Highlights

400,000 Terrorists Trying to Attack the US?: Eland
Diplomatic Solution à la Condi Rice: Gordon Prather
America First: Charley Reese
I say Bomb Eye-ran!: Aurangzeb Qureshi
Seismic Shift or Non-Decision on Iran?: G. Porter

 
Quotable
...The very nature of interstate war puts innocent civilians into great jeopardy, especially with modern technology.
Murray Rothbard
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate



 
July 19, 2008
Are 400,000 Terrorists Trying to Attack the United States?
by Ivan Eland

After having begun a series of investigative stories criticizing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in May 2008, CNN reporter Drew Griffin reports being placed with more than a million other names on TSA's swollen terrorism watch list. Although TSA insists Griffin's name is not on the list and pooh-poohs any possibility of retaliation for Griffin's negative reporting, the reporter has been hassled by various airlines on 11 flights since May. The airlines insist that Griffin's name is on the list. Congress has asked TSA to look into the tribulations of this prominent passenger.

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, probably responding to the controversy over Griffin, Leonard Boyle, the director of the Terrorist Screening Center, defended the watch list, claiming that because terrorists have multiple aliases, the names on the list boiled down to only about 400,000 actual people. If there are 400,000 terrorists lying in wait to attack the United States, we are all in trouble.

But wait a minute. There has been no major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – almost seven years ago. Where are all these nefarious evildoers?

Boyle says 95 percent of these people are not American citizens or legal residents and the vast majority aren't even in the United States. He rather sheepishly defends the size of the list by writing, "Its size corresponds to the threat. It's a big world."

That brings up a very important issue. The U.S. government regularly tries to police the world and combat threats to other nations – in the process, usually generating more enemies. Examining the forty-four organizations on the State Department's highly politicized list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), one finds that only a very few currently focus their efforts on U.S. targets. And the U.S. government has even flirted with one anti-Iranian group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which was put on the FTO list long ago.

Similarly, the State Department's list of five state sponsors of terrorism has included Cuba and North Korea – neither of which has actively participated in terrorist attacks in decades. These two countries continued to be on the list for other reasons – namely U.S. government aversion to them. On its website, the State Department even admits that, "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987." The website also contains an implicit admission that keeping selected countries on the state sponsors list can reap ulterior political benefits for the United States. The website notes that under the umbrella of the Six-Party Talks, the United States intends to remove North Korea from the list as that nation takes actions toward getting rid of its nuclear weapons program. Even the remaining three nations on the list that do sponsor terrorism – Syria, Iran, and Sudan – don't support groups that focus their attacks on the U.S.

Thus, the humongous terrorist watch list for airline travel and the excessively large FTO and state sponsors lists are a few more examples of the United States taking on other nations' security burdens. Trying to be the "big man on (the world) campus," however, comes at a horrendous cost to American freedom at home.

The terrorist watch list is downright unconstitutional. Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, no warrants shall be issued unless there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. If the government has such probable cause that a passenger is conspiring to commit a terrorist act on an airplane, it should not hassle that person at the airport when trying to fly or ban him or her from flying; it should arrest them. But of course the government does not have the evidence to do that for the vast majority of the 400,000 people on the watch list.

And it's apparently not easy to get yourself off the list once you are on it. Although Boyle claims that the TSA constantly scrubs the list for possible mistaken identities of people who have frequent "encounters" with the list, even if they don't file a complaint, Griffin uncovered an innocent passenger with a common name – James Robinson – who has complained endlessly and has received no resolution of his case. Senator Edward Kennedy – also with a common name – experienced endless hassles and red tape trying to get his name off the list. If such a well-known figure has such problems, the average misidentified traveler is in big trouble.

