CQ Press : Current Events In Context : Terrorism

The CQ Researcher : Combating Terrorism

From the July 21, 1995 issue of The CQ Researcher.

Abstract
By Mary H. Cooper

Will proposed legislation be effective?

Until two years ago, Americans were secure in the knowledge that, at least at home, they were safe from international terrorists. Then Islamic fundamentalists sent a shocking wake-up call - the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. In April, Americans were shaken again when a powerful blast destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City. But that attack - the worst case of domestic terrorism in U.S. history - apparently was perpetrated by American citizens. In response to the escalating terrorism against the U.S., the Clinton administration and the Republican-dominated Congress have presented several anti-terrorism proposals. But some observers question whether they will work, whether they are constitutional and if future terrorists will up the ante, using even more deadly techniques.

Overview

The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in OklahomaCity on April 19 is still largely a mystery. But one thing is certain: As an act of terrorism, it was the epitome of success, and not just because of the high death toll.

“The intended purpose of terrorism is to create alarm,” says Brian M. Jenkins, an authority on terrorism at Kroll Associates, an international security firm based in Los Angeles. “The goal is to attract publicity to the terrorists and their causes.”

As the nation now knows, the prime suspect in the bombing, Timothy McVeigh, reportedly acted in retaliation for the ill-fated federal raid on the Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Texas, exactly two years earlier. McVeigh, a decorated veteran of the Persian Gulf War, is said to have felt that law enforcement officers trampled cult members' rights in the operation, which left more than 80 people dead, including 24 children. *

The Oklahoma City attack was especially shocking to the American public because it invaded the nation's heartland and claimed so many victims. But it wasn't the first time in recent years that terrorists have targeted U.S. citizens and property. Since 1987, terrorist attacks, mainly by Middle Eastern groups, have left more than 400 Americans dead. [1]

Until recently, however, the attacks had occurred overseas. That precedent was broken Feb. 26, 1993, when a massive car bomb exploded under the World Trade Center in Manhattan, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of the crime, and the alleged mastermind awaits trial. *

In Jenkins' view, the Oklahoma City bombing warrants special concern for two reasons. For one thing, the unprecedented scale of the attack, which killed 168 people, including 19 children, poses a sobering question about terrorists' future tactics. “We have seen in this particular tactic, car-bombing, an increase in large-scale, indiscriminate violence,” he says. But there are technical limits to the number of victims a terrorist can dispatch using such a weapon.

To kill even more people in a single act of violence, terrorists would have to turn to more lethal weapons, such as biological, chemical or even nuclear arms. Until this year, that threshold had not been crossed. Then, in Tokyo on March 20, canisters of the deadly nerve gas sarin were released at various points in the city's subway system, killing 12 commuters and injuring thousands. Members of an obscure religious cult, Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme Truth), have been charged in the attack.

“Even though more than 10 times as many people died in the Oklahoma City bombing as in Tokyo,” Jenkins says, “the subway attack is the more worrisome event because of the much greater potential for killing large numbers of people.”

Jenkins' second concern about the Oklahoma City bombing is its apparent roots in what he calls the “lunatic fringe of the extreme right.” Media attention has focused on the nation's so-called militias, whose gun-toting members share an antagonistic view of the federal government and conduct military maneuvers on weekends. So far, however, no evidence has been offered linking these politicized gun clubs directly to the tragedy. “Although the alleged bombers moved on the fringes of these groups,” Jenkins says, “I suspect that when all the evidence is in, we're not going to find a direct involvement in the bombing conspiracy by any of the so-called militias.”

What worries Jenkins and other monitors of hate groups is the militias' apparent reflection of a growing anti-government intolerance in the United States and their potential to encourage other extremists to take violent action. “Right-wing violence has been a recurring theme in American history,” Jenkins says. “These are for the most part angry white males, and the violence seems to ebb and flow, becoming particularly strong in times of social and economic uncertainty. The Oklahoma City bombing underlines that as a continuing, albeit potentially increased, risk.”

Americans' horror at the arrival of terrorist violence in their streets is only matched by their worries about its impact on their way of life. Ever since the World Trade Center bombing, security measures have been tightened at public places around the country. Once expected only at airplane boarding areas, metal detectors now block free access to many public buildings. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, these annoyances can only be expected to increase.

Indeed, the familiar front entrance to the White House already has receded from public view with the closing of a segment of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. Travelers using Los Angeles International Airport over the Fourth of July weekend faced heightened security checks and flight delays because of a bomb threat by the Unabomber. This mysterious criminal has killed three people and injured 23 in numerous bombings over the past 17 years. *

Current anti-terrorist proposals seek to balance the conflicting goals of security and freedom. Several of the recommendations were sent to Congress by President Clinton in the wake of the World Trade Center attack and then strengthened and placed on the legislative fast track after Oklahoma City. [2] Bills passed by the Senate and soon to be voted on in the House would:

- expand the government's authority to conduct telephone wiretaps of suspected terrorists;

- allow the military to help investigate crimes involving biological or chemical weapons;

- bar Americans from contributing to international terrorist organizations; and

- make it easier for the government to deny entry to the U.S. to members of terrorist groups as well as deport suspected terrorists.

Congressional leaders generally support the anti-terrorist legislation. “It's a good bill; it's a bipartisan bill; it's a responsive bill,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R- Ill., who drafted the House version. [3]

Some terrorism experts concur. “A recurring theme in all the bills is the notion that we have never had a federal anti-terrorism statute,” says Stacy Burdett, assistant director of government and national affairs at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, a Jewish organization that monitors civil rights and hate groups. “Suspected terrorists can get picked up [under current laws] on charges of conspiracy or visa and passport fraud. Even if, technically, you can still put someone who bombs buildings in jail, federal involvement in such a case should not have to depend upon a series of coincidences like that.”

The bills' critics reject that argument and predict that the legislation, if passed, will run aground on constitutional challenges. “The Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings were very bad incidents, but current law already makes them illegal,” says David Cole, a professor and constitutional expert at Georgetown University's Law Center. “They can be investigated under current law and prosecuted under current law.”

Of more concern, in the view of Cole and many civil liberties advocates, are what they consider to be the bills' constitutional flaws. “There are two very serious constitutional infirmities in the legislation,” Cole says. “One is imposing guilt by association on individuals for their support of non-violent activities of disfavored groups. The second is the provision that permits the government to rely on secret evidence to deport immigrants accused of being associated with terrorist activities.”

As Congress continues to debate anti-terrorism legislation, experts fear that we have not seen the last of highly destructive terrorist attacks. The World Trade Center bombing indicated that terrorists may be more willing to strike with growing ruthlessness against “soft” targets such as busy streets, public buildings and transportation systems.

Before he was arrested and extradited to the United States, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was implicated in a series of attacks that spanned the globe from New York to the Philippines to Pakistan, where he was ultimately arrested. “What this case reveals is the existence of a kind of global terrorist Internet, with different people in different parts of the world plugged into it,” says Jenkins. “We now understand that there is a galaxy of dedicated Middle Eastern terrorists targeting the United States. This terrorism is quite exportable, and the notion that terrorist attacks would be confined to the Middle East or in adjacent Europe is no longer the case.” *

As lawmakers consider the anti-terrorist bills, these are some of the issues that will continue to challenge Congress and the courts as they consider ways to respond to the threat of terrorism:

Is the loss of civil liberties too high a price to pay for stronger anti-terrorist laws?

Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, even as they watched rescue workers bringing out victims, Americans called for tough anti- terrorist measures to protect the country from further atrocities. In a poll taken the day after the bombing, a majority of respondents supported many of the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation currently before Congress. Seventy-six percent supported restrictions on visits by people from countries with known ties to terrorism, while 63 percent supported increased surveillance of foreigners in the United States. [4]

When it came to restricting their own freedoms, however, Americans were less enthusiastic. While an overwhelming 89 percent of respondents expected a similar attack in the near future, 58 percent said they would not support increased government surveillance of American citizens. Hence the challenge of new congressional proposals: to provide greater protection from terrorist attack without infringing on the broad civil liberties Americans claim as their birthright.

Indeed, no sooner were hearings launched in April to consider the proposed anti-terrorist measures than objections were raised about their impact on civil rights. Proposals to involve the military in cases involving biological and chemical weapons and to expand wiretap authority are among the more controversial elements of legislation proposed in the wake of Oklahoma City.

In an unusual departure from the partisan nature of most political debates, criticism of anti-terrorism proposals unites conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats who worry that federal agents may use their expanded powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists to overstep their constitutional boundaries.

“We were pledged to protect and defend the Constitution,” Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., said at a June 12 hearing on the House bill. “And I think we want to defend it rather than amend it with the bill.”

Expressing his concern that law enforcement agencies might use their newly expanded powers to go after people who hold unpopular views, even in the absence of evidence that they are involved with terrorism, Rep. Steven H. Schiff, R-N.M., said: “We don't want to rush so rapidly into this that we neglect the civil liberties protections that are also an important part of society.” [5]

A proposal that would expand the government's ability to wiretap telephone conversations of suspected terrorists was an early focus of the debate. “That is exactly the sort of thing that people point to as an apparent violation of established constitutional principles,” says Steve Gardner, research director of the Coalition for Human Dignity, in Portland, Ore., which monitors hate groups in the United States. Expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop, he says, “plays into the preset world view these folks on the radical right have, that the federal government is out to get them.”

Some critics say the measure contains unacceptable violations of foreigners' civil rights as well. One violation, they say, would result from a proposed change in current law to allow the government to present only a summary of the evidence collected against foreigners suspected of terrorist acts. The change is intended to protect informants from retaliation, but critics say it denies suspects their rights. “Everyone in the United States is entitled to due process, whether a citizen or an alien, whether here lawfully or unlawfully,” says Georgetown's Cole, who has represented eight Palestinians in a deportation case in litigation since 1987.

“Imagine the O.J. Simpson case,” says Cole, “with the government coming in and saying, 'Mr. Simpson, we have evidence that you murdered your wife, but we can't show it to you. We'll summarize it for you instead. It says you murdered your wife.' You could have all the lawyers in the world, and you still would not be able to defend yourself.”

Another controversial provision would prohibit charitable donations to international groups deemed terrorist by the president or secretary of State. Such a ban, civil libertarians say, clearly violates the constitutional right to freedom of association. But supporters say the measure is needed because the United States has become a major source of funding, through fund-raising campaigns for hospitals and other charitable purposes, of some of the very organizations that attack U.S. interests.

“Some people would say the president could use the law to designate some unpopular group as a terrorist organization,” says Burdett of the Anti-Defamation League. “No one wants to see the law abused like that, but there could be a check against such an abuse. This is still the freest country in the world. It's a free society, which is why all of a sudden we are realizing that people may be raising money here to use for violent means.”

Likewise, Burdett defends the proposal to give the government authority to bar members of terrorist groups from the United States. “I don't think that denying entry to leaders and influentials of terrorist groups is an infringement on civil liberties,” she says. “It's a privilege to come to this country.”

As the bills make their way through the legislative process, Congress seems likely to produce finished legislation before the end of the summer. “The American public obviously has a tremendous stake in being protected from terrorism,” Rep. David E. Skaggs, D-Colo., said at the June 12 hearing. “It also has a high stake in seeing that the government doesn't cut constitutional corners in providing that protection. We do not need to trade constitutionally protected rights, including the rights to privacy, free assembly ∧ free speech for enhanced protection from terrorists. If that were to happen, then indeed terrorism would have achieved a real victory.”

Is the terrorist threat from domestic groups as great as that of foreign terrorists?

The deadliest terrorist act ever committed in the United States - the Oklahoma City bombing - defies conventional wisdom and stereotypes. It was apparently the work of American citizens with no known ties to international organizations.

Typically, the main perpetrators of anti-U.S. terrorism have been secular Middle Eastern groups that have targeted the United States for its support of Israel against the Palestinian cause. In recent years, anti-American terrorism increasingly has been the work of Islamic fundamentalists, also based in the Middle East. In addition to their political goal - a liberated Palestine - they want to injure the United States, which they view as the “Great Satan,” or the enemy of God.

