Martial Law?

No. Bulldozers work permanently demolishing houses of the arrested terrorists, and this decreases motivation of the latter: they understand that their actions cause sufferings not only to the enemy, but to their own families. I have forgotten the source, but I have read that the Hamas recruiters started experiencing difficulties with finding candidates for suicide bombing. So, bulldozers have a positive effect in the war against terror.

terrorism begets terrorism begets terrorism begets terrorism ad nauseum

Israeli actions refer to self-defense only, they have nothing to do with terrorism. When the Palestinians did not launch homicide bombers to the Israeli towns and villages (before September 2001), IDF did not destroy their homes or kill the armed men.
In 1987-93, when the Palestinians restricted themselves to rocks throwing, IDF used only non-lethal weapons (tear gas and the like) against them, it was prohibited to the soldiers to open fire on the rocks throwers.

When a group decides to explode bombs in public places their intent is to cause fear and achieve by terror what they can not gain by negotiations or direct military action. The decision to adopt terrorist tactics lies within the terrorist organization, not the entity that is being attacked. Russia, Israel, and the United States did not connive with terrorists to explode bombs killing their citizens.

What alternative responses are there to terrorist attack?

One might surrender and grant the terrorists whatever they want in the hopes that attacks will cease. Appeasement and paying blackmail have never been a very good strategy. Appeasement encourages greater aggressions. The blackmailer always wants more. When the terrorist organization's goal is your total and utter destruction, how can you "knuckle under" and still survive? To give in to terrorist demands is an admission that they are stronger than you are. Are these sniveling cowards braver and more dedicated to their values than we are?

One might ask the world community to protect them from the depredations of those who conduct terrorist attacks. What can the world community do that can not be done by the sovereign nation being attacked? In fact, the varied interests of the nations making up the world community almost guarantees that nothing effective will be done. There will always be those who side with the terrorist goals, and those whose interests will be advanced by delay and obstruction. In some instances a nation will be so outrageous in its aggression, or support of terrorism that the world community will make a formal condemnation and demands for change. To get that is not easy, but it is easier than getting agreement to actually pay the cost of enforcing the demands. Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are generally careful to avoid too close identification with national governments who can be pressured by the world community, or the victims of their attacks. Al Queda and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan could be targeted. Saddam's Iraq is clearly associated with Palestinian terror organizations, and less clearly with Al Queda. If the terrorist group can not be identified with a nation state, then of what use is the world community?

One might vigorously fight the terrorist organization where ever and when ever it can. Without an effective intelligence service it is almost impossible to root-out terrorist organizations who are by definition secret. Identifying terrorists is not easy because they take care to blend in with the innocent. Knowledge of terrorist organizational structure is made difficult by the nature of operational cells. If the terrorist cell is operating from within your national boundries, then the NCA has several options. It might arrest and publically try the terrorists, but that might reduce the effectiveness of other intelligence operations. The cell might be placed under additional surveillance in hopes that it would lead to other cells, or reveal terrorist plans that might be disrupted. The cell might be taken quietly into custody and dealt with secretly. This is really not an option when the terrorists are citizens of countries like the United States, or Britain. The old Soviet Union and some others have utilized the Star Chamber approach with some success in dealing with cells.

In some cases, the terror organizations operating openly in Palistenian territories for instance, direct action is possible. If operational planning for terrorist attacks are coming from a particular house outside your direct control becomes known, why wouldn't anyone decide to take it out.

Whatever the approach taken, it is important that terrorist organizations should never believe that their tactics are effectively advancing their cause. If the murder of children is believed necessary to defeat the United States, Israel, or Russia, then terrorist organizations will murder children. On the other hand, if terrorists can not instill fear and a weakening of their enemy's resolve using one tactic, they will pursue another. Terrorist activities can be disrupted and rendered less effective by keeping the pressure up on them. Deny the terrorist safe-haven anywhere and cut off their logistical sources. Kill, or neutralize their leadership by any means possible and disrupt their chain-of-command. Isolate the cells and make individual terrorists constantly afraid of being identified and targeted. Make the costs of terrorism so high that it must be abandoned as a strategy. The depiction of terrorists as heros and holy martyrs is an indication of how successful those organizations have been in winning the hearts and minds of some.

Ditto. Asherman managed to summarize all the things I wanted to say.

Hello, Asherman! May I say you have a cool beard? Re your treatise on terrorism: You bring up some good points, but you have failed to address the biggest question: How do you defend against someone who is not only willing, but anxious to give his life for his cause? No matter how much security is put into place at airports, shopping centers, historical monuments, etc. it will always be possible for some fanatic to find a way to commit a terrorist act. The President of the United States is surrounded by the highest security against terrorists that our government can provide, and yet several assasination attempts have been made, some have succeeded, and right now, today, if somebody really wanted to kill the President, believe me, he (or she) would find a way. I started this thread as a discussion of the possibility of martial law in the U.S., especially given the historical nature of the present administration which goes back to G. Bush I. It has, rather naturally I would say, into a discussion of terrorism and its effect on our civil rights. I will agree that in order to better combat terrorism it is necessary for the government to suspend some traditional civil liberties. But how far will they go? And how can we stop them? Food for thought....

