See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Professional Paranoid [There Are No Terrorists In The United States. There Never Have Been, There Aren't Any Now, And There Aren't Likely To Be Any In The Future]
Source:
The Libertarian Enterprise
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 31, 2003
Author: William Stone, III
Post Date: 2010-02-05 16:15:01 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 178
Comments: 14
There are no terrorists in the United States. There never have been, there aren't any now, and there aren't likely to be any in the future. And I can prove it. In my "day job" I am an information systems security specialist. My job is to be a professional paranoid. My clients pay me to think up ways that an individual might compromise sensitive data, and then to mitigate against that risk. This ranges from physical security to network security to procedural security. I've been doing this kind of work for something like ten years, now, and I don't mind saying that I'm good at what I do. In my capacity as a professional paranoid, I have occasionally turned my mind to notions of more general physical security. I have marveled at the occasional stupidity of America's few terrorists. From a tactical perspective, Timothy McVeigh was a low-grade moron. Someone with my training would have bombed a much larger building and never been caught. Catch me sometime in person, and I'll explain what someone could have done to the Sears Tower with the same material, yet by simply catching the El to O'Hare could have been on a plane to South America when Upper Wacker Drive collapsed onto Lower. Since September 11, the FedGov has used the claim of terrorists insinuating themselves into every fabric of American life to justify all manner of draconian "security" measures. As to the "security" of these measures, in my professional opinion, they're worse than useless. One cannot reliably place access controls on public places short of putting a cordon of armed guards around it with orders to shoot everyone who tries to breach it. Anything less -- such as "airport security" is a waste of time, from a security perspective. Similarly, "enhancing" security by violating individual rights as the FedGov has done achieves nothing but further accustoming individuals to the notion that they have no rights save those granted by government. In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple. The United States, despite all the efforts of the FedGov to enslave it, is still the most free society in the world. No doubt our freedoms will continue to be curtailed, but for the moment, there is nothing to prevent terrorists from existing. Nor, frankly, should there be anything to prevent their existence. In a free society, one of the accepted dangers is that it's possible for individuals to harm one another. The great lie about laws is that they exist to prevent behavior that would cause harm. In fact, laws exist to punish or exact restitution from individuals who've already harmed others. The only way to prevent harm is a total police state in which individuals are allowed no freedom whatsoever. Consider the following, then: given that the United States is reasonably free; given that in a free society, it is possible for individuals to harm one another. Now, as an intellectual exercise, let's add a given: the FedGov's paranoid fantasies are all true, and terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying America are hiding behind every rock, shrub, and tree. Here's where my training as a professional paranoid comes into play. Given these notions, imagine with me that you are a terrorist bent on destroying America. How would you go about doing so? You wouldn't do it through direct military confrontation. The United States military has become an enormous group of individuals carrying out the Unconstitutional policies of those in power. Direct confrontation against the military is simply an involved way of committing suicide. Similarly, because individuals are in many areas of the country still allowed to carry deadly weapons, attempting any kind of military victory in even a small town is suicidal. The local residents will kill you the moment some 12-year-old with a .22 calibre rifle lines you up in his sites. What options have you? Guerrilla and terrorist tactics. Terrorist tactics seem the most likely to succeed, given the limited funds and personnel of a secret terrorist organization. The next problem becomes, what sort of weapons will you use? The options are fairly broad in today's era: traditional explosives (bombs, rifles, pistols, etc.), nuclear weapons, biological, and chemical weapons. Remember, one of the goals of a terrorist organization would be to remain secret. This being the case, it has a shortage of trained technical personnel, as well as a shortage of specialized materiel. Remember, too, that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are expensive, difficult to obtain and refine, and