Until recently, Middle Eastern terrorists attacked U.S. interests and citizens close to their home bases or in nearby Western Europe. But law enforcement officials say that evidence from the trade center bombing and a second bombing conspiracy in Manhattan that was not carried out indicates that they have brought their “holy war” to U.S. soil. * Perhaps not surprisingly, when the Oklahoma City bombing left no immediate trails of evidence, investigators once again focused their attention on Islamic fundamentalists. *

When the trail from Oklahoma City eventually led not to some highly organized overseas terrorist organization but, police say, to farmhouses in rural America, the nation was stunned. The perpetrators, police say, were alienated Americans with vague notions of a malevolent federal government. Their bomb used hundreds of pounds of fertilizer and other readily available materials - essentially the same device used on the World Trade Center.

The chief suspect in the case, McVeigh, has refused to speak with authorities. In searching for a motive, investigators say they have found only casual links with so-called militias. Numbering perhaps as many as 15,000 adherents in 40 states, militias are small groups of mostly young white men who claim, to varying degrees of intensity, that the federal government is trying to disarm Americans to make way for a “new world order” orchestrated by the United Nations or some other foreign conglomerate. [6]

Many militias have distinctly racist and anti-Semitic overtones as well. Claiming their constitutional right to bear arms, many militia members conduct war games and stockpile food and other essential goods in anticipation of a confrontation with the federal government and its foreign allies.

“The Oklahoma City bombing underlines the nature of the threat posed by these paramilitary organizations,” says Jenkins. “This is not a monolithic movement. There are those in it who are defending a right to bear arms on narrow constitutional grounds, and there are those who find recreational value in playing soldier. But there are also those who have darker visions and motives, and the militias constitute a breeding ground for the crackpots who will come along and carry out violent attacks.”

Members of militia groups publicly aired their views at a remarkable congressional hearing on June 15. [7] While acknowledging their disdain of federal intrusion into their lives, camouflage- wearing militia members rejected any involvement in the Oklahoma bombing and other violent acts.

Gardner of the Coalition for Human Dignity agrees that militia groups probably weren't behind the Oklahoma City blast, but he says they should not be ignored as in the past. The focus on militias is “excessive in one sense,” he says, “in that there is no hard link of a conspiracy. But we have a deeper problem, and that is the tendency of Americans in general to ignore what happens on the fringe of our culture until it slaps us in the face.”

While militias may not pose as great a threat to society as foreign terrorist groups, Gardner warns that certain groups hold hateful, racist views that could spill over into acts of violence. Such groups include neo-Nazi organizations and elements of the so- called Christian Identity movement, who view Jews as agents of the devil. These groups have been growing, Gardner says, since the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian complex and a 1992 raid by federal agents on the rural Idaho retreat of white separatist and murder suspect Randy Weaver that resulted in the killing of his wife and 14-year-old son. *

“Before the Weaver siege, it was basically a hard core espousing these extremist views, and no one else,” Gardner says. “Since the Weaver siege, which changed everything, the groups in this Christian patriot orbit have gained audiences much larger than anything they previously had.”

How much of a threat do such groups pose? “The key to understanding these folks is to take them at their word,” Gardner says. “It's hard to do because much of what they say either sounds clinically paranoid or obviously bigoted or involves esoteric legal interpretations of states' rights to dissociate themselves from federal regulation.”

The federal government is not the only target of domestic terrorists. The elusive Unabomber, whose bombs have killed three people and injured 23 over the past 17 years, has called more generally for “the destruction of the worldwide industrial system.” Hatred of the U.S. government and the economic system it represents, then, appears to be as strong among some American groups as foreign ones, providing the potential for future terrorist acts. But some analysts say that by focusing on the domestic threat, Americans risk losing sight of international terrorist groups made up of religious fanatics who have already proved extremely dangerous.

Although fewer terrorist attacks occur in the U.S., the threat facing the United States today is considered more lethal and more varied than in the past. “We have the primary external threat, which is Middle Eastern in origin and religiously motivated, as in the World Trade Center bombing and subsequent plots,” says Jenkins. “Then there is the domestic, right-wing lunatic fringe we saw at work in Oklahoma City. The other element in this picture, which so far is unrelated to the United States except as a demonstration of a new tactic, is the poison attack in the Tokyo subway. That's the state of the threat today.”

Does anti-government rhetoric encourage domestic terrorists?

Criticism of the federal government has been a mainstay of Republican politics since the early 1980s. Getting “the government off our backs” was a successful campaign slogan for Ronald Reagan in his quest for the presidency in 1980. During his two terms in the White House, Reagan continued to push for deregulation, lower taxes and a general loosening of the federal government's role in Americans' lives. The theme was continued by Reagan's vice president, George Bush, who succeeded Reagan in 1988.

Although Democrat Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 briefly interrupted the anti-government drive, the quest was re-energized by the Republican sweep of Congress in last fall's midterm elections. With a majority in both houses for the first time in four decades, Republicans were well-positioned to bring about the end of “government that is too big, too intrusive and too easy with the public's money,” as the House GOP “Contract With America” put it.

Some observers say that all the anti-government rhetoric unleashed since the early 1980s has the potential to legitimize the paranoid, anti-government feelings some people have and spur them to commit violent acts against government bureaucrats, as in Oklahoma City.

“This . . . is certainly not what House Speaker Newt Gingrich [R- Ga.] had in mind in his denunciations of the national government,” writes historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. “But the speaker blamed the murder by a South Carolina woman of her two children on the poisoning of the culture by liberal Democrats, and his own logic must indict the anti-government demagogues as unwitting accomplices in the Oklahoma City outrage. Is it too much to hope that this will encourage the speaker in rhetorical restraint? (Answer: Yes, it is probably too much to hope.)” [8]

Gingrich angrily dismissed as “grotesque” the suggestion that political rhetoric against the federal government might have sparked the Oklahoma City bombing. He emphasized that criticism aimed at diminishing the federal government's power by legal means has nothing to do with criminal acts.

