By Erin Miller

Editor in chief

Ed. note: This essay was written prior to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The introduction was altered for relevance, but the essay is not meant to be an analysis of the most recent terrorist attacks. Instead, it is meant to be a more general analysis of terrorism around the world.

Events within recent weeks, including the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, Americans have begun to feel especially vulnerable to terrorist threats. Americans are scared to fly, travel overseas and even to enter government buildings. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, they began changing daily routines in response to a problem which was often exaggerated by the media in search of a new headline and by government officials seeking money for new programs. To end terrorism, worldwide cooperation is necessary and governments worldwide have been researching possible causes and prevention of future terrorist acts. Their findings have led to more insight into the minds of terrorists. Terrorism is an ever-changing threat to people worldwide and work should be continued both within the United States and other nations to create a counterterrorism plan which avoids legal conflicts and is more effective than plans of the past.

Although terrorism appears to be a modern problem, any life taken, building bombed, or property destroyed in hopes of a change has been a victim of terrorism. Such events have occurred for many centuries, and though weapons and causes of terrorism have changed, the desire of the terrorist is still to destroy obstacles preventing the completion of his final goal.

The main characteristic of traditional terrorists is their willingness to claim responsibility for acts of terrorism they commit. Traditional terrorists are often either members of a radical wing of a legitimate political organization or they are an independent group sponsored by a country with sympathetic views. Terrorists belonging to the Irish Republican Army are the military branch of the Irish political party Sinn Fein. When the IRA bombed targets in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein used the public outrage against the bombing to argue for independence. Traditional terrorists will always have specific, identifiable agendas and won't hesitate to use violence to meet those agendas.

Black September, a Muslim organization based in the Middle East and one of the most active terrorist groups of the 1970s, were responsible for one of the most recognizable acts of international terrorism: the kidnapping and execution of eight Israeli athletes, coaches, and officials during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany. They demanded for the release of several hundred Muslims from Israeli prisons; if their conditions were not met, the hostages would be executed. This demand was not met, and the terrorists' threats became a reality. This event showed the determination and ruthlessness of the terrorists. Blaming the victim for being victimized is another characteristic of the traditional terrorist. Finally, traditional terrorists are often sponsored by a nation supplying funding and weapons for terrorist attacks. Countries such as Cuba, Libya and the former Soviet Union have all been state sponsors in the past. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, some terrorists who had worked within the Iron Curtain turned to organized crime for sponsorship. Organized crime can easily provide money and weaponry to terrorists who are willing to leave their causes and ideals. This change has led to a new type of terrorist, one whose purposes and methods are very different from the traditional terrorist.

According to terrorism analysts, non-traditional terrorists are more ruthless and more dangerous than terrorists of the past. They are not likely to claim responsibility and their purpose is to scare and disrupt the daily lives of ordinary people. Non-traditional terrorists may also be the first to use weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear or biological weapons. This threat has caused terrorism experts to consider the many different types of threats used by terrorists.

Terrorists are perhaps one of the most adaptable groups of people in the world because they can so easily change their methods. The options available to terrorists are numerous, but usually can be placed in two distinct groups: physical threats and cyber-threats. Physical threats are all threats leaving a tangible result, including bombings, biological and chemical weapons, assassinations and kidnappings. One of the most effective methods of terrorism is the suicide bombing. From Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II to Arab radicals in present day Israel, well-trained suicide bombers are difficult to stop. Within the last ten years, the chemical bomb has become more common. Although the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Oklahoma City in 1995, and American embassies in 1998 show the destructive power of such bombs, they also show the ease with which investigators can find physical evidence against the bombers.

Both nuclear weapons and biological weapons have a huge potential for destruction and can affect large numbers of people at once. Though terrorists have been able to purchase bio-weapons there has been no documented use of them.

These weapons are extremely dangerous, but storage and distribution are very difficult. If a biological agent were released in a large city, the attack would not be detected for several days. Once hospitals realized they were not facing a normal virus or bacteria, the damage would already have been done, and hundreds - or even thousands - of people would already have been infected.

If an attack were carried out online, all aspects of society would be affected. Such attacks, if planned by an expert hacker, would be difficult to detect, as seen in 1994, when hackers broke into computers in an Air Force research lab. The break-in went unnoticed for three days, at a cost of five hundred thousand dollars. Just as terrorist threats and weaponry is diverse, terrorist targets are also diverse.