are rife with all manner of toxic side effects. They're additionally very difficult to transport and deliver with any degree of accuracy and success. Given all this, it seems likely that the average terrorist will choose simple, cheap, easy-to-manufacture, easy-to-hide, easy-to-deliver explosive-based weapons. In fact, this is what we find worldwide: terrorists use explosives rather than nuclear or biological weapons. Now, I realize that there are some among my readership who will object to what I'm about to do. I'm going to give a very specific example of something a terrorist could do with explosives if they were inclined to. The objection raised will be that this example is "giving information to the enemy." Trust me: if there were an enemy, they'd've done this, or something very like it, already. I may be a professional paranoid, but I don't spend the majority of my time looking for terrorist targets. They do. I'm a South Dakotan, so when I turn loose the professional paranoid inside me, I look to South Dakota's beautiful Black Hills. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit every year, concentrated around Mount Rushmore. This makes it a perfect target for terrorists. As a major tourist attraction, Mount Rushmore has no access controls. Access is granted to anyone who has the trivial amount of money to pay the parking fee. Access is then entirely open, and anyone is free to wander the visitor's center, the huge amphitheater used for the evening lighting ceremony, and the hiking trail to the base of the mountain's debris field. There are no real access controls to prevent individuals from leaving the hiking trail, though in short order they'd probably be noticed. The highest concentration of people at Mount Rushmore occurs during the evening lighting ceremony. During this ceremony, the area is dark to facilitate a DVD display in the amphitheater. During tourist season, the ceremony plays to packed crowds. There aren't even enough seats, and individuals sit, stand, and watch shoulder-to-shoulder in some cases. It is the perfect terrorist target, like hundreds of thousands of other all over the United States. There would be nothing--absolutely nothing--to prevent a terrorist from filling a small knapsack (of the kind worn by hundreds of tourists) full of pipe bombs. Such explosives are identical to those used at the Olympic Park bombing and are simplicity itself to make. For a few hundred dollars, one could fill one's garage to bursting with them, and it requires only a trip to the local hardware and sporting goods stores to obtain the materials for them. If there were hundreds of thousands of terrorists in this country, there would necessarily be thousands of basements filled with cheap, easy-to-make pipe bombs to choose from for the job of terrorizing Mount Rushmore's tourists. They would throw a few into a knapsack, spend a few extra dollars for a timed detonator, and rent a car in Rapid City. They'd then arrive at Mount Rushmore in time for the lighting ceremony, take a seat in the center of the crowd, and quietly slide their knapsack under the concrete bench in the amphitheater. They'd then leave, ostensibly to go to the bathroom (if an excuse is even necessary), get in their car and drive back to Rapid. With appropriate timing, about the time their car hits the town of Keystone, the explosive will go off, killing dozens and injuring hundreds. They'd then return the rental car in Rapid and disappear back into obscurity. That's just one possible scenario. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of potential targets such as this throughout the United States. If one allows one's paranoid fantasies free reign, one realizes that if terrorists existed in the United States, there should be a news story every single day about how some public place was bombed somewhere in America. There is nothing--literally nothing--preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever. Terrorists aren't stupid; the ease with which they took advantage of the way the FedGov immorally disarms airline passengers proves this. If they wished to plant a bomb in the middle of the evening lighting ceremony at Mount Rushmore, they'd have done it long ago. How can we account for this discrepancy? How can there exist terrorist in the United States, each capable of coming up with schemes far more nefarious than my paranoid musings, and yet, no terrorist acts of this type have ever been committed? The answer is simple: there are no terrorists. If there were, we'd see their acts every day. Terrorism wouldn't be confined to US-occupied countries like Iraq, they would literally occur every day somewhere in the United States, in a manner similar to, or worse than, that which I outlined. They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy, at best. More likely, it's a cold, calculated attempt on the part of those in power to terrify Americans into rash actions that they otherwise would never take. There is no war on terrorism because there are no terrorists in the United States. There is a war on your freedom, being waged from the office of the President, his cronies and accomplices all through Washington, DC, and in every Federal building in every town and city in America. You have nothing to fear from terrorists: they're a figment of the imagination of those in power. The real enemy is those who would manufacture nonexistent terrorists in order to further their own ends. 