Although terrorism expert Jenkins questions the connection between anti-government rhetoric and terrorist acts, he links the appearance of violent fringe groups to significant shifts in public opinion. During the late 1960s, for example, liberal Democratic politicians expressed the sentiments of millions of Americans who were disenchanted with the war in Vietnam. That disenchantment spawned violent groups on the extreme left like the Weather Underground.

“It would be inappropriate to say that prominent politicians such as William Fulbright or Eugene J. McCarthy were giving aid and comfort to the Weather Underground bombers with their anti-war rhetoric,” Jenkins says. “Today, getting the government off our backs is probably a majority opinion in this country. With this shift in mainstream opinion, the effects out at the extreme [fringes of society] are exaggerated.”

What disturbs Jenkins is an apparent inconsistency in some politicians' treatment of violent rhetoric. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., for example, recently condemned Hollywood producers for pushing violent movies, television shows and music - especially lyrics by rap singers inciting listeners to kill policemen. On the other hand, Jenkins says, there has been no commensurate condemnation by Republican politicians of the violent rhetoric emanating from right- wing radio talk-show hosts such as G. Gordon Liddy, who told listeners to kill federal agents who try to enter their homes. [9]

“Though both of them would die at the comparison, I can equate an Ice T, the rap singer, with a G. Gordon Liddy,” Jenkins says. “I don't really see what the distinction is between saying you ought to shoot federal agents or that you ought to shoot cops.”

The suggestion that anti-government rhetoric, whatever the source, may lend support to terrorist acts is a sensitive issue for civil libertarians and some constitutional experts. “I think it's very difficult to know,” says Cole. “The theory of our Constitution and the First Amendment has been that people should be free to engage in very extreme rhetoric and that the proper response to extreme rhetoric is criticism of that rhetoric, not suppression of First Amendment freedoms.”

[1] U.S. Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 1994, April 1995, p. 67.

[2] For background, see Holly Idelson, “Anti-Terrorist Measure Heads to House Floor,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, June 24, 1995, pp. 1648-1849.

[3] Ibid., p. 1848.

[4] The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll was conducted April 20. See Andrea Stone and Tom Squitieri, “Bomb Forces Question: How Safe Are We?” USA Today, April 21, 1995.

[5] Reps. Schroeder and Schiff spoke June 12 at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the 1995 Anti-Terrorism Act.

[6] For more information on militias, see Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Beyond the Bombing: The Militia Menace Grows, June 1995.

[7] The hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information included testimony by five militia members, including Norman Olson, former head of a large Michigan militia group, and Robert Fletcher, a militia group member from Montana.

[8] Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “In Defense of Government,” The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 1995.

[9] Quoted in Jonathan Alter, “Toxic Speech,” Newsweek, May 8, 1995, p. 44.

*In addition to McVeigh, who was arrested April 21,Terry Lynn Nichols, an Army friend of McVeigh's fromMichigan, was later charged in the bombing after turninghimself in.

*Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who police say is behind terroristacts around the globe, was arrested in February in Pakistanand extradited to New York, where he is being held pendingtrial next year. Yousef, a Kuwaiti, had been grantedpolitical asylum in the United States in 1992.

*The Unabomber's most recent victim was Gilbert Murray,a Sacramento, Calif., timber industry lobbyist who waskilled April 25 by a parcel bomb. The bomber's last previousattack had been Dec. 10, 1994, when an advertising executivewas killed by a package bomb sent to his North Caldwell,N.J., home.

*In an unusual announcement July 13, the StateDepartment said, without elaboration: “The United StatesGovernment has information that Middle Eastern terroristsmay be planning an attack against an unspecified U.S. targetin South America during July 1995.” Last year, most of theanti-U.S. attacks abroad occurred in Latin America.

** Fundamentalist Muslim cleric Omar Abdel Rahman and 10of his followers are now being tried in New York City fortheir alleged roles in an unsuccessful plot to bomb the UnitedNations building, two commuter tunnels and the FBI's Manhattanheadquarters as part of a larger war of urban terrorismagainst the United States.

*Weaver was later acquitted of murder charges butsentenced to 18 months in prison on charges related to a1991 weapons case. On July 12, the FBI announced it wasreopening a probe into alleged misconduct during the raid onWeaver's cabin.

Background

Terrorism, loosely defined as violence or intimidation aimed at innocent targets to achieve political objectives, is hardly a recent form of aggression. But it has become increasingly visible in recent decades as modern communications technology has enabled terrorists to reach worldwide audiences almost instantaneously.

At the same time, the development of weapons of mass destruction in the past half-century made open warfare increasingly risky. As a result, some less powerful countries - notably Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria - have found that secretly supporting international terrorists to further their political goals is preferable to launching all-out war.

In attacking targets beyond the national boundaries of their home bases, international terrorist groups have gained the spotlight since the late 1960s, especially in the Middle East. Following Israel's victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, some Arab countries became bases of operations, and often clandestine supporters, of terrorist organizations fighting to evict Israel from the occupied territories of Palestine.

One such international, state-sponsored terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), shows how far afield some of these groups can reach. With a base in the Syrian- controlled Beka'a Valley of southern Lebanon and support from Libya and North Korea, the PFLP also maintains cells of local insurgents as far away as Hong Kong and Singapore. [10]

In the 1970s, as the pace of both domestic and international terrorism picked up, more than 8,000 incidents occurred worldwide, resulting in about 5,000 deaths and 7,000 injuries. Almost 3,600 attacks, mainly domestic incidents directed at businesses, occurred in Europe, the center of terrorist activity during the decade. [11]

Escalating Violence

While the number of acts of international terrorism actually have declined over the years, terrorism analysts have noticed a continuing escalation in the level of violence. Experts blame the escalation, at least in part, on the hardening of government responses to terrorist acts, the theory being that refusing to meet terrorists' demands would discourage future incidents. The rash of airline hijackings that began in the late 1960s reflected the escalation of terrorist tactics. In July 1968, terrorists hijacked an Israeli plane en route from Rome to Israel and forced it to fly to Algeria. The passengers were released after Israel yielded to the terrorists' demands. Israel later reversed its policy of acceding to terrorist demands.

