The Proliferation of Terrorism

In recent years we've seen an enormous increase in the sophistication and might of terrorists. The bomb that ripped through the USS Cole in 2000 was child's play in comparison to the sophistication of the foiled London-based Al Qaeda attack on the airlines and the formidable month-long military-style attack on Israel by Hezbollah. It's becoming more and more clear that the sophistication and enormity of 9/11 was a "trend setter" rather than a "lucky" fluke.

Why is terrorism move up the scale of sophistication and proliferation rather than down?

The problem, I believe, is that we're catching the "graduates" and not their mentors. Thus, for every known terrorist, there are probably a hundred fledglings waiting to jump into action.

Unless we reevaluate our definition of "accessory to a crime," our fight against terrorism may soon resemble shooting flies with a machine gun.

"Accessory to a crime" has traditionally been limited to those involved in the immediate planning and execution of a crime. The mindset of a terrorist, however, is seldom a sudden, spontaneous act. It is usually the result of a conditioning process that is fostered and nurtured by close associations in schools, religious institutions, neighborhoods, etc.

It may seem against everything we believe in in a Western society about free speech and religion to prosecute people who have merely inspired others with words. But if we fail to grasp the notion that one who inspires others with some insanity that later causes them to commit mass murder is as much part of the terrorist act as those who put on suicide jackets, we're in for a rude awakening. While we're catching terrorists here and there, one at a time, they're being "mass produced" around the world.

We must start going after people who encourage terrorism or terrorist groups with inspirational support. No sergeant has the "free speech" to inspire his men to go AWOL, students do not have "free speech" in a classroom (for reasons a lot less dire than life and death situations), we don't even have "free speech" in a movie theater, and the list goes on and on. Apparently, curtailing free speech under certain circumstances is quite acceptable and not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

What's more, if you train a dog, even with mere words, to be a vicious killer, and he kills, you can be held legally liable. Why is that when you verbally inspire a human being to become a vicious killer, and he kills, holding you responsible turns into a constitutional issue of free speech?

Our interpretations of many constitutional principles are skewed and arbitrary. We need to put these laws in favor of law-abiding citizens and take them out of the hands of terrorism promoters and insanely twisted civil libertarians who at times seem more concerned with "liberties" than with life itself.

If you can tell people not to talk in a theater because it disturbs others or you can jail someone "in contempt of court" for exercising his "free speech" when a judge told him not to speak, you can certainly jail people for saying things that inspire others to commit mass murder.

The notion that if we start curtailing these rights, we'll eventually curtail other civil liberties, is pure rubbish. The restraints just recited, and many others I'm sure you can think of, have not caused us to become a totalitarian society. Clamping down on terrorist promoters and hatemonger will not make us less of a democracy.

Freezing the money source of a terrorist organization is not enough. Those involved in collection and even contribution, if it can be proven they had knowledge of where the money was going, should be jailed.

Religious leaders or march organizers who spew forth hatred that has been shown to result in murder, even if it didn't do so in a particular case, should be arrested. This is not free speech or freedom of religion. This is pure incitement to commit murder.

This is where some people tend to quote Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." There is nothing "little" about the security we're trying to gain. Having killed thousands of innocent people and wreaked havoc on our economy, terrorism has already taken some of our liberty and has compromised our security. This is a fight for survival, the likes of which Benjamin Franklin never knew.

If we don't start taking down terrorist breeding grounds, we may soon face terrorists in unprecedented and overwhelming numbers. And that will certainly not make us a freer society.