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. "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 intellectually unassailable. The only possible argument against it is based purely in emotion with no solid basis in rational fact. In that regard, I had one particularly enlightening e-mail conversation with a libertarian author whose work I've respect. I also received a personal response from Senator Tom Daschle (D - South Dakota). I found Senator Daschle's reply particularly interesting for two reasons: firstly, this is the first time he's replied, 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. This does not, however, constitute a significant figure in statistical terms. One dozen (more or less) out of a population of over 280 million simply isn't a significant portion of the population. Don't misunderstand: there is an old Klingon proverb which tells us: "Four thousand throats may be cut in one night, by a running man." This is particularly prophetic in terms of the September 11 attack. My business is assessing risk. I am paid to judge 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. From the perspective of risk analysis, the question is simple: is FedGov "anti-terrorism" domestic security policy appropriate or effective to guard against a statistically-insignificant number of individuals? To answer this, let's do some quick math -- the kind they don't teach in government schools. In examining the history of the Republic, one finds that there are basically four incidents of true terrorism on American soil: 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 The total number of casualties incurred on American soil as a result of terrorist attacks is: WTC Bombing: 6 fatalities, 1042 injuries Murrah Building: 167 fatalities, 675 injuries Olympic Park: 45 fatalities, 444 injuries September 11: 3044 fatalities, unknown number of injuries Total: 3262 fatalities, 2161 injuries (not including 9/11) For comparison purposes, we'll throw out the injuries -- not because they're trivial, but because it won't make an adequate comparison, as will become readily apparent. 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. Statistically, it is 9,683% more likely that any given individual in the United States will be killed in a traffic accident rather than a 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. When one applies standard risk analysis principles to terrorism, it's clear that death by terrorism is 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?" The answer is clear: 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 two primary concerns should be: theft of his laptop, and hard drive failure. 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, he should use a product like PGP-Disk to encrypt the contents of his customer files on-the-fly. The FedGov's reaction to domestic terrorism is akin to advising the CPA to construct a concrete bunker around his laptop; that he establish multiple independent airlock-style entrances to his office; and that he implement iris scanners, palm readers, and cryptocards in order to secure access to his computers. In short, government's solution to the problem is at best a total overreaction. What 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. The draconian, anti-freedom policies put into place by the big-government, tax-and-spend Republicans, make America no more secure today than it was on September 11. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing government can do about domestic terrorism when few (if any) terrorists actually exist. 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 consumer demand for rapid transportation -- even incredibly expensive transportation with terrible 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 with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. 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 her arms by a Federal 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 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 "airport 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 packed belongings 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 to South Dakota. 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. Nothing short of this is anything other than the FedGov hiring a bunch of thugs and bullies to harass people. 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 conclusion is 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!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Good piece.