“Obviously, there had been hijackings by criminals and people escaping to the West before,” Jenkins says. “But in terms of its demonstrated utility as a terrorist tactic, hijacking began to proliferate in the late 1960s and early '70s.”

Another precedent-breaking event was the 1969 kidnapping of U.S. Ambassador Charles Burke Elbrick in Brazil, which set off a wave of kidnappings of diplomats and embassy seizures in the 1970s. “Once terrorists crossed the line into kidnapping - not just government officials and diplomats for political purposes but also corporate executives to get ransoms to fill their war chests - the tactic proliferated,” Jenkins says. “So this is a recurring pattern in terrorism. Once a spectacular tactic's utility to terrorists has been demonstrated, other groups will adopt it, modify it, improve it.”

The 1980s saw a continuing escalation of terrorist incidents. More than 31,000 attacks occurred over the decade, resulting in almost 71,000 deaths and 48,000 injuries. The main focus of terrorist activity shifted to Latin America, with more than 18,000 mainly domestic incidents involving such groups as the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrillas in Peru.

International groups also stepped up their activities during the 1980s, shifting their main focus from Europe to the Middle East. [12] As Israel's strongest supporter, the United States was a frequent target of attack. In April 1983, for example, 16 people were killed by a bomb explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. The following October, 241 U.S. military personnel died when a suicide attacker drove a truck filled with explosives into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

“Beginning roughly in the mid-1980s, there has been a discernible trend toward the increasing incidence of large-scale, indiscriminate violence as terrorists planted bombs aboard airliners, in airports, department stores and discotheques, or set off car bombs on busy city streets,” Jenkins says. “All these actions are calculated to kill in quantity.” Terrorist brutality reached an all-time high with the bombing of Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 270 people.

Jenkins attributes the trend toward more violence to “a curious kind of inflation. In order to capture the headlines,” he says, “terrorists were obliged to create increasingly spectacular actions. The escalation was simply the terrorists' response to the problem of getting attention in a world increasingly filled with terrorists.”

Terrorists also shifted to such civilian targets as buses and public buildings in response to the extraordinary, new security measures in airports and government facilities. “This reduced the attacks on those targets demonstrably,” Jenkins says. “But it also pushed the terrorists in the direction of softer targets, which almost by definition became more indiscriminate.”

Terrorism at Home

Because the vast majority of anti-American terrorist incidents have occurred abroad, security measures have focused on embassies, airports and large businesses with U.S. ties.

Together with other countries, the United States also has used sanctions barring trade and other contacts with countries identified as supporters of international terrorism. After Libya refused to turn over two suspects in the bombing of Flight 103, for example, the United Nations passed a resolution banning air travel to the country and ordering member nations not to let Libyan planes land.

More recently, the Clinton administration has been trying to isolate Iran, a leading supporter of Hizballah (Party of God) and other radical Islamic terrorist groups, by blocking U.S. oil companies from participating in projects in that country. The administration also is urging other nations to refrain from selling nuclear technology to Iran, which it believes is trying to build nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [13]

When it comes to domestic terrorism, the law has followed a less direct path. In 1939, the FBI gained the authority to investigate subversive activities and to wiretap suspected terrorists without a court order. The agency abused that authority in the 1960s and '70s when it spied on civil rights leaders, protesters against the war in Vietnam and women's liberation groups. Investigations into the FBI's activities found that it used its anti-terrorist powers for purely political, not criminal, reasons in a secret campaign known as COINTELPRO, which was aimed at discrediting these movements.

To stop such abuses, Attorney General Edward H. Levi in 1976 issued new guidelines limiting the FBI's authority to gather domestic intelligence. Now, before conducting wiretaps, the FBI had to obtain a court order, based on probable cause that a crime had been or would be committed. A separate set of secret attorney general's guidelines also was written at the time to deal with international terrorism.

In 1983, Attorney General William French Smith liberalized the guidelines somewhat, giving the FBI greater authority to investigate groups or individuals that have advocated violence, even in the absence of evidence that they had planned or committed a crime. These guidelines are still in effect.

World Trade Center Bombing

Although international terrorism had targeted Americans and U.S. interests abroad for decades, no significant terrorist acts were committed by foreign groups in the United States during the period of escalating terrorism beginning in the late 1960s. Consequently, Americans thought little of terrorism as a threat to their personal safety.

All that changed on Feb. 26, 1993, when a bomb in a van parked in the garage under New York's World Trade Center exploded. The 1,000- pound bomb killed six people - but the death toll could have been far higher. Still, more than 1,000 people were injured and the twin 110- story towers were heavily damaged.

The bombing lent extra urgency to lawmakers' attempts to crack down on crime in general and helped win passage of the 1994 crime bill. [14] Although the bill emphasizes domestic crime by providing money for additional police officers, stiffer sentences and a ban on assault weapons, it also contains a number of provisions aimed at combating terrorism. The law permits the death penalty for terrorism- related violence at airports resulting in death, for the terrorism- related murder of a U.S. national abroad and for the use or attempted use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons if death results. It also outlaws giving material support to terrorists and strengthens penalties for passport and visa fraud in an attempt to block the most common means terrorists, including the trade center bombers, use to enter the country illegally.

[10] See Office of Technology Assessment, Technology Against Terrorism: The Federal Effort, July 1991, p. 18.

[11] Ibid., p. 19.

[12] Ibid.

[13] The 175-nation treaty was extended indefinitely in May. For background, see “Non-Proliferation Treaty at 25,” The CQ Researcher, Jan. 27, 1995, pp. 73-96.

[14] The bill to amend the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act was signed into law by President Clinton Sept. 13, 1994.

Chronology

1970s
Mounting Arab-Israeli tensions fuel a wave of international terrorist incidents, while extremist offshoots of European leftist parties engage in violent attacks at home.

1972
Members of Black September raid the Olympic village in Munich. Seventeen people, including 11 Israeli athletes, are killed in the raid and subsequent shootout with German police.

1976
Following revelations of widespread abuses in the name of counter- terrorism, Attorney General Edward H. Levi issues guidelines limiting the FBI's authority to conduct domestic intelligence gathering.