A meal difficult to swallow, and even more difficult to digest. Many of our earliest thinkers suggested that the price of freedom is paid in blood--although a war with terrorists might not have been what they had in mind, nonetheless, it seems to me that the central question is at what point we surrender freedom to our fear of maiming and death.

I think, Asherman has already answered your question.

Israeli experience shows that this is possible to intercept the suicide bombers prior to their committing an attack and to neutralize in different ways their launchers and recruiters. Absence of the desired effect also discourages the terrorists; when they fail to achieve anything, their motivation fades.

It is not possible to prevent all terrorist attacks. So long as terrorists believe that they can advance their goals by bombs, assassinations, the spread of chemical/biological/radiological poisons, or sabotage, they will find a way. The number of potential targets is almost infinite, and a small secret cabal can strike anywhere at anytime. Operational planning tends to focus of producing the greatest effect at the lowest cost/risk. This should permit us to focus our security resources to protect what appear to be the highest priority targets. High density urban areas where an attack could generate large numbers of casualties, international notoriety, and disruption to our infrastructure are top priority targets. Operations targeting infrastructure nodes may not directly kill as many, nor become sensational headlines, but can be even more devastating to a country's ability to function. Symbolic targets generate headlines and promote fear and anxiety beyond the practical damage that can be inflicted. assassination of public figures has always been a favorite of terrorist organizations. It is always easer to plan and execute terrorist operations than it is to prevent them.

What can be done, and is being done, is to disrupt terrorist organizational structures. Disruption of networks to make planning and coordination of operations difficult by isolating cells, compromising communications, and instilling fear and anxiety within the ranks, is advisable. Eliminating places of sanctuary and cutting logistical support systems makes terrorist operations more difficult. Above all, demonstrated resolve that terrorists shall never accomplish their goals by murder and wanton destruction is necessary.

Hey, Setenta, how you doing old buddy? "At what point do we surrender freedom to our fear of maiming and death?" Good question! Here's another question: "To WHOM do we surrender our freedom - our government, who will "protect us from maiming and death", or to the terrorists who will provide it? Re "the price of freedom is paid in blood" -- historically very, very true. But a bloddy revolution in this country would be impossible. Too big, too spread out, military too strong. Hypothetical - In the event any leader, present or future, had control of Congress, the Supreme Court, and most importantly the military, and decided to exercise martial law to its fullest extreme, what could we possibly do to combat him/her? Damn! I keep forgetting: It can't happen here!

olddog, hi, welcome aboard and may you find it well on A2K!

My biggest fear today is that the unPresident will declare a condition of dire National Emergency, suspend all elections, suspend the constitution and declare himself leader (name of his choice) for life - while never having won an election for President.

This is well beyond Marial Law!

Re the posts earlier on Hitler, my view is in a distinctive different direction. the question has been asked many times over, "Why did no one do anything to stop him." No one will say the same this time!

Everyone was sure that it was possible to appease him in a diplomatic way. When the world leaders disclosed the truth, it was too late.

Just read a very scary news story: According to the CIA, the reason we have been put on "orange" alert is they (the CIA) have learned through virtually unimpeachable sources that Al Qaeda is prepared to strike the U.S. and/or the Arabian Peninsula within the next few days with an attack that has been several months in the planning. Osama bin Laden is reported to be behind the impending attack -- which begs the question: Why in God's name are we wasting time with Saddam Hussein (could it be a personal vendetta by Bush, or oil-inspired?) when we should be pouring all this money and resource into finding bin Laden and eliminating Al Qaeda once and for all! Can't be done? Well, it seems to me we should be trying a little harder - and why aren't we putting the problem of North Korea ahead of the supposed problem of Iraq? Also interesting to me is that according to the story the impending attack is inevitable, yet despite their totally reliable sources they don't know where the attack will take place. Sounds odd to me.....But then again, I guess I'm just a cynic. (P.S. - Hi there, Bill W. Hope all is well and that you are not Al Qaeda's intended target!)

conservatives use code words for everything - National Security = OIL! North Korea has none, Osama has none - Iraq is #2 in the world!

GREAT DISCUSSION!
Great discussion! Good post, olddog!

It does seem difficult to know what to believe. Especially, after the doctoral dissertation that was cited at the UN as being highly reliable info from British Intelligence - MI5? Re Saddam, Osama, etc.: Since there aren't too many Arabic speakers among us, who knows what's being said or written there?

I can't for the life of me see how military action in the Gulf could create the sort of crisis at home that would entail the suspension of the Constitution. But I can forsee one scenario that would create the conditions in the USA itself that could justify it.

The widespread use of biological agents across the US would trigger panic and disorder. As ordinary law enforcement couldn't cope with this, there would be only one alternative.

An interesting note with regard to Mr. Stillwater's post: the anthrax which was spread in the US after 9/11 seems to have come from a US Army source. There is also a story, the reliability of which i cannot vouch for, that members of the National Security Council were vaccinated for anthrax before it appeared in the mails.

If it was from the army source, this does not mean that the U.S. Army attempted to spread anthrax domestically. The infectious agent might have been stolen from the inventories.

I don't suggest that the Army attempted to spread the anthrax. I do want to stir the pot a little, and see what aroma that produces. Such "facts" and meat and drink to conspiracy theorists, i realize, but it is not untoward to question this.