And as the economists would say, what about opportunity cost to real security? The U.S. government should spend the time it devotes to scrutinizing 400,000 people on the watch list, and the vast majority of the 44 FTOs and all of the 5 countries who don't sponsor anti-U.S. terrorism, on the again rising principal threat from Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their tens of hard core al-Qaeda followers operating out of Pakistan. The American public would be much safer. As the famous Prussian military ruler Fredrick the Great (and closet economist) said, "To defend everything is to defend nothing." Moreover, under current government policy, we have neither liberty nor security.


comments on this article?
 

Ivan Eland's new book is now available.
Order it now.

Archives

  • Are 400,000 Terrorists Trying to Attack the United States?
    7/19/2008

  • An Aggressive and Hypocritical US Policy Toward Iran
    7/12/2008

  • Can the Air Force Be Reformed?
    6/28/2008

  • Lessons for Iraq from the Former Yugoslavia
    6/21/2008

  • Ungrateful Allies
    6/14/2008

  • Is the Real Problem 'Isolationism' or Bipartisan Aggression?
    6/7/2008

  • Sadr, Sistani Opposition to US Presence Should Worry Maliki
    5/31/2008

  • Negotiating with 'Terrorists and Radicals' Is a Must
    5/24/2008

  • Gates's Hope to Reform the Pentagon Is Barking at the Moon
    5/17/2008

  • Politicizing the Tragedy in Burma
    5/12/2008

  • Rev. Wright Is Not All Wrong
    5/5/2008

  • Quagmires, Wacky Personnel Policies Strain All-Volunteer Military
    4/28/2008

  • War on Terror
    Dangerously Counterproductive
    4/21/2008

  • Things Unsaid at the Petraeus Hearings
    4/14/2008

  • Yoo-surping Power for the Executive
    4/7/2008

  • Putting Lipstick on a Pig
    3/31/2008

  • Defense-Contract Reform Key to a Restrained Foreign Policy
    3/24/2008

  • For the Iraq War's Birthday, Slice the Cake
    3/18/2008

  • Happy Birthday, DHS!
    3/10/2008

  • Accepting Reality Is No Vice; Being Oblivious Is No Virtue
    3/3/2008

  • Bush 'Triples Down' in Pakistan
    2/25/2008

  • Threats of Our Own Making
    2/18/2008

  • A Direct Descendant of the Founders
    2/11/2008

  • What to Do About Pakistan
    2/4/2008

  • A Cynical Effort to Save Bush's Legacy
    1/28/2008

  • Hope in Iraq
    1/21/2008

  • Charlie Wilson's Warlords
    1/14/2008

  • The Solution to the Kosovo Problem
    12/19/2007

  • Bush's Role in Bringing
    Pakistan to the Abyss
    11/13/2007

  • US Has Double Standard at Home and Abroad
    10/18/2007

  • Why 'Partition' (of Iraq) Is a Dirty Word
    9/20/2007

  • The State Perpetuates Itself
    by Failing
    8/15/2007

  • Payback for NATO Expansion
    7/17/2007

  • Would Iraqi Civil War
    Hurt the US?
    7/10/2007

  • US Role in Islamist Terrorism
    7/3/2007
  • Past articles by Ivan Eland

    Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. Having received his Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University, Dr. Eland has served as Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge for the U.S. General Accounting Office (national security and intelligence), and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has testified on NATO expansion before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and CIA oversight before the House Government Reform Committee.


    Dr. Eland is the author of Putting "Defense" Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World and forty-five studies on national security issues. His articles have appeared in Arms Control Today, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Emory Law Journal, The Independent Review, Issues in Science and Technology, Mediterranean Quarterly, Middle East and International Review, Middle East Policy, Nexus, and Northwestern Journal of International Affairs. His popular writings have been published in the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Washington Post, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newsday, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, and Chicago Sun-Times. He has appeared on ABC's "World News Tonight," CNN's "Crossfire," Fox News, CNBC, CNN-fn, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CBC, BBC, and other national and international TV and radio programs.

    His column appears Tuesdays on Antiwar.com.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com