• 1. Universe exists independently of me.
• 2. Logic is the proper tool to explain the universe.
• 3. Complex things are better then simple things.

Now, since this is a very simple philosophy, I need a set of practical corollaries to this as moral guidelines. For these, I chose the tenets of humanism. In essence, I place human beings and their potential for great things as the ultimate good.

Secondly, I’d like to offer a few tidbits from my background. I was born in what was then Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, and what is now Republic of Croatia. I was educated in Yugoslav public schools, U.S. private schools, both U.S. and Croatian colleges, and even spent some time studying on Cyprus. Also, I’ve traveled quite substantially across the world, visiting 4 of the 7 continents, and spent extended periods in all of them.

As for relevant experiences for this debate, I’ve experienced civil war in Croatia during the breakup of Yugoslavia. I’ve also experienced a few very lean years, living in poverty in Croatia and almost starving for a while. On the other scale of things, I’ve also lived for a while in an upscale Midwest home, attended very pricey private school, and graduated from a prestigious West Coast university. Basically, I’ve seen both ends of the scale, and seen and lived extensively in both the U.S. and the Middle East.

The first point of contention I have with some of your comments here is the definition of the word terrorist. The nature of the definition has shifted and changed a lot during the years, and mutually exclusive definitions were used at the same time in American political life in the past 50 years. Remember the thorny disputes over freedom-fighters vs. terrorists vs. guerillas in the Central America, and you will find that the common-usage definition of the word is by no means constant.

Generally, I’d say that the defining points of being a terrorist are:

• 1. Fundamentalism – believing in a single belief to the exlusion and rejection of all others.
• 2. Facing a disproportionaly large opponent – compare the size of U.S. government and military vs. the resources commanded by most terrorist organizations.
• 3. Willingness to use terror as a weapon – obviously, attacking civilian targets to frighten general population.

The problem lies that this definition of terrorism is very inconvenient. Assume for a moment that there is a small group of fanatical people fighting to overthrow a lethal, repressive government. Assume further that any “civilized” means of fighting are not available to them. Basically, they can’t rally the masses with protests, because police forces will arrest them en masse. They can’t educate the masses, because the media are state-controlled. They can’t fight a guerilla war, because they are too few. What other options do they have?

There is in fact one defining characteristic of terrorism that I’ve failed to list. It is desperation. Terrorists are, by and large, desperate people. People who have failed to achieve their, fundamentalist goals, by any other means. What evidence can I offer for this supposition?

Personal experience, mostly. Having been on the receiving end of two years of continuous artillery shelling and aerial bombardment, I know exactly how fear and hopelessness can drive a person to illogical, desperate acts. I knew damn well that every time I took a defiant stroll through city streets during shelling that I was literally playing Russian roulette with my head.

On a more mundane scale, in mid-nineties I almost starved during a particularly cold winter in my war-torn country. Six months of eating a small bowl of corn gruel per day made me pretty desperate. At that point I was willing to take up just about any cause for a loaf of bread. I am not sure I’d have stuck with it once I got the bread, but I sure was willing.

Now, while travelling and living in the Middle East, I’ve personally seen the squalor and poverty that is so prevalent here. However, there is a difference between poverty and starvation. There is a difference between living in an oppressive regime and putting your head in a bag every day. Basically, what I’ve seen is sad and downtrodden people, but few desperate ones.

So where do all these terrorists come from, if they need to be desperate to consider terrorism? Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Places where majority of the population is literally starving. Where they are being killed daily, in significant numbers. Where the majority is not just sad, downtrodden and oppressed, but pushed up against a wall.

I am not saying there aren’t exceptions, especially concerning that some ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks came from middle-class families, but the majority of terrorists, the “cannon fodder” as it would be, are desperate men and women.

I’ve also spoken with a number of my Arab friends, and others across the world. The sad fact is, many, if not the outright majority, of peoples in South America, Africa, and Asia, honestly believe U.S. is evil and after them. They have many reasons for this belief, but they largely stem from two sources:

1. Economic woes – they see U.S. as a robber that comes to their countries, ruins their economies, and leaves them poor and destitute.