Terrorists are based around the world in many different forms. The Italian Mafia, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Columbian drug cartels are just a few examples. Each group has its own targets. Two areas of the world especially threatened by terrorists are the Middle East and Western Europe. Though in Western Europe, particularly England and Northern Ireland, terrorism is carried out by primarily the IRA, terrorism in the Middle East is instigated by multiple groups.

For thirty years, Irish living in Northern Ireland have been plagued by what locals refer to as the Troubles. During this time, Protestants and Catholics, growing further and further apart in ideals, have been warring over the issue of whether or not Northern Ireland should become an independent state. This conflict has caused large groups of Protestants and Catholics to move from mixed neighborhoods to neighborhoods of one religion. In the 1970s alone, nearly 15,000 families changed neighborhoods. Approximately 3,500 people have been killed and nearly 40,000 wounded by the fighting and terrorist attacks.

People living in the United States have had, historically, fewer reasons to fear terrorism. The number of bombings and attempted bombings rose from 1,103 in 1985 to 3,165 in 1994. Four Americans were killed outside of the United States in 1994; that number tripled in 1995, although worldwide deaths decreased from 314 in 1994 to 165 in 1995. Often however, the terrorist risk to Americans comes not from foreigners, but increasingly from fellow Americans. These Americans are often members of anti-government militia groups with agendas related to gun or land ownership. If they feel threatened, members of these militias are willing to fight the United States government in defense of their rights.

Because of terrorist attacks within the United States, the American government began tightening standards in high risk situations. The FBI also started training several hundred officers for counterterrorism squads. According to former FBI director Louis Freeh, both prevention and prosecution are priorities. The methods used by the United States are numerous. They include spies, court-authorized wiretaps, and informants. International airports use additional methods of counterterrorism specific to their situation. For instance, airport employees are trained to watch for behaviors which could indicate a potential terrorist. Precautions currently taken on international flights include bag matching and passenger profiling. After the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, all international flights originating from American airports are required to use bag-matching. The explosion was caused by explosives in checked luggage whose owner never boarded the plane. Now on all international flights, checked bags are tagged with bar codes matching codes on the owner's tickets. If a passenger does not board a plane, his or her bags are removed. Furthermore, Congressional proposals attempting to prevent airline terrorism have included a technique called passenger profiling. Profiling, an inexpensive process easily taught airline employees, compares what is known about a passenger against a list of factors that warn of danger, including final destination and if the ticket is one way or round trip.

Worldwide standards are much stricter. Passengers of airlines in Middle Eastern countries must pass through fourteen checkpoints before boarding their flights. In Israel, all coach passengers are required to arrive at the airport three hours before their flight leaves; business class must arrive two hours early. Airports around the world are constantly testing new technology in order to keep up with technology used by terrorists. One problem airports are facing when implementing new security measures is keeping speed and accuracy a priority. The FAA has strict requirements for speed and accuracy of new equipment, and new detection devices often have one but not the other.

A second weakness terrorists often take advantage of is lack of security in large public buildings. Over the last ten years, the level of building security has increased. After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center towers, when six people were killed and over a thousand were injured, measures were taken to prevent similar attacks. Except for the observation platforms and restaurant, the Twin Towers closed to the public, security guards within the building became a more visible presence, the public was no longer allowed to park in the underground parking garage; dozens of security cameras were installed; and huge concrete planters were set up to prevent a car bomb from quickly slipping into the plaza. The cost of security for one year at the World Trade Center was approximately twenty-five million dollars, three times the budget for security before the bombings. Concrete planters are commonly used to block streets running in front of important buildings, such as the White House. These precautions are the best weapons buildings and airports have against terrorism.

Counterterrorism agents must be prepared to react quickly after any terrorist attack. In this respect, the United States is underprepared for large-scale disasters. Many solutions have been suggested. Of these, some are more supported than others. First chemical taggants, a chemical added to other chemicals indicating origin, could possibly stop the use of chemicals like fertilizers from being used in bombs. If a tagged chemical were used, the chemical could be easily traced to the buyer, and the terrorist could be captured. Existing taggants are either too expensive impractical, but research is being conducted to find a better taggant. A second and more practical way to prepare for the aftermath of a terrorist attack is to train local law enforcement, hospitals and governments how to react after a terrorist attack. The focus of any training would be to prevent chaos and human rights violations. Hospitals would learn symptoms of bio-weapons, and hospitals would be stocked with or have access to vaccines to stop the spread of a biological agent. However, both prevention and eaction are important. One of the best ways to aid counterterrorism is anti-terrorist laws which strengthen the powers of counterterrorists.

