For the past two years or so, we have been in the midst of media frenzy about domestic terrorism. Triggered by the blast in Oklahoma City and fueled by the pipe bomb in Atlanta, the media have created an atmosphere of fear and trembling among the citizenry about terrorism. Our government branches have come together in a photogenic and bipartisan fight against terrorism designed chiefly to calm the nerves of jittery Americans. Take notice of the number of people who stay clear of federal buildings these days or at least consider whether to cancel their next flight. Everyone is beginning to ask, "Am I the next victim." Some of the responses to these acts are right on target-principally, moral outrage at the cowardly perpetrators and compassion for their families. The fear for oneself and one's life should not be among those reasons since the risk that the average American will be a victim of terrorism is extremely remote. The reason that it matters that people get distressed about such a remote risk is because so much concern has a way of translating itself into dollars spent and liberties curtailed by our government. We have already begun to see signs of both here, with the feds aiming to invest billions more in anti-terrorism efforts and with numerous proposals floating throughout congress to further restrict our civil liberties in the name of stamping out terrorism. Both are misguided, but a middle ground must be found, for this country cannot function if its people are in a frenzy and don't trust in the security of the United States.

Some question if it is even possible for a free society to prevent terrorism. Many are unsure if the Constitution can still be proteced while doing what is necessary to protect the believers of that Constitution. Terrorist groups, like any other criminal conspiracies, are best attecked by infiltration. This means that an undercover agent must be placed in their midst, or one of their members must be recruited as an informant. This is the job of the FBI. Today it operates under two sets of written guidelines, one secret and one public, both approved by the Attorney General. The secret guidelines specify the circumstances under which the FBI is allowed to penetrate groups thought to be agents of a foreign power. The public rules, which govern intelligence gathering aimed at domestic groups, are more restrictive. There is disagreement as to whether these rules are too restrictive, though. There may not be so much of a problem with the the guidline, but more so with their interpretation. Most importantly, though, is the fact that the bureau has stopped many terrorist actions, including bombings, because it has penetrated groups it thought might use violence, but to take publice credit for this would compromise its methods and alert its targets. The FBI ought to be, and is. Commited to defending the Constitution.

Everyone's first reflex after the major terrorist act in Oklahome City was to "harden" government facilities, including a Tresury Department recommendation that Pennsyvania Avenue be closed to traffic in front of the White House, a step resisted by the president. Following that reaction were the builders. Private-security firms across the country reported a surge in requests following the explosion for gaurds and protection planning. Wall Street has set a standard for physical security in respose to the 1993 WTC bombing. The trade-center plan chosen includes an online ID system, hundreds of new security gaurds and a network of 6,000-pound concrete barrierss thinly disguised as planters. All delivery trucks are photographed, logged in, issued badges and monitored on a closed-circuit televiosion. Another pricy option is structural modifications to prevent "progressive collapse," the avalanche of concrete that multiplied fatalities in Oklahoma City. Many specialists argue that building Fortress America out of steel, plastic, and concrete just isn't practical. Eighty percent of countering terrorism is a matter of collecting good intelligence. Oklahoma City has put the FBI back in the game. Yet, the idea of granting U.S. law enforcement broader investigative powers evokes bitter memories. Former J. Edgar Hoover's misuse of bugs and under-cover agents against civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, the Klu Klux Klan and the anti-war movement of the 1960's led to scandal in the mid-1970's. Carter administration officials, many veterans of the anti-war movement, drew up stringent restrictions. Also, criticism over FBI surveillancce of pro-Nicaragua groups became a sensitive issue in durring the 19880's. During the Persian Gulf War, Arab groups complained of intrusive phone calls from agents. The contrast with the internal security policies of America's allies is striking. England's Prevention of Terrorism Act, renewable annually by Parliament, permits suspects to be held without charge for a week. British security forces are give broad authority to run informants and wiretaps. France, Italy, Germany, and Belgium have all used simplar techniques to defeat domestice terror campaigns.

The fear for oneself and one's life should not be in the cards since the risk that the average American will be a victim of terrorism is extremely remote. Contrary to all the media's hype, domestic terrorism is not a creation of the mid-1990's. During the 1980's, for instance, the United States had a score of political assassinations, more than 100 politically motivated bombings, almost 50 hijackings of aircraft, and a handful of episodes of sabotage and hostage-taking by those with a political axe to grind. The annual risk of actually being killed in a terrorist incident in the United States is about one in half a million. You are 40 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than to be wiped out by a terrorist's bomb. Falling objects kill more Americans than terrorist activities. In the long line of all the nasty things that can happen to a person, terrorism comes much closer to the bottom of the list than it does to the top. All those billions would be much more effective if used to reduce more common and costly risks, such as drunk drivers or ordinary, run-of-the-mill homicides. When our freedom is concerned, are we really prepared to arrive two hours early for every domestic flight and be subject to body searches because our appearance might fit some security guard's profile of a potential trouble-maker? We mustn't let the terrorists win by forcing us to change our habits or our way of life. The risk posed by domestic terrorism does not amount to a hill of beans and that we are not going to permit it to alter how we perceive the world or conduct ourselves.

This page has been visited times.