2. National causes – they, or their national cause, have been on the receiving end of U.S. style diplomacy; ie. they’ve been bombed, sanctioned, invaded, or couped by U.S.

Now, combine the widespread hostility against the U.S., with personal desperation, and you have thousands, even millions of potential terrorist recruits. I can tell you with complete honesty, that had things gone just a little differently, I could have become one, had an outspoken and eloquent fundamentalist approached me while I was desperate.

Allright, I guess I’ve defined the word terrorism sufficiently. Next, the security measures currently undertaken by U.S. government and airlines are in my opinion a joke. It is possible to achieve almost perfect security record, even if you are a constant target of very determined terrorists. Just look at Israel and their airlines. However, their methods don’t base themselves on racial, national, and other kinds of profiling. Neither are they based on the fear factor of intrusive searches. Both those methods can occasionally be useful, but more as a way to confirm a clue given by another method then as primary means of assessing threats.

What Israeli do to achieve great security is basically very simple. They have cockpits closed off by steel barriers from the rest of the cabin. These barriers cannot be opened during flight. Hence, there is no way to force the pilots directly to move the airplane where the kidnappers want it to go. The second thing that is done are random searches. Totally and completely random. It may seem as if those kind of searches might be completely pointless, but they are in fact the most effective kind. Consider this: if there is a pattern to searches, what will a smart terrorist do? Why, he/she will start travelling, totally innocently, carefully noting when he/she was searched and when not. After a while, with some careful analysis, our terrorist can then determine what criteria are used to determine if someone is going to be searched or not. After that, it is terribly easy to avoid a security search by avoiding criteria that would trigger it. I remind you that terrorists, by definition, are intent on breaking a law, many laws, and therefore forged passports, personal disguises, distraction tactics, and other unsavory behaviors common to spy novels are definitely within their bag of tricks.

So, how do we design our profiling system so that terrorists can’t figure it out? We can’t. If the system is so complex that a smart group of people, determined to figure it out, can’t, it is most likely far too complex to be actually useful. To forestall futher argument on this point, I invite you to look up some security sources and see what they have to say on profiling systems.

On the other hand, we might have totally random searches. Why are they effective then? Because the terrorist cannot figure them out. He always risks being found, because he can’t avoid this, serious obstacle. This is definitely a bad thing for a terrorist, because the nature of their work demands that they get it right the first time. There are no second chances for terrorists. So, they most likely won’t be willing to risk everything on anything short of almost sure odds. To a terrorist, nothing is worse then failure to achieve their terrorist act. They live for their beliefs. Failure to successfully commit a terrorist act usually implies death or at the very least, lengthy imprisonment for the terrorist. One can’t very well advance the cause if one is dead or rotting for life in prison.

The third component of Israeli success in stopping terrorists from hijacking airplanes is simply good training and experienced personnel. What this translates into is cost. Good, reliable, experienced security people cost money. High-quality X-ray machines, metal detectors, and other gadgets are expensive. Carefully designing the layout of an airport to deter terrorists is also expensive. In short, it all costs money.

And of course, here we come to the crucial problem. I don’t think that good airplane security is impossible or even hard. It is costly. Which is why airlines won’t pay for it. Just like the automobile industry, they’d rather sell a flawed product, knowing it will cause a certain number of deaths, but confident that profits from the sale will be more then enough to pay off lawyers and damages.

On the government side, it is the same problem. While I think the current administration definitely likes the positive effect enhanced airport “security” has on cowing the sheep, they also are unwilling to foot the bill for a truly secure system. I might add, cynically, that they need an occasional successful terrorist strike so they can keep the public panicking and disoriented enough to ignore everything else.

As for Gilmore’s act, I must say that I personally abhor the reaction he got. I am familiar with the special treatment given to those that computers deem suspicious, as I am one of them. Now, you might say that it would be perfectly reasonable, given my history. You’d be wrong. I don’t have a criminal record, I have never violated my visas, I’ve never been politically active, and I’ve never caused problems with suspicious items found in my bagage. In fact, I’ve never used a one-way ticket in my life. I have pretty bland Caucasian features, I always dress conservatively, and my English sounds just like any American’s. And still, since 9/11, I’ve had “SS” or “SSS” marked tickets every time I’ve flown an airplane in or out of U.S. In fact, I was carefully searched every time. Each time, the search included me being stripped down to my underwear, once in front of a large group of passengers at SFO. All my belongings are invariably opened every time. My checked-in bags are regularly slashed open, even though they are never locked and don’t even have locks on them. If you have the misfortune of travelling with me, you will be given the same treatment, being guilty of association.