As fear of terrorism grows within the United States, Americans are pressuring politicians to pass anti-terrorist bills. Most laws that have been passed grant money or personnel for counterterrorism. In May of 1997 the Pentagon received nearly forty million dollars to begin the Chem-Bio Quick Response Force which trained 120 cities proper response to occurrences of mass destruction. This and other bills like it paved the way for the growth counterterrorism has experienced since 1995. A counterterrorism package approved by former President Bill Clinton cost Americans about $294 million dollars. However, experts say the plan still fails to provide enough money to counterterrorism agencies. Though lawmakers are taking a step in the right direction, they are still far behind where they need to be. They are also finding as they draft laws to prevent terrorist activities, the proposed laws are often found to be unconstitutional.

When the instances of abuse of counterterrorism are considered, the hesitation of Congress and the president to pass anti-terrorist law are more understandable. For example, a series of anarchist bombings in 1920 caused the arrest of nearly four thousand people in one night, many without warrants. One incident of abuse of laws was during the 1960s and 1970s, when the counterintelligence agency COINTELPRO was at its height. COINTELPRO conducted illegal spying and is a cause of mistrust of government agencies today. Such violations of the Constitution could lead to a more closed society. Americans must consider which rights and freedoms they are willing to sacrifice for freedom from terrorists. As Americans make these decisions, they must consider the record of the government in preventing counterterrorism. Because of the misguided purposes of some counterterrorism agencies, counterterrorism within the United States has had mixed success.

Until 1993, no major terrorist group, foreign or domestic, had been able to commit a large-scale attack on American soil. Since then, several major attacks have occurred. As seen in the speed with which security guards evacuated Centennial Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, police are becoming more well-trained to respond to a terrorist threat. Though two people were killed by the bombing, hundreds were saved by the police department's quick reaction. Unfortunately, not all cases turn out so well. After the government imposed regulations on whom the FBI could watch or keep files on in 1976, the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department succumbed to ACLU pressure to end their use of an informant from the Hanafi Muslim cult. Not long after, Hanafi Muslims seized three buildings in Washington D.C., holding 137 hostages for two days. In 1978, a Senate subcommitee found that if the police had continued using their informant, ``the chances were 100 to 1 that [the police] would have had intelligence enabling them to take preventative actions.''

As American counterterrorism agencies gather evidence against terrorists, the next question which must be asked explores possible punishments. For the United States, military retaliation is often used. On August 7, 1998, the United States bombed a Sudanese chemical factory and an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in response to the embassy bombings in Africa. The United States was careful before the attack on Al Qaeda to secure conclusive evidence against the group. Only once the evidence is conclusive, should decisive actions be taken. The United States has often used bombs, missiles and air strikes in retaliation to terrorism. For example, in April 1983, a Muslim suicide bomber blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing sixteen Americans; in September 1983, the USS New Jersey shelled non-military targets in Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians.

The arguments for and against terrorism as retaliation are sometimes unclear. The strongest argument for retaliation is the success of the past. In 1995, the United States sent thirteen cruise missiles to Serbian positions in an effort to end the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. The missiles were especially aimed at Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who ended fighting and agreed to help with the peace process. In 1998, when Milosevic again began slaughtering the inhabitants of Kosovo, the threat of more American cruise missiles was enough of a threat to force him to stop his troops. The attacks on Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization were called ``... harsh but necessary.'' The experts who argue against military retaliation agree that while killing a terrorist is the surest way to assure he kills no one else; killing a specific terrorist can be very difficult. Add to that the fact that air strikes and economic sanctions rarely affect the terrorists but instead hurt innocent civilians and a very strong argument against retaliation is made.

As the United States faces the future, Americans must decide which freedoms can be sacrificed for the sake of a terrorist-free environment. Once this is determined, new safety standards may be set. Trade-offs are necessary if Americans want safer skies and safer buildings. Those trade-offs, including more waiting time and more invasions of privacy, could equal a lower risk of terrorist attacks. But because of the unpredictability of terrorists, future standards may still not prevent all acts of terrorism. If standards are tightened in one area, terrorists may simply refocus their efforts somewhere else.