The only real problems anti-immigration types have with the non-whites already here is that they won't marry our daughters and won't adopt Haitian babies. They "refuse to assimilate." Their "culture is incompatible." THAT is not our problem. I've often said this same thing. We have history to back up this claim. Remember the damage the IRA did to urban England during the 70's? How about the daily terrorist attacks in Israel during, IIRC, the 80's? And that's in a country where, unlike the "free" United States, civilians are allowed to walk the streets with fully automatic weapons! The bombs at the discotheques in Germany and Sri Lanka? And those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are dozens of others I have forgotten about.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
I don't agree completely with that. I believe that the killings in Ft. Hood is a perfect example of the type of terrorist he is talking about. I do not count the Muslim's that the FBI has caught and arrested as being terrorists for the simple fact that FBI went looking for these people, manipulated them into making plans, gave them the training, and then swooped in at the last second to "save the day." This is the same modus operandi they've been using against Americans for decades. There are many who believe this is actually what happened when the OKC bombing happened.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
"...There were obviously about a dozen terrorists in the United States on September 11. This does not, however, constitute a significant figure in statistical terms. One dozen (more or less) out of a population of over 280 million simply isn't a significant portion of the population." Now add your terrorist at Fort Hood and that makes 13. Out of a population of over 300 million* it is so small a number as to be negligible. I think that was the main point of the article. *According to the Census Bureau there are now something more than 304 million. And I don't know if that includes all the illegal aliens.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thank you sir. Glad you enjoyed it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thank you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I remember all those things. And you know what is funny to me? Sadaam Hussein was, according to the government, a "tyrant" and "we" had to get rid of him. Yet his people could openly carry AK-47's out in the streets even when he was in a parade going down those same streets. Imagine Bush or Obummer going down a street in an open vehicle and all the citizens with Ak's and Uzis.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I beg to differ. The terrorist are here and some have lived here their entire lives. 9/11 was indeed a terrorist event. Terrorizing the American people into supporting a war against those supposedly responsible for it and the voluntary surrendering of their rights in some circumstances for the greater safety of all. Israel and its supporters got their desired outcome of getting America involved in a preventive first strike war, whatever the heck that means. But Americans bought it hook line and sinker because they are too damn trusting of those in authority and many have lost the ability to think for themselves about such matters deeming it too complicated to bother with and thinking surely the government and its vast agencies are not trying to deceive them.
God is always good!
Yes - who is truly free, and who is not?
Everyone should automatically be suspicious of any proclamation by any government official. Reagan's favorite phrase seemed to be "Trust but verify." I think it is a mistake to trust the government and I suppose I will go to my grave believing that they are not to be trusted.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well, it would seem to me that people who can openly carry fully automatic and semi-automatic (just about anything they choose) around on the streets are a bit more free than people who have to go begging for a permit to even keep one at home. And even then can't get a machine gun without paying a high tax and jumping through an inordinate number of hoops--I mean, I am not even sure if you can legally buy a machine gun anymore. I am sure some of you guys who post here probably know. But to me that says that Iraqis are more free, or at least they were at one time, than we are.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Oh, I've imagined it. ;-)
_________________________________________________________________________ I bet a lot of people have. I have also imagined them without their SS goons to protect them and get out and tell people why they believe they have the right to call someone an "enemy combatant" and jail them indefinitely or even order their execution without a trial. I really would like to see that.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.Five-star bump - thanks.
#2. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
There is nothing--literally nothing--preventing the devious terrorists the FedGov claims exist from performing such acts every day. And yet, such acts never occur. Not today, not yesterday, and not ever.
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
They don't exist. Terrorists in the United States are a stark, raving, paranoid fantasy, at best
#5. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#4)
I don't agree completely with that. I believe that the killings in Ft. Hood is a perfect example of the type of terrorist he is talking about.
Lord Acton
#6. To: Lod (#1)
Five-star bump - thanks.
Lord Acton
#7. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#2)
Good piece.
Lord Acton
#8. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#3)
Remember the damage the IRA did to urban England during the 70's? How about the daily terrorist attacks in Israel during, IIRC, the 80's? And that's in a country where, unlike the "free" United States, civilians are allowed to walk the streets with fully automatic weapons! The bombs at the discotheques in Germany and Sri Lanka?
Lord Acton
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
(Edited)
In any case, as I've already stated, there are no terrorists in the United States, and the proof of this is simple.
#10. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
I remember all those things. And you know what is funny to me? Sadaam Hussein was, according to the government, a "tyrant" and "we" had to get rid of him. Yet his people could openly carry AK-47's out in the streets even when he was in a parade going down those same streets. Imagine Bush or Obummer going down a street in an open vehicle and all the citizens with Ak's and Uzis.
#11. To: RickyJ (#9)
Lord Acton
#12. To: Lod (#10)
Lord Acton
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#8)
Imagine Bush or Obummer going down a street in an open vehicle and all the citizens with Ak's and Uzis.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#14. To: X-15 (#13)
Oh, I've imagined it.
Lord Acton
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest