3.  Professional Paranoid, Part II
    by William Stone, III
    wrstone{at}0ap.org

Exclusive to TLE

    "Must've hit it pretty close to the mark, to get her all riled up
    like that, huh, kid?"
     -- Han Solo, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

Last week's column, "Professional
Paranoid," garnered a fair amount of e-mail.  The
overwhelming majority was positive, due largely to the fact that the
argument is unassailable from virtually any angle.  I had one particularly
enlightening e-mail conversation with a libertarian author whose work I've
generally respected who objected to my broad statement that there are no
terrorists.

I also, for the first time, received a personal reply from Senator Tom
Daschle of South Dakota.  I found this particularly interesting for two
reasons:

Firstly, this is the first time he's replied to me, despite the fact that
he's been receiving my column every Monday since I started writing it.

Secondly, his primary objection was the same as the libertarian author.
This objection was uniformly the same from all my detractors, and was quite
simple:

"How can you say there are no terrorists, Bill, when the WTC towers
lie in ruin?"

Well, mea culpa.  There were obviously about a dozen
terrorists in the United States on September 11.  In fact, if one examines
the history of the Republic, one finds that there are basically four
incidents of true terrorism:

   1.  The World Trade Center bombing of 1993.

   2.  The Murrah Building bombing of 1995.

   3.  The Olympic Park bombing of 1996.

   4.  September 11 attack on WTC towers, Pentagon, and Flight 93

There are terrorists in the United States.  There simply aren't enough of
them to make a fuss about.  Just look at the statistics:

The total number of casualties incurred on American soil (fatalities and
injuries) as a result of terrorist attacks is:

   WTC Bombing:  6 fatalities, 1042 casualties

   Murrah Building:  167 fatalities, 675 injuries

   Olympic Park:  45 fatalities, 444 casualties

   September 11:  3044 fatalities, unknown number of injuries

   Total:  3262 fatalities, 2161 injuries (not including 9/11)

For purposes of the following examination of risk, we'll throw out the
injuries.  Not because they're trivial, but because it won't make an
adequate comparison.

Throughout the history of the Republic, 3262 individuals have died on
United States soil as a victim of terrorist attack.  This covered a period
from 1993 through 2001.

During the same time period, 315,856 individuals died as a result of a
traffic accident.

In the United States, therefore, it is 9,683 more likely that any given
individual will be killed in a traffic accident than by terrorist attack.

This figure would need to be studied more in-depth to obtain specific
statistics.  For example, since all terrorist attacks have occurred in
Oklahoma City, Atlanta, New York City, Washington, and Somerset, there's an
argument to be made that the chances of being a terrorist's victims are
much higher in these locations than anywhere else.  Similarly, since
terrorists have a penchant for areas with a high population density, it's
probably more statistically likely that one will be a victim in a
highly-populated area.

One can apply the statistical analysis to virtually any inherently
hazardous activity and discern that about the only cause of death less
likely than terrorism is being struck by lightning.

My business is assessing risk.  I am paid to judging the likelihood of loss
or damage due to malicious intent.  My expertise is in quantifying the
likelihood of annual loss in real terms, and then devising ways to mitigate
against this loss.

When these principles are applied to terrorism, what I find is that it's
EXTREMELY unlikely.  When examined purely from the perspective of
statistics, devoid of the emotional impact of watching two of the world's
tallest buildings destroyed live on worldwide TV, one must ask oneself,
"Does it make sense to mitigate against this very small risk in the
way the FedGov has?"

And the answer is, no, it doesn't make sense.  In terms that I use, imagine
that one of my clients is a CPA who rents a two-room office at a local
business park.  He has two computers, one for his secretary and one for
himself.  The secretary's is a desktop system used to make appointments and
surf the net.  The laptop has all his customer data on it.

In real terms, the CPA's primary concern should be theft of his laptop and
hard drive failure leading to data loss.  A sane approach to mitigating
against this risk would be regular backups of his hard drive, with copies
kept at home and at the office, preferably in a safe.  To mitigate against
theft, I'd suggest the use of PGP-Disk to encrypt the contents of his
customer files on-the-fly.

The FedGov's reaction to domestic terrorism is akin to me suggesting that
the CPA construct a concrete bunker around his laptop; that he establish
physical security involving multiple independent airlock-style entrances,
that he implement iris scanners, palm readers, and cryptocards in order to
secure access to it.

In short, government's solution to the problem is at best a total overreaction.

What, in fact, has been the FedGov's reaction to the infinitesimally small
possibility of domestic terrorism?  To utterly gut what was left of the
Bill of Rights and Constitution with the full knowledge that these measures
couldn't possibly impact domestic security.