1978
At the peak of anti-capitalist terrorism in Western Europe, former Italian Premier Aldo Moro is kidnapped and murdered.

1980s
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism adds to the ranks of terrorist groups based in the Middle East.

April 1983
The U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, is bombed, causing 16 deaths and more than 100 injuries. The same year Attorney General William French Smith eases restrictions on the FBI's powers of investigation.

October 1983
A suicide attacker drives a truck filled with explosives into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241.

June 1985
TWA Flight 847 is hijacked. U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem is murdered on board, his body dumped on the tarmac in Beirut.

Oct. 7, 1985
Palestinian terrorists hijack the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, and murder Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old American invalid.

February 1988
Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins, a member of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon, is kidnapped and later murdered.

December 1988
A bomb destroys Pan American Flight 103 en route from London to New York City over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.

1990s
Devastating terrorist attacks occur on U.S. territory amid an escalation of large-scale, indiscriminate attacks worldwide.

Feb. 26, 1993
Terrorists explode a bomb beneath New York City's World Trade Center, killing six and injuring more than 1,000. Four Islamic fundamentalists are convicted and each sentenced to 240 years in prison.

February 1995
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the alleged mastermind behind the World Trade Center bombing, is arrested in Pakistan and extradited to the United States, where he awaits trial.

March 20, 1995
Release of poisonous gas in Tokyo's subway system kills 12. Members of an obscure religious cult, Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme Truth), are charged in the attack after an intensive investigation.

April 19, 1995
A truck bomb destroys the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children. Two Americans are charged in the attack.

April 25, 1995
Gilbert Murray, a timber industry lobbyist, is killed by a parcel bomb in Sacramento, Calif. The attack is believed to be the 16th in 17 years by an elusive terrorist known as the “Unabomber” because many of his victims have been affiliated with universities. In a rare public declaration, the Unabomber calls for “the destruction of the worldwide industrial system.”

June 7, 1995
The Senate approves anti-terrorism legislation aimed at strengthening the government's powers to fight terrorism at home and abroad. With House passage of a similar bill expected in late July or early August, the legislation is expected to become law before year's end.

June 27, 1995
The Unabomber warns in a letter that he plans to blow up an airliner departing from Los Angeles International Airport over the busy Fourth of July weekend, prompting massive security. In a later communication, he says the threat was a hoax designed to gain publicity for his cause and promises further violence if the media doesn't publish his lengthy manifesto.

Current Situation

On April 20, the day after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton addressed a shocked nation. The bombing, he said, “was an act of cowardice, and it was evil. . . . ”And I will not allow the people of this country to be intimidated by evil cowards.“

Clinton won a brief respite from Republican-led criticism of his administration and of the federal government in general, as Americans rallied around their president at a time of national distress. In an about-face of prevailing attitudes, three-quarters of the respondents surveyed soon after the tragedy agreed that Americans are too quick to criticize the federal government, and half disagreed with the notion that the government is taking more and more rights and freedoms away from average citizens. [15]

Meanwhile, the perpetrators' success in provoking public shock and outrage throughout the country was undeniable. A more subtle victory was the heightened sense of vulnerability to unexpected violence that followed in the bombing's wake. The most visible symbol of that added burden of fear was the Secret Service's decision to restrict access to the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Recognizing the damage that could be done by a car bomb the size of the one in Oklahoma City, the authorities barred all vehicular traffic from the busy thoroughfare, long a symbol of the openness of American political life.

The bombing also produced a flurry of bomb threats, compounding the terrorists' impact on public spirits. District of Columbia police, for example, reported receiving more than 100 bomb threats during the month after the attack, far more than usual. [16]

New Breed of Terrorist

While Americans were horrified that the brutal Oklahoma attack apparently originated within their own society, experts say the incident fits into a disturbing global pattern. “I think it is important to put the bombing . . . in perspective,” said Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy U.S. attorney general. “This is only the most recent in a disturbing and escalating trend of terrorist attacks, inside and outside the United States.” [17]

For example, investigations into the World Trade Center bombing have uncovered evidence of growing links among international terrorist groups that span the globe in an informal network. These links provide logistical and financial support that has enabled a few key terrorist organizations to launch attacks far from their bases of operations.

Yousef, charged with masterminding the New York bombing, provides a chilling example of the ease with which a determined terrorist can carry his campaign throughout the world. Before his arrest in Pakistan, Yousef, 27, allegedly spent five years setting up bases of operations and conducting terrorist acts in a number of countries. [18] After receiving a degree in electronic engineering in Britain, he reportedly joined Afghan and Arab Islamic groups based in Pakistan. From there he set up operations in the Philippines, joining with the Islamic militant group Abu Sayyaf, which has been implicated in numerous deadly attacks against the Philippine government. [19]

Traveling on an Iraqi passport, Yousef was granted asylum in the United States in 1992 on grounds of political and religious persecution. A few hours after the World Trade Center bombing, he left New York for Pakistan, where he later was injured while making a bomb, allegedly to be used to assassinate Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Yousef later resurfaced in the Philippines, where he allegedly placed a bomb aboard Philippines Airlines Flight 434 after takeoff from Tokyo. Although it detonated in flight, killing one passenger and injuring 10 others, it didn't bring the plane down. In early 1995, Yousef escaped the Philippines after police uncovered a plot by him and other members of Abu Sayyaf to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila. According to police evidence, Yousef also plotted to blow up two United Airlines jets simultaneously as they approached Hong Kong, one from Los Angeles and the other from Singapore.

On Feb. 7, shortly after he arrived in Pakistan, Yousef was arrested and taken to New York City to stand trial for the World Trade Center bombing. A month later, two Americans from the U.S. consulate in Karachi were killed and another was injured in an ambush viewed as retaliation for Yousef's arrest.

Yousef represents what experts call a new brand of terrorist - religiously motivated zealots without the constraints against indiscriminate killing that often characterized more traditional secular terrorists. “Terrorists want to provoke shock and alarm, but they don't want to create a level of revulsion that backfires politically,” says Jenkins. “You don't poison the city's water supply in the name of the popular front if you expect to remain popular.”

These constraints are not shared by many other militant groups, such as the Japanese sect charged with setting off poison gas in the Tokyo subway. “The constraints erode as we move toward the end of the spectrum to deranged religious fanatics because they believe they have the mandate of God,” Jenkins says. “Whether God speaks through the mouth of a fundamentalist preacher or a mad sheik or some crazy guru, if God says it's OK to kill indiscriminately, that really removes all constraints imposed by conventional morality. This may sound ironic, but it does require true belief in God to carry out acts of monumental evil.”

The Oklahoma City bombing also appears to have been the work of this new, ruthless breed of terrorist, albeit of a different ideological stamp. “The constraints against large-scale, indiscriminate violence also tend to erode on the extreme right wing, more so than on the left wing of the political spectrum,” Jenkins says. “The left subscribes to the notion that power comes from the people, whereas the far right has a rather different conception of authority.”

Calls for Tougher Laws

Even before the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration had proposed a number of measures to toughen anti-terrorism laws in the United States. Most were aimed at making it harder for terrorists to enter the country and stiffening sentences for terrorist crimes committed in the United States, including the death penalty for attacks that result in death.

The recent bombing underscored the potential for domestic terrorism as well, and the president added new provisions to the measures under consideration by Congress. The bombing also prompted lawmakers to place anti-terrorism proposals at the top of the legislative agenda. On June 7, the Senate passed a bill comprising most of the president's proposals. The House is expected to take up a similar measure approved June 20 by the Judiciary Committee by summer's end. [20]

Both bills authorize additional funding to pay for improved counter-terrorism enforcement by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other federal agencies. The Senate measure puts a price tag on the effort of $2.1 billion over five years, mostly for additional equipment and personnel.

Both measures would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to conduct so-called roving wiretaps, connected to any telephone line a suspected terrorist uses. Under current law, authorities can only tap phone lines a suspect habitually uses, such as a home or business line. The House bill goes a step further by allowing emergency wiretaps in terrorism cases, enabling authorities to wiretap a suspect for up to 48 hours before obtaining a court order.

Addressing the making of the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombs with readily obtainable materials, both bills call for studies on the effectiveness of adding taggants, or tracing elements, to explosives and on the feasibility of altering potentially explosive chemicals to make them inert. [21]

Both bills would make it harder for transnational terrorists to enter the United States by denying visas to members of identified terrorist organizations and by deporting suspected terrorists after they are admitted. The House bill also would make it harder for foreigners to enter on political asylum claims.

Both anti-terrorism bills are targets of criticism by both liberals and conservatives on the grounds that they violate several constitutional rights. Critics are also upset at the Senate's inclusion in its measure of severe restrictions on death row appeals, known as habeas corpus petitions.

“The habeas corpus provision has nothing to do with terrorism,” objects constitutional law expert Cole. “It's really shameless, I think, of the politicians to use the Oklahoma City tragedy to push forward something that has nothing to do with that case. The provision is very troubling because it basically denies prisoners in state criminal cases who've had their constitutional rights violated any meaningful recourse.”

If politicians wished to amend the president's proposals in ways that would effectively curtail terrorism and other forms of violence, Cole says, they should have added stronger restrictions on access to firearms. “If anything would be likely to reduce the level of violence in the United States,” he says, “it would be gun restrictions. But they were opposed as being not relevant to terrorism. If we weren't just playing politics and we really wanted to do something about the level of violence, murders and deaths of innocent people in the United States, we should be engaging in gun-control legislation.”

Burdett of the Anti-Defamation League says her organization supports the legislation's objectives but worries that some of the proposals do not go far enough. For one thing, under the Senate proposal there is a 30-day lag between the time the State Department designates a group as a terrorist organization and the time the ban on fundraising in the United States by that group goes into effect. This, Burdett says, provides a “window of opportunity for these really bad guys to move assets.”

“We really are interested in striking the right balance because there are very precious freedoms at stake,” she says. “But we also recognize the special danger that terrorism poses to Americans.”

[15] See Richard Morin, “Anger at Washington Cools in Aftermath of Bombing,” The Washington Post, May 18, 1995.

[16] See Megan Rosenfeld, “A World Gone Mad?” The Washington Post, May 27, 1995.

[17] Gorelick testified May 3 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime at hearings on domestic terrorism.

[18] See David B. Ottaway and Steve Coll, “Retracing the Steps of a Terror Suspect,” The Washington Post, June 5, 1995.

[19] See Rigoberto Tiglao, “Terror International,” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 4, 1995, p. 32.

[20] For more information on the two bills, see Idelson, op. cit.

[21] For background on efforts to add tracing elements to explosives, see Office of Technology Assessment, Taggants in Explosives, April 1980.

Pro-Con

Should the rules limiting the FBI's use of wiretaps be loosened to thwart terrorist attacks?

Jamie S. Gorelick
Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice.
From a statement made before The Senate Judiciary Committee, May 24, 1995.

The administration [is] committed to supporting legislation which protects all Americans from the scourge of terrorism, without sacrificing the constitutional liberties which all of us hold dear.

It is a fundamental principle underlying our criminal law that a criminal statute should protect - and be understood by the public to protect - some recognizable public interest, such as public safety or the exercise of protected rights. This legislation is designed to protect the public's safety by intercepting criminal conversations of those who commit specific serious and dangerous crimes against law- abiding citizens in our communities while protecting our overriding and compelling privacy interests. . . .

The balance is struck in two ways. First and foremost, the ultimate decision to permit electronic surveillance is made by a federal judge who determines that probable cause exists to believe that a specific crime has been committed, that specific named persons are committing that crime and that there is probable cause to believe that an identified phone or premises is being used to commit the crime. Second, the decision whether to even permit a prosecutor to go to court to seek a wiretap order is made at the highest levels of the Department Justice. Law enforcement uses the tool sparingly. There were only 554 federal investigations in calendar year 1994 in which wiretaps were used. The state and local governments used this investigative tool in only 600 investigations during that year. This is a small percentage of the thousands of . . . investigations conducted that year. . . .

