. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Last updated: Nov. 30, 2009
Not an official webpage of APSU
O'Connor, T.