Basically, it sucks. Ass. In fact, I’d go ahead and say that these measures have only made me more pissed at U.S. government. I’d say here that I’ve personally invested almost US$ 100,000 for my education in the U.S., paid by me and my family. We’ve put in every penny so that I’d get a good education. Apparently my money is good enough for the U.S. government but I am not. And I can’t say that all the oppresive registration requirements for foreign students in the U.S. improve my opinion either. Especially since the system is so buggy that I risk being arrested and thrown into a hole with no key because some half-baked fat-cat corporation couldn’t be bothered to fix their database engine.

Anyway, this concludes my rant on airport security. Now, since many people here have asked for some constructive proposals, here they are:

1. Implement airline security based on the Israeli model. The cost should be borne by airlines. If they can’t pay it and stay in business, they should go under. As some people have commented here, flying is hardly the most efficient means of transport. Over in Europe, you can travel from one end of the continent to the other in one or two days, using a network of cheap, fast trains. Sure beats flying for comfort alone.

2. Cease making large groups of people around the world desperate and hateful of U.S. While easier said then done, it is certainly possible. Practical suggestions would include pulling military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, sending the aid that U.S. promised those countries but never delivered, forcing Israel to stop ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, ceasing support for various oppresive regimes around the world, and ceasing to use IMF and World Bank as tools to destroy living conditions to create cheap pools of labor. All that, of course, would cost money. Lots of it. I suggest we take it from corporations and rich citizens. After all, the Constitution does not guarantee riches, merely a pursuit of happiness. And if the fact that you are rich means you use your money to keep me poor, then you intefere with my pursuit of happiness. On the corporate side, corporations are not citizens. They shouldn’t have any rights whatsoever.

I will now accept any and all personal attacks directed at me caused by my political beliefs. If you suspect me of being red, you are in fact correct. If you suspect me of being liberal, you are mostly right. If you think I might be radical, why, I will thank you for that compliment.

I personally have not flown since 9/11, being unwilling to submit to the random mortifying and inconvenient searches. But I could easily get 10 solid citizens to vouch for me as a non-violent, longtime resident.

Not everyone could do that, but for those who could, would it not reduce the amount of clearance necessary at airports?
Instead of carrying a photo card, why not match the database entry with a thumbprint.

If they’re going to gather all this data on us, why not at least let it work for us as well as against us, with a guaranteed pass?

Travel by Jet airliner is THE most inefficent way by far to transport people. Observe:

Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:

SUV: 4,591
Air: 4,123
Bus: 3,729
Car: 3,672
Train: 2,138

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html

What’s the hurry anyway? AMTRAK is begging for 1/18th of the Airline subsidy, and may shut down completely, despite the congressional mandate that formed it in the first place, if congress doesn’t provide funding.

Lets see – air is becoming more hazardous to breathe every day, so let’s load up TONS of minimally refined petroleum and take it up to 30,000 feet to release it – but first we will release a great deal of it on top of our cities as the jets take off and land.

The Bush regime is laughing all the way to the bank with the billions Americans spend on their products. True patriots just say NO to wasteful petroleum use and seek to lead by example, using as little as possible of the petroleum warlords addictive drugs.

A BIODIESEL powered Campaign Bus would be an interesting angle, wouldn’t it?

WHY is it cheaper to fly than ride AMTRAK? Even though the train uses half as much energy, and a handful of crew members on a train full of hundreds of passengers? Maybe something to do with $18 Billion dollars in airline subsidies since 9/11.