As I mentioned last week, terrorists can at any time commit terrorist acts
if they're of a mind to.  Even with the draconian policies put into place
by the big-government, tax-and-spend Republicans, America is no more secure
today than it was on September 11.

The major impact of airport security, for example, is to drive commercial
airlines deeper into the ground.  How they survived government regulation
for as long as they did is a testament to the the market demand for rapid
transportation -- even incredibly expensive transportation with poor
customer service.

What really killed commercial airlines was "airport security." 
The FedGov likes to claim that people are afraid of terrorism, but that's
nonsense.  No one's really afraid of terrorism, because if anyone tried it
today, even unarmed individuals will do what the people of Flight 93 did.

The truth is that people don't want is to be harassed by some Federal flunky.

Attractive women don't want to be groped by leering security guards (one of
my close relatives was just such a victim).  Mothers don't want to run the
risk that their infant sons will be taken from them and searched (that same
relative's son was taken screaming from my her arms by some security bully
for this purpose).  Fathers don't want to run the risk that they'll be
forced to watch their daughters be groped by Federal perverts (my
relative's father was on the same flight as she when the flunky felt her
up).  Sons don't want to have the pocket-knife presented to them by their
father that's never been off their person in fifty years confiscated from
them (my father).
 
And some people -- my grandparents' age -- simply won't put up with anyone
screwing around with them that way.

That's why people don't fly any more.  That's what Federal
"security" has accomplished.

Locally, "security" is starting to have an impact in South
Dakota.  We depend on a brisk tourist trade for our existence, and after
9/11 the State received Federal funds to "fight terrorism."  They
immediately put this money to use hiring addition State Troopers whose job
it is to stop speeders, string their belongings out behind their van on
I-90 and "search for contraband" (drugs, explosives, etc).

Prior to 9/11, one could drive the 500 miles across South Dakota to the
Black Hills and enjoy the scenery.  Now one runs the risk of having to drag
out two weeks worth of vacation packing and let State bullies sift through
it.  It's axiomatic among South Dakota natives that during tourist season,
you'll see at least one car with all its contents strung out behind it on
I-90 while a team searches through it, dogs sniff around it, and Mom, Dad,
and their 2.3 children
looking frightened and disgusted, wishing they'd never come here in the first place.

That's what Federal "security" has accomplished in South Dakota.

Then there's the philosophical end:  it's quite clear that the USA PATRIOT
Act violates literally every single one of the Bill of Rights.  Does
violating what's left of the Bill of Rights enhance or degrade security?

I would suggest that it degrades it.  Look what happened when the Second
Amendment was immorally suspended on aircraft.  Over 3000 people would be
alive today, but for that particular violation of the Bill of Rights -- not
to mention all the victims of violent crime who die every year because
they're unable to protect themselves.

Will pitching out the other nine Bill of Rights help or hinder security?

Not a single thing the FedGov has done impacts a terrorist's ability to
board an aircraft with a weapon.  Most people simply don't understand the
reality of the situation, because they prefer to think that government is
here to help them.  But consider this:

Inmates in prison routinely smuggle in weapons, drugs, and other contraband
-- and they're routinely strip-searched and manacled.  If prisoners can do
this under much tighter security than is available at airports, then it's a
dead certainty that someone employing similar tactics could board an
aircraft with an undetected weapon.

The only way to prevent airline passengers from smuggling weapons onto
aircraft is simple:

Strip every passenger.  Manacle them at the hands and feet.  Cavity search
them.  X-ray them.  Frog-march them naked to the aircraft. Lock their
manacles to the steel seats of the plane.

That will significantly reduce the likelihood of aircraft terrorism.

Unlike Al Franken, I don't take President Bush for an idiot -- he knew
damned well that his domestic security policies are a pointless waste of
time at best.  The question one must ask is:  knowing that Bush understands
that what he's implemented domestically does not enhance security, why did
he do it?

The conclusionis obvious: he took advantage of a situation that caused many
people to have a visceral emotional reaction that clouded their judgment. 
People became willing to say, "I don't care what it takes, GET THOSE
BASTARDS!"

And he smiled and said, "You betcha!  Just lemme take away some more
of your freedom, and we'll get 'em."

The long-term impact of the "war" on terrorism is that it will
accelerate the slave mentality.  I sometimes weep at night imagining that
my grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have to live in a South Dakota
that has become the same hideous police state as the Chicago area we
escaped in 1999.

My professional training only makes this worse, because I'm able to look at
government's "war" on terrorism and see it for what it is:
pointless at best, and actively destructive to freedom at worst.
 
Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!


--
William Stone, III is a computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP, CISSP) and Executive
Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org).  He seeks
the Libertarian Party's nomination for the 2004 Senate race in South
Dakota.

---