In an ordinary wiretap, the court-ordered electronic surveillance is not necessarily limited to a particular individual. Rather, the government is permitted by law to intercept criminal conversations occurring over the tapped telephone, regardless of who the participants are. By contrast, all multi-point electronic surveillance orders require that the specific subject of the electronic surveillance be identified at the time the application is made, and only his communications and those of the persons to whom he speaks may be intercepted. . . . Since multi-point electronic surveillance is aimed at a particular individual, rather than at a particular facility or location, it is less, not more, likely that the conversations of innocent third parties will be randomly intercepted. It is, in fact, practically impossible. . . .

We do not believe that our proposal in this area will result in many more orders allowing the government to use multi-point wiretaps, although its availability at a crucial moment may prove the difference between preventing a terrorist attack and watching the aftermath on the evening news.

Donald M. Haines
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
From a statement made before The Senate Judiciary Committee, May 24, 1995.

The ACLU, of course, deplores the bombing and the tragic loss of life in Oklahoma City. We support bona fide efforts to ensure that law enforcement officers have the tools necessary to arrest and prosecute anyone who commits such a crime. Nevertheless, we remain most concerned that we do not - out of a heightened fear of the threat of terrorism - throw out the civil liberties and constitutional rights that have defined us as a land of freedom. . . .

The ACLU strongly opposes virtually every one of the electronic surveillance and intelligence gathering proposals presented by the administration in S. 761. Those proposals are unnecessary and, in fact, not related to the events of Oklahoma City. They will not make the American people any safer. We hope that no one, in the administration or in the Congress, will use the trauma and grief of Oklahoma City to advance legislative interests unrelated to that incident. Moreover, the administration's proposals will expose all Americans to the increased danger that our government will violate our rights - thereby turning into a reality a feeling about their government that many Americans already have. . . .

Electronic surveillance is a particularly intrusive investigatory technique, subject to the search and seizure requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Wiretaps should be authorized therefore only in the most serious cases and subject to the most stringent protections. The proposed expansions of wiretap authority sweep far too broadly and, in at least some instances, probably run afoul of the Constitution.

Equally important, such expanded authority is quite unnecessary. Virtually all federal felonies characteristic of terrorism, including those that would likely form the basis for the Oklahoma City prosecution, are already on the list of felony investigations in which an electronic surveillance order may be sought. Yet the FBI has very rarely used wiretaps in investigations of arson, bombings or firearms violations.

Out of 8,800 wiretaps applications filed by federal and state authorities between 1983 and 1993, only 16, less than 0.2 percent, were for arson, bombing or firearms. The last known request in such a case was filed in 1988. Congress should not be considering expanding federal wiretap authority, when the FBI is demonstrably not using the authority that currently exists.

The American Civil Liberties Union urges both the Congress and the administration to resist the temptation to use the tragedy of Oklahoma City as a smokescreen behind which to enact legislation that is in fact both unrelated to Oklahoma City and anti-civil liberties.

Outlook

With the administration and Congress in rare agreement on the major components of the proposals now under consideration, a sweeping, new anti-terrorist law is considered all but certain to take effect this year. But some of its more controversial provisions are expected to be challenged on constitutional grounds and may not become available to law enforcement agencies in the fight against terrorism.

Cole singles out as patently unconstitutional a provision making it a crime to support charitable activities of groups that are designated as terrorist by the president.

While the bills are targets of criticism by both liberals and conservatives on constitutional grounds, some analysts say they offer little protection from future attacks because they do not go far enough in seeking to prevent the potential future escalation of terrorist tactics to include the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Two incidents during the weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing underscore the need to better regulate materials that could be used in terrorist attacks, according to Anthony Fainberg, a senior associate at the Office of Technology Assessment who specializes in terrorism. In one incident, a neo-Nazi in Minnesota was convicted of manufacturing or obtaining ricin, a highly poisonous biological toxin produced from castor beans, which was used by Eastern European secret service organizations to assassinate opponents during the Cold War. “Although ricin is not necessarily a weapon of mass destruction, and it's pretty hard to distribute, it is highly toxic,” Fainberg says.

In a second incident, Larry Harris, a member of the racist group Aryan Nation, ordered a supply of freeze-dried Yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes bubonic plague, from a laboratory supply service. Although Harris claims he had a right to obtain the deadly bacteria as a microbiologist, Fainberg says his credentials were limited to having taken a course in microbiology and membership in the American Association of Microbiologists.

“At the very least you should have to demonstrate that you have a facility for containing this stuff that meets the safety standards of biological labs dealing with very dangerous substances,” Fainberg says. “But I was shocked to learn that you may not even need a license showing you are a bona fide researcher, and not some lunatic Nazi, to get your hands on this stuff.”

Of the three types of weapons of mass destruction that may fall into the hand of terrorists, nuclear weapons are generally deemed the most frightening. A primary purpose of the Clinton administration's agreements to helping Russia dismantle and dispose of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal is to prevent these weapons from reaching terrorists and governments that support them.

But Jenkins says that chemical weapons pose the greatest immediate threat because they offer several advantages to terrorists. “Chemical weapons are the easiest to use and the most accessible,” he says. “They also produce finite results, which is important because it means they are more easily controllable.”

The ease of gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons is especially worrisome to experts in the wake of the Tokyo subway gas attack. “Once these new tactics become spectacular events, they inspire copycats,” Jenkins says. “The probability of the second event is greater than the probability of the first event; that is, once an incident occurs, it is more likely to be repeated.”

Since the Tokyo attack, there have been other attempted uses of chemical weapons in terrorist incidents, including a threat to use sarin in the subway system in Santiago, Chile, and a second attempt on the Tokyo subway May 5. Police in Tokyo said that 20,000 people could have died in that attack if the chemicals left burning in a toilet at Shinjuku station had not been promptly discovered and removed. [22]

Jenkins agrees with other experts in predicting that the Oklahoma City bombing was not the last we will see of terrorist attacks, either at home or abroad. “As we approach the millennium, a certain amount of that stuff can be expected to increase,” he says. “There's just a lot of paranoid madness in society.”

[22] See Charles Smith, “Soul Searching,” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 25, 1995, pp. 14-16.

Footnotes