Playing Devil’s Advocate is a tricky business. On the one hand it’s educational; by having to research aspects of the Bad Guy’s position, you come to understand how he came to hold that position. On the other hand, you risk being taken as a wholehearted proponent of the Bad Guy’s cause. So let me just say: I did not vote for George Bush (either one), I did not support the invasion of Iraq (the more recent one), and I do believe in civil liberties for all.

you have an enemy, one that wants to mess up your whole life, how do you handle it? Do you return the same animosity toward them? Because I don�t. I found out the hard way, the best way to get rid of a problem like that is deal with it head on. Be bigger and better by not giving in to the same tactics. Be decent to people and after a while there�s nothing left to hate. You make peace by creating trust.

The flip answer would be to say there would be nothing left to hate once we were all dead, but that wouldn’t contribute much to the discussion.

So let’s try to puzzle this out. -Hello Radical Islam, why do you hate us so much? -Well Rob, there are lots of reasons. You are infidels, unbelievers, and therefore abominations before Allah. You pollute our people directly by selling them material goods, seducing them from the path of righteousness into iniquity and sin. Your people come to my countries and promote religious beliefs contrary to the true path. Your country’s richness makes my people wonder why, if our path is the true one, our lives are so difficult and dreary while you who live in sin are prosperous and have lives of luxury. -Gee, that’s a pretty long list. So what you’re telling me is, I need to (1)worship Allah, (2) renounce foreign trade to Islamic countries, (3) prohibit travel to Islamic countries, and (4) convert the United States into a nation of poverty, and then you’d leave us in peace? -Yep, pretty much. Anything else, and you’re a threat. The world ain’t big enough for the two of us.

I present one radical Islamist’s essay in support of the above:

Full text: bin Laden’s ‘letter to America’

Do you see the problem here? It’s not any one thing we do; it’s our mere existence that radical Islam sees as a threat. You can’t negotiate with that, unless you want to negotiate yourself out of existence. That is not an acceptable outcome. I won’t negotiate that.

We declared war on terrorism last year. What does it mean to be at war? We declared war on drugs a while back, and our daily lives didn’t change much. We declared war on poverty in the 60’s, passed a few bills, spent some money, and that was about it. Is that war?

Webster’s Online gives two possible definitions of war: 1. a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; 2. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end (a class war) (a war against disease). The second definition sounds a bit wimpy. I mean, the competition here is for survival, mine or radical Islam’s. They’ve already armed themselves with bombs, guns, boxcutters, and airplanes. To me, war means action not negotiation. Negotiation is what you do before you go to war; once you get to war, the time for talking has passed. You tried it, it didn’t work, now it’s time to fight it out.

I believe that the Bush administration believes, as I do, that war isn’t just a word you toss around to sound tough. When you say you are going to war, you are going to WAR. You are going to get serious, and you are going to bend your every thought and action to being the winner (or survivor, if you prefer). War is Total War, not a half-baked “police action.”

Here’s another interesting page to look at:

Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment

I quote:

“Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times.”

Of course that’s just their opinion, and they’re speaking about the First Amendment, not airport security. I looked under the Fourth Amendment and didn’t see anything clarifying what an “unreasonable search” was in time of war. I guess it’s never come up before. But if we are at War, and there is a real threat of enemies foreign or domestic using the transportation system as a weapon, is there any possible search that would be considered unreasonable? Are we or are we not at War?

I think our conception of War has changed. In the World Wars there was no question what it meant to be at War. Half a century of Cold War and nothing happening inside our borders has dulled our sense of War. War is something that happens somewhere else, to someone else. Our daily lives are not supposed to be affected by War. We still go to movies, have weekend cookouts, visit Mount Rushmore, watch Friends; War is a five-minute report from Wolf Blitzer. War is “embedded reporters.” War has no implications for ourselves, that’s what we pay the Army for, isn’t it?

Is the “War on Terror” going to turn out to be a joke like the “War on Drugs?” Because I don’t think we’re just talking about an increased number of potheads if we make a half-hearted attempt and then move on. I think we’re talking thousands and thousands of “acceptable losses” for the rest of my life, and yours, and your childrens’. Yes, the increased security stinks. Yes, there are errors in its application. Yes, it’s not 100% foolproof. It’s part of fighting the war as a War. It’s part of our government trying to do its job of protecting us from enemies.

I wanted to work the Smith Act of 1940 into this somewhere and talk about its possible applications to the Gilmore incident, but I’ve rambled on enough for now. I bet you’re all asleep now anyway. 🙂