Combating domestic terrorism

The dangers of ignoring the terrorist threats within our own country

By Tommy Owens
From the September 2006 Print Edition

Foreign affairs such as the war in Iraq, the tensions in Israel, and the Iranian nuclear issue took a backseat — albeit for a day or so — with news of arrests in Florida. Five Americans and two U.S. permanent residents were indicted June 23 on terrorism charges. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales indicated the men were plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and an FBI office in Miami. According to media reports, "[all suspects] had taken an oath to al Qaeda and sought help from someone they believed was a member of the terrorist organization." Though the U.S. attorney in Miami reported the men "… were never able to obtain explosives."

The threat of domestic terrorism is severe. Just as Timothy McVeigh killed 167 with explosives made from mere fertilizer, the seven men could have devised a way to obtain materials necessary for killing Americans.

The men’s fervently anti-American views and ideology spring from their cult-like organizational status and skewed view of political Islam. Even worse, their radical views were not fostered in a foreign city or training camp. The seven men acquired terrorist tendencies on U.S. soil. They lived, worked, and plotted in southern Florida.

McVeigh’s attack demonstrated the danger and unpredictability of homegrown attacks. Domestic terrorism was equally destructive in Britain: 56 civilians died on July 7, 2005, when four British nationals detonated themselves in London’s busy subways. The attacks confirmed a suspicion many analysts long held: al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations routinely search for native-born and less "foreign looking" recruits. Thus the "Miami Seven" were ideal subjects. While they didn’t possess weapons of destructive force at the time of arrest, their intent to harm innocent people justifies their arrests.

Combating homegrown terrorism won’t be easy because the solution cuts across moral, legal, religious, and constitutional realms. On the one hand, America could become a police state, yet on the other it could ignore the threat and concentrate on "tolerance." The answer lies in a balance between two extremes. Massive random arrests are undoubtedly unjustified, yet the United States must continue to seize initiative to aggressively pursue terrorists on U.S. soil.

Given the heightened threat of domestic terrorism, it is justifiable for the N.S.A. to tap phones of terrorism suspects. The government must retain the authority to track financial records and international transfers through the "SWIFT" program so that it can continue to cut off the lifeline of terrorists: money. Despite the clamor surrounding the programs, they have worked — the seven suspects attempted to contact terrorist suppliers of money, weapons, ammunition, body armor, and other equipment. By leaking details of programs such as SWIFT, the New York Times and other media outlets reveal information that, in the public domain, helps terrorists avoid detection. As a result, America’s defense against terrorism is jeopardized.

As comedian and apparent national-security guru Jon Stewart recently quipped that it would take a "bit more than seven guys" to execute their deadly objective. Unable to crack a good joke at this year’s Oscars, Stewart is likewise unable to see the reality of terrorism. 9/11 was planned and executed by only 19 men; London’s subway bombing by only four.

Even more ridiculous is the Council on American-Islamic Relations insistence that the media not refer to the seven suspects as Muslims, even though Islam is their professed faith. Ahmed Bedier, the director of CAIR Florida chapter argued that "Given that the reported beliefs of this bizarre group have nothing to do with Islam, [the chapter] ask[s] members of the media to refrain from calling them Muslims" Apparently political correctness should trump factual accuracy in reporting. Acquiescing to Bedier’s request would be tantamount to refraining from referring to Hitler or his subordinates as "German" for fear of isolating the German-American community.

Americans have become too complacent and accustomed to terrorism occurring abroad — from Bali, to Beirut, to Baghdad — that they forget terrorism still can strike on their native soil. Thanks to aggressive terrorist investigations and prosecutions initiated by the war on terrorism, the risk of terrorism has diminished. But Americans should not be lulled into a state of false security, especially by those who deny the ever-present threat of attack. If there is a will to commit murder and terrorism, there is a way to do so. When the media’s scandals are regarding programs designed to fight terrorism rather than terrorism itself, America has lost sight of its priorities.

In Berkeley, terrorism is usually considered a justifiable tactic for the oppressed to fight their "aggressors". In reality, terrorism is murder and intimidation. To academics such as Ward Churchill, people who died on 9/11, and those who might have died in the Sears Tower, were "little Eichmanns," complicit in the evil doings of the military-industrial complex. In reality, the only "crime" that the 3,000 committed was that they showed up to work. Defeating complacency and the justifications surrounding terrorism is just as important as defeating terrorism itself. As we near the fifth anniversary of that tragic day, let us honor the memory of those who died by doing all we can to prevent similar events from ever repeating.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot