terrorism

TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND TYRANNY

John A. Sterling

Synopsis: This paper will look at recent trends in terrorism and the way in which technological advancements have dramatically increased the destructive capabilities of terrorists. Next, I will provide an overview of the new, recently de-classified communications and surveillance technologies that are available to governments as counter-terrorism tools. Finally, I will explore the conflict that exists when government must provide a level of safety and social order, while maintaining a proper perspective on individual rights and liberties.

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. TRENDS IN TERRORISM

III. TECHNOLOGY DIRECTED AT THE TOOLS OF TERRORISM

IV.TECHNOLOGY DIRECTED AT THE TERRORISTS

V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND TYRANNY

VI. CONCLUSION

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

When the cops tell the bad guys, "You can run, but you can't hide!" the citizens breathe a sigh of relief. For a nation whose citizens have been victimized by the senseless acts of extreme violence, the promise of security is welcome indeed. Citizens from nearly every country in the world have been victims of international, as well as domestic, acts of terrorism. Who would not want to give the " good guys" the advantage of every trick- every new gadget- that would assist them in catching the " baddies" and making the world a safer place?

How well have governments been able to deliver on their promise of safety and security? Are there limits to how much a government may reasonably be expected to guarantee the safety of its citizens? Ultimately, the cost of security will be proportional to the amount of liberty lost.

To get a proper " handle" on the topic, some definitions are in order.

Violence: Professor Paul Wilkinson has developed very useful definitions which are useful in dealing with this issue. He explains that terrorism is a specific form of political violence and that all political forms of violence are not equal. He defines violence generally as, "The illegitimate use or threatened use of coercion resulting, or intended to result in, the death, injury, restraint, or intimidation of persons or the destruction of seizure of property.[1] Note the emphasis (mine) on illegitimate. It is presumed that government may properly restrain or intimidate certain persons or seize their property while pursuing the legitimate ends of government. In the U.S., the moral authority of government is limited by the express consent of people, articulated in the language of the Constitution, and solemnized by the binding oath declared by all who officially serve. In other countries there may be another source of authority but stability and longevity of any government is strongly suggestive of a body of law to which most of i ts citizens can subscribe. Violence, in the sense in which it used in this paper, is illegitimate and, therefore, criminal in nature.

Political Violence: Although a narrower concept than the generic term above, still a broad range of phenomena. Wilkinson describes it as, " . . . [e]ither the deliberate infliction or threat of infliction of physical injury or damage for political ends." [2] This is only one of several varieties of violence which may erupt in the context of political expression.

Terrorism: A particular variety of political violence which employs, " . . .[t]he systematic use of murder and destruction, and the threat of murder and destruction in order to terrorize individuals, groups, communities, or governments into conceding to the terrorist's political demands. It is one of the oldest techniques of psychological warfare. [3]

The term " terrorism" has similar definitions within the U.S. Government agencies tasked with combating the phenomena. For example, the Department of Defense defines it as "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological." The FBI defines it as ". . . [t]he unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Code has this to say: "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." [4] The discerning reader will note that there may be a distinct difference between the concept of " legitimate" (as meant by America's founders) and " lawful" (as intended by the modern power-brokers). While illegitimate conduct involves a moral breach , unlawful conduct is that which merely violates an ordinance or statute passed by a legislative assembly which may, or may not, involve a moral breach. By either the Department of Defense or the FBI\rquote s definition, the American Revolution was " unlawful." No distinction is made by those entities as to whether the "violence" (remember Professor Wilkinson's definition of the term) may be directed towards combatants or non-combatants. The reader is encouraged to keep these definitions in mind when, later in this paper, the government (executive branch) advances the argument that it should decide who may become a target of surveillance.

Terrorism is not to be confused with guerrilla warfare. Where guerrilla warfare, in general, is descriptive of a small, poorly equipped force in conflict with a larger, better organized and equipped army, it does not necessarily connote the random, indisc riminate, acts of violence which are the hallmark of terrorism. Guerrillas, unlike terrorists, will often acknowledge the rules and conventions of war and, also unlike terrorists, refuse to engage in acts of violence that arbitrarily kill non-combatants. To do so would destroy the base of community support that is vital to the credibility of the guerrilla movement. Terrorism, on the other hand, deliberately intends to create such an intense degree of fear and panic that it will rip apart the social fabric and destroy any vestige of legal authority.

Neither is terrorism to be confused with crime. Many writers, intentionally or out of ignorance, label certain crimes against persons (usually if some member of a minority class is the victim) as acts of terrorism. The critical distinction is blurred, perhaps purposefully, to enflame the passions of the gullible and to persuade members of Congress to "get tough" on crime. The U.S. Congress has shown an amazing willing to " federalize" a huge (and growing) list of criminal conduct which has, historically, been effectively dealt with at the state and local level. Ostensibly, this move towards enlarging the bureaucracy is to more effectively combat \ldblquote domestic\rdblquote terrorism. In his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said that the trend of federalizing crimes has contributed to a double-digit increase in the number of criminal cases in federal courts, which "threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system." [5] While not specifically addressing terrorism. Justice Rhenquist expressed concern that the visceral response to criminal conduct is altering the very fabric of our republican form of government. He said, "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be. Matters that can be handled adequately by the states should be left to them." [6]

There are those who argue that terrorism, as a political tool, has always been ineffective and is now obsolete. Gwynne Dwyer, writing for the weekly magazine Monday Morning, had this to say: "To imagine that you can force the U.S. government to do your will by killing people at random is to entirely part company with reality. The people who have succumbed to that sort of fantasy. . . are not politically serious people." [7] While there is a certain appealing logic to Ms. Dwyer\rquote s observation, it would not be prudent to categorize all terrorists as \ldblquote rational\rdblquote people whose objectives are entirely connected to reality. If terrorism has become obsolete, someone should inform the terrorist.

TRENDS IN TERRORISM

In July 1993, in a statement before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Orga nizations, and Human Rights of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Timothy E. Wirth reported the lowest level of terrorism in 17 years. But, although the number of incidents had been lower than previous years (361 acts of international terrorism in 1992 ), the percentage of attacks against Americans was increased. Speaking on behalf of the Clinton Administration, Wirth testified that the trend against Americans was expected to continue. "The U.S. influence in economic, cultural, political, and military terms is so much greater than any other nation that we inevitably represent a high-profile target to terrorists around the world." [8] In 1996, Richard J. Barnett, a Fellow for the Institute for Policy Studies, reported that, " . . . [w]orldwide deaths due to acts of international terrorism have in recent years declined, from 314 in 1994 to 165 in 1995." But Barnett agrees with Wirth that the U.S. remains an inviting target "Exactly because the United States is so powerful, so wealthy and (because of our extraordinary dependence on complex technology) so vulnerable to politically inspired violence. . ." [9]

In the 1996 State Department Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, Ambassador Phillip Wilcox Jr. admitted that the frequency of terrorist attacks against Americans is in a long decline but insisted that the threat remains very real. "Yet while the incidence of international terrorism has dropped sharply in the last decade, the overall threat of terrorism remains very serious. . . The threat of terrorist use of materials of mass destruction is an issue of growing concern, although few such attempts or attacks have actually occurred." [10] Ambassador Phillip Wilcox Jr., is the Coordinator for Counter-terrorism for the U.S. State Department and speaks frequently on the subject. He is a very enthusiastic spokesman for the Clinton Administration\rquote s efforts to increase America\rquote s defenses against terrorism, even if those efforts result in eroding the Constitutional protections of liberties. In remarks before the Denver Council on Foreign Relations, Denver, Colorado, September 12, 1996, Wilcox attributed the positive trends in combating terrorism to a " . . . willingness by the majority of states to crack down on terrorists by all means available, especially by using the law to combat terrorism." This application of " legal" methods may not be as innocent as it sounds however. Wilcox added, "By strengthening U.S. laws against terrorism, as President Clinton has done, and aggressively promoting international treaties and conventions against terror, of which there are now ten, we have led a worldwide trend to use the law as our most effective tool against terrorists." How did Clinton "strengthen" U.S. Law? By ". . . investing heavily in collection and analysis of intelligence." and by proposing " . . .a $1 billion package of additional counter-terrorism measures that will enhance aviation security, increase the number of law enforcement agents, and improve their forensic capabilities." What prompted the increased vigilance in aviation security? Wilcox says, "Although there is no evidence that the tragedy of TWA Flight 800 was a terrorist crime, that event renewed attention to the vulnerability of civil aviation to terrorists. The result flowing from Vice President Gore's Commission on Civil Aviation Security will be more security measures for American and foreign travelers. We need this, and we will have to pay the price." Typical of the Clinton Administration, a tragedy unrelated to the issue becomes the justification for greater government intervention.

It is a typical response of politicians in a struggle for more power that they raise the hue and cry for "more and better laws" needed to deal with a crisis, real or imagined, by promoting increased government intervention. Following the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Congress was in a ready mood to pass the Clinton Anti-terrorism bill into law. Never mind that the destruction of the building and the loss of life was arguably not an act of terrorism (as defined above) but the criminal act of a deranged man (or group). Nevertheless, the magnitude of a crime does not move it out of the category of "crime" and into the category of " terrorism." In fact, there are so few acts of terrorism in America that any argument for increased counter-terrorist activities must come from some rationale than the historical evidence of actual acts committed. Ambassador W ilcox admitted as much in his speech before a Conference in Washington D.C. in February, 1997 when he said, "Although there is no evidence that the tragedy of TWA Flight 800 was a terrorist crime, that event renewed attention to the vulnerability of civil aviation to terrorists. The result flowing from Vice President Gore's Commission on Civil Aviation Security will be more security measures for American and foreign travelers. We need this, and we will have to pay the price." [11] (emphasis added). With respect to Ambassador Wilcox, terrorism is a definite threat to the stability of the free world. But, as Professor Wilkinson emphasizes, " . . .[u]nless the liberal state's authorities grossly mishandle the situation, public hostility to the terrorists will tend to increase in proportion to the visibility of the terrorist campaign. As the public is roused to outrage and fury by terrorist attacks on life and property, the situation may well rebound upon the terrorists." [12] It is imperative that governments do not over-react to the threat and inflict irreparable damage to the Constitution in pursuit of public safety.

Ambassador Wilcox is a spokesman for the Clinton Administration, whose unveiled attempts at eliminating all constitutional constraints upon the president are the scourge of democratic republicanism. Note the subtle language which promotes government control of private property, taken from his February 1997 speech:

Another threat in our age of technology are terrorist or criminal attacks against the electronic infrastructure on which our economic and commercial life depends and on systems of public power and transport. Our lives today rely, to an extraordinary degree, on the safe functioning of these systems. Yet they are highly vulnerable to enterprising cyber terrorists or criminals. . . I can assure you that the Clinton Administration is very much aware of, and is acting to deal with the threats of terrorism using non-conventional substances, and the new specter of cyber terrorism. Our challenge is to grasp that terrorism is a dynamic threat whose practitioners are increasingly sophisticated and enterprising. Our job is to preempt, not only to react. . . We can't rely just on tough, focused counter-terrorism efforts to reduce the threat of terrorism. We need a larger, comprehensive effort to maintain U.S. foreign policy leadership and engagement across the board--and this I emphasize- we also need the resources needed to sustain it. . . America's overall security interests require, therefore, not just the policies and activities we have in place to put terrorists out of business and behind bars, and not just the superb military forces we have, but adequate resources to support a vigorous , engaged foreign policy leadership role across the board.

TECHNOLOGY DIRECTED AT THE TOOLS OF TERRORISM

Echoing the Clinton Administration\rquote s call for increased technological achievement in the fight against terrorism, Secretary of State Madeline Albright informed the U.S. Senate of the existence of a special "technology team" of researchers whose primary responsibility it is to develop counter-terrorism weapons. She reported: "Improved technology is an important tool for countering these as well as more conventional terrorist threats. The U.S. Government has a Technical Support Working Group, known as the TSWG which is comprised of 50 government agencies and operates a vigorous program of research , development, and rapid prototyping of antiterrorism and counter-terrorism technologies." [13]

Primarily, there are two broad categories of emerging technological counter-terrorism efforts: Explosives detection and surveillance. The latter may be further broken down into two or more sub-categories: direct surveillance of the terrorist suspects (or associates) and indirect surveillance through communication. Surveillance is the technology that has the most immediate and profound impact on individual liberties and the most potentially violative of the " inalienable rights" secured by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

With the demise of the so-called "Cold War," the defense technology industries were struggling to justify their existence. The threat of terrorism, however, has given new momentum to the race for better arms, improved munitions, and more sophisticated communication and surveillance technology. Given the trend towards fewer incidents but larger casualties, the major focus for counter-terrorism efforts has been on mass transportation facilities such as airports. Since nearly all terrorist attacks on such facilities are in the form of bombs, the greatest challenge for the government is adequate reliable detection of explosive devices. "According to experts, all airports in the United States today are inadequately protected from the threat of plastics and commercial explosives." [14] An explosive is, essentially, the very rapid oxidation of a compound. There are two categories: high explosives, which detonate at a very high velocity and produces a "shattering" effect; and low explosives which burn (or decompose) at a very high rate and produce a "pushing" effect. An explosive may contain both the fuel and the oxidizing agent in a single substance. Or, more likely, it is a compound of substances which combine to form a volatile mixture. A favorite of terrorists is a form of explosive known as "binary" because it is a mixture of two chemicals, either of which are inert (and often, quite legal to possess) but when combined, form a volatile mixture. An example of this category of explosive is the so-called "fertilizer bomb" made from an organic substance (usually ammonium nitrate) and fuel oil (usually diesel). When properly mixed, the combination of these two components (neither of which is volatile nor illegal), plus a high energy initiator (blasting cap), a low-grade explosive may be created.

In many cases, the component parts of a binary agent, when mixed together, generate their own heat which, in turn, provides the energy to detonate the blast. Safer, and easier to control remotely, are explosives (whether binary or not) which are detonated using either time-delay fuses or electronic triggers. The most common explosive used by "professional" (as the term may be loosely applied) terrorists is a compound favored by the military and known as C-4. It is compound of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and an oil-based plasticizer to make the substance moldable. By shaping the explosive charge, a knowledgeable demolition man may multiply the effectiveness of a relatively small amount of C-4.

Currently, there are four technological approaches to detecting the presence of explosives in high traffic areas such as airpo rts. Only one of these technologies is presently certified by the FAA, based upon accuracy of detection, speed of throughput (how many articles of luggage can pass through the system per hour), and how easily the system may be integrated with existing security procedures. "This system combines high-resolution X-ray imaging with "computed tomography" (CAT scanning). . . .Because plastic explosives have a higher density than most other objects, the machine . . . analyzes cross-sections of the high-density regions by tomography, a techniques based upon X-ray absorption and scattering.[15] A second technology employed in the search for explosives is the quadruple resonance analysis (QRA), something akin to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the procedure used in many medical diagnostics. "When a bag is placed in the system\rquote s tunnel, it is subjected to a pulse of low-intensity radio waves. This radiation temporarily displaces the rotation or alignment of nitrogen-14 atomic nuclei within the [object in the tunnel]. As these nuclei return to their original states, they emit radio-wave signals that are unique to each substance from which they emanate." [16] Computer analysis is able (with a 99% probability of accuracy) to distinguish between different substances and to isolate explosive compounds. The third technology used currently in this field, is " . . .[v]apor or trace-detection systems\emdash called sniffers -- [which] depend on ' smelling' the vapors or traces of explosives." [17] This system samples the air around a piece of luggage and compares it with known effluents from known compounds stored in the analyzer\rquote s database. This technology, although reliable, does have natural limitations and is best used in conjunction with X-ray or other imaging technology.

A fourth technology uses a radiation-based concept called pulsed fast-neutron analysis (PFNA) for detection of narcotics and explosives. "PFNA is an imaging system in which short pulses of high-energy neutrons are aimed at the luggage being checked, producin g signature gamma rays for several elements, including carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. The detector then integrates this data into a 3D image of the bag's contents." [18] Although these four approaches to explosive detection all have potential implications for the western notion of individual rights, they are less likely to be so intrusive as to raise constitutional questions because they are employed in public transportation areas where travelers have a reasonable expectation of safety and a low expectation of privacy.

TECHNOLOGY DIRECTED AT THE TERRORISTS

Counter-terrorism efforts are not only directed at the tools of the terrorist (weapons and explosives) but also on the terrorists themselves. Historically, the U.S. has treated terrorism as the highest form of criminal activity. Because it is treated as a crime, the procedural requirements for criminal prosecution set the bar quite high. Although the constitutional "due process" requirements impose restraints on law enforcement effectiveness, they serve a higher purpose: that of preserving the inalienable rights of individuals. The tension required to keep these two conflicting values in balance is a dynamic of government that demands constant vigilance. Any advance in counter-terrorism technology that makes it easier identify, apprehend, and (perhaps) prevent terrorists, will also be a potential threat to privacy. Face Recognition technology is a useful example to illustrate the point. Based on facial thermography or imaging, this method would compare yo ur face with a database of photos of people authorized to access a particular system or location. For instance, you may not use a computer, enter your place of employment, access your ATM, borrow a book from the Library, etc. without being first verified by the Face Recognition System. At least in theory, no one has exactly the same facial features that you do, so the accuracy is quite high. There is no limit to the activities to which you may denied or permitted access to and the computer imaging software would be the sole determiner of your fate.

Nearly all of the fifty states of the Union now use digital photos for use on state driver\rquote s licenses. These digitized photos are stored in databases for law enforcement and other uses as determined by the needs of the state. Chilling is the effect of the language contained in the Online version of a booklet entitled "The Highway Safety Desk Book" published by the U.S. Department of Transportation:

The implications for law enforcement go far beyond these obvious benefits. With a central image database of every driver in a state, the public safety community has a ready-made storehouse of photos to be used in criminal investigations. Due to the electronic nature of these images, they can be obtained in seconds via a computer retrieval unit in the department or even faxed or thermal printed directly to the patrol car. These same images can also be brought into a photo array for suspect identification. . . . The uses for these images are limited only by the wants and needs of the public safety community. [19]

One need not be a constitutional scholar to see great potential for abuse of this collection of data on law-abiding citizens. And, the DOT does not even limit the use of this information to U.S. agencies but promises to share these digitized photos world wide. "Work is progressing on digital standards (common data elements and compatible records) so that a national and, perhaps, an international network of digitized images can be established." [20]

One step further advanced from Face Recognition Software is something called "mugspot." The new "Mugspot" software module developed at the University of Southern California automatically analyzes video images, looking for passers-by. When it finds them, it picks out the heads in the images and then tracks the heads for as long as they remain in the camera's field. Throughout this tracking process, the software is watching for the best possible view of the subject's face- the one that shows him or her looking most directly at the camera. It selects the best view presented and passes it on to the main face-recognition program." [21]

Dr. Christoph von der Malsburg, a professor in the USC School of Engineering's department of computer science developed the system and envisions some possible uses for it. "Cameras mounted in airports and bus stations, or aimed at oncoming cars at traffic intersections, might continuously watch for known fugitives," von der Malsburg says. "Bank surveillance cameras could identify persons seen at previous bank robberies. . .The Mugspot system can scan eight video frames per second in real time, and takes about 13 seconds to select the best view, process it for identification, compare it to the several hundred faces in its memory and decide whether it has found a match." [22]

NeuroMetric, a Florida manufacturer, claims that its system can scan 20 faces a second, and by 1997 will be able to scan and compare images against a database of 50 million faces in seconds. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is spending millions in a pilot program using video cameras and computer databases to identify known illegal and criminal aliens, terrorists, drug traffickers and other persons of special interest to the U.S. Government at airports, checkpoints and other ports-of-entry. [23]

Similarly, access to anywhere may be permitted or denied by use of Retina Scan Identification technology. By electronically measuring the dimensions and light absorption characteristics of the human eye (specifically, the Retina), and storing that information in a database, the movement of every person in the world could eventually be totally controlled by whoever controls the database.

Globaltrak Industries is using microchip technology to create implants which can track any person, anywhere, anytime, within 3 square yards, anywhere on earth. Their product is commercially available to anyone who might wish to keep track of a child, a senior with Alzheimer's disease, an executive traveling in a foreign country or a favorite pet. On the company web site (globaltrak.com) , Hollywood celebrities tout the advantages of being tracked 24 hours a day for your safety and protection. No mention is made of privacy concerns. Globaltrak's offerings are commercial in nature but the technology which forms the basis for their product is being perfected by governments whose intentions may not be as honorable as locating a lost pet or small child.

Government researchers offer an a ssortment of other high-tech surveillance methods to detect and apprehend terrorists, drug-dealers, tax evaders, zoning law violaters, and other dangerous misfits. Included in the enforcement agent's bag of tricks is:

Advanced microphones. The FBI's and ARPA's Rapid Prototyping Facility at the Virginia Quantico Research Laboratory is producing microminiature electronics systems unique surveillance equipment customized for each separate investigation. They hope for a 24-hour turnaround for specifically designed devices, including a microphone on a chip. The FBI has already developed a solid-state briefcase-size electronically steerable microphone array prototype, that can discreetly monitor conversations across open areas. On the state and local level, jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C., and Redwood City, California, are considering microphone systems first developed to detect submarines. Placed around the city, they would hear gunshots and call in the location to police headquarters.

Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTC). Technical developments have increased the capabil ities and lowered the cost of video cameras, making them a regular feature in stores and public areas. In the UK, dozens of cities have centrally controlled, comprehensive citywide CCTC systems that can track individuals wherever they go, even if they enter buildings. Effective even in extreme low light, the cameras can read a cigarette pack 100 yards away. Baltimore recently announced plans to put 200 cameras in the city center. The FBI has miniaturized CCTC units it can put in a lamp, clock radio, brie fcase, duffel bag, purse, picture frame, utility pole, coin telephone, book and other [objects] and then control remotely to pan/tilt, zoom and focus.

Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR). Originally developed for use in fighter planes and helicopters to locate enemy aircraft, FLIR can detect a temperature differential as small as .18 degrees centigrade. Texas Instruments and others are marketing hand-held and automobile- and helicopter-mounted models that can essentially look through walls to determine activit ies inside buildings. Law enforcement agents are pointing them at neighborhoods to detect higher temperatures in houses where artificial lights are used to grow marijuana. They are also using FLIR to track people and cars on the Mexican border and search for missing people and fugitives. \par \par

Massive millimeter wave detectors. Developed by Militech Corporation, these detectors use a form of radar to scan beneath clothing. By monitoring the millimeter wave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by th e human body, the system can detect items such as guns and drugs from a range of 12 feet or more. It can also look through building walls and detect activity. Militech received a $2 million grant from ARPA's Technology Reinvestment Project to fund develop ment of working systems for local police.

Van Eck Monitoring. Every computer emits low levels of electromagnetic radiation from the monitor, processor, and attached devices. Although experts disagree whether the actual range is a only a few yards or up t o a mile, these signals can be remotely recreated on another computer. Aided by a transmitting device to enhance the signals, the FBI reportedly used Van Eck Monitoring to extract information from spy Aldrich Ames' computer and relay it for analysis.

Intelligent Transportation Systems. ITS refers to a number of traffic management technologies, including crash-avoidance systems, automated toll collection, satellite-based position location, and traffic-based toll pricing. To facilitate these services, the system tracks the movements of all people using public or private transportation. As currently proposed by TRW, a leading developer of the technologies involved, the data collected on travel will be available for both law enforcement and private uses su ch as direct marketing. Automated toll collection is already in operation in several states, including New York, Florida, and California. Tracking systems for counterintelligence purposes are also already in place in New York City, where the FBI has set u p a permanent real time physical tracking system. On a commercial level, insurers are pushing car owners to install the Lojack, which is supposed to help retrieve stolen cars by sending out location signals once the system is remotely activated. Since cellular phones transmit location information to the home system to determine call routing, they can also be used for automated tracking of the caller's movements. In 1993, fugitive Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was pinpointed through his cellular phone. Currently there is an effort to develop a 911 system for cellular systems that would give location information for every cellular phone.

Digital Cash. Potentially, digital cash will create one of the most comprehensive systems for the collection of information on individuals. Using computer software and smart cards to replace physical cash, consumers can spend virtual money for small transactions such as reading an electronic newspaper online, making phone calls from pay phones, paying electronic tolls , buying groceries, as well as for any transaction currently done through credit cards. Since most of the systems under development (such as the one by Mondex in Canada and the UK), retain information on each transaction, they create an unprecedented amount of information on individual preferences and spending habits. Another system, Digicash, which provides for anonymous online transactions, is offered by the Mark Twain Bank in St. Louis. Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencie s have been fighting anonymous digital cash on the grounds that it could be used for money laundering. [24] The author presents a short, but well-researched collection of the mos t frequently used applications of technology in a law enforcement context. This information is available from multiple sources but was conveniently listed in condensed form at this single location on the web. David Banisar is associated with Privacy International.

Such surveillance systems raise significant issues of accountability particularly when transferred to authoritarian regimes. The cameras (used in) Tiananmen Square were sold as advanced traffic control systems by Siemens Plessey. Yet after the 1989 massacre of students, there followed a witch hunt when the authorities tortured and interrogated thousands in an effort to ferret out the subversives. The Scoot surveillance system with USA made Pelco camera were used to faithfully record the protests. The images were repeatedly broadcast over Chinese television offering a reward for information, with the result that nearly all the transgressors were identified. Again democratic accountability is only the criterion which distinguishes a modern traffic control system from an advanced dissident capture technology.[25]

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND TYRANNY

Within the philosophical framework of western jurisprudence, preserv ation of individual human rights of the citizens is the very reason for the existence of government. The rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, privacy, and travel were considered by the founding fathers to be " inalienable" rights endowed by Almighty God. As such, these rights were beyond the reach of the state unless the holder of the right (the citizen himself) should commit an act tantamount to forfeiture. Chief among these rights is the inalienable right to personal liberty. "Next to personal security, the law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one' s person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law." [26] Influenced, as they were, by Blackstone and others, the founders erected a criminal process by which every citizen could claim a protection against the host of evils which might inflicted against them by an over-zealous prosecutor. They recognized the principle that once liberty is abridged, other individual liberties would shortly and inevitably be under attack as well. "Of great importance to the public is the preservation o f this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practiced by the crown) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities." [27]

Given this historical foundation of western jurisprudence, government is, and should be, wary of doing injury to the Constitution, no matter how great may be the threat of terrorism. It will almost certainly be more injurious to the long-term health of our Republic if the Constitution is abrogated for the sake of a temporary disturbance. A prudent man will never suffer a cure which is worse than the disease it purports to remedy.

The government, predictably, advocates for virtually unlimited discretion in applying new technology to its ongoing drug/terrorism fight. Although professing a high regard for the Bill of Rights, the government (both legislative and executive branch) has been only too willing to suspend the Constitutional protections if there exists sufficiently compelling national interests. Of course, the national interest is always sufficiently compelling in their view. While giving some ground in favor law enforcement, the courts have shown an inclination to protect privacy from the increasing spate of new technologies. They split on the use of the heat-detecting Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR), with several federal circuit courts ruling that FLIR does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the energy that is released and detected is waste heat. The most recent decision in the 10th Circuit, however, questions the legality of using both FLIR and other new surveillance technologies. In a marijuana growing case in which it threw out evidence obtained through thermal images of a house, the Court noted that "the Defendants need not have anticipated and guarded against every investigative tool in the government's arsenal. To hold otherwise would leave the privacy of the home at the mercy of the government's ability to exploit technological advances: the government could always argue that an individual's failure (or inability) to ward off the incursions of the latest scientific innovation forfeits the protection of the Fourth Amendment. ... [T]he government would allow the privacy of the home to hinge upon the outcome of a technological race of measure/counter-measure between the average citizen and the government a race, we expect, that the people will surely lose." [28] It is, after all, the people whose rights the government is instituted to protect if we are to believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Thankfully, most of our jurisprudence still reflects that ancient notion. Justice Wm Brennan, writing a dissenting opinion in U.S. v. White, had this to say about the public policy implications of an unrestrained police surveillance power:

When a government degrades its citizens, or permits them to degrade each other, however beneficent the specific purpose, it limits opportunities for individual fulfillment and national accomplishment. If America permits fear and its failure to make basic social reforms to excuse police use of secret electronic surveillance, the price will be dear indeed. The practice is incompatible with a free society. [29]

In the case agains t Plamondon in 1972, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in holding that a bombing suspect, charged with destruction of federal property, had been denied his right to protection against unwarranted search when his phone conversations were tapped w ithout judicial authorization. Justice Powell writing for the majority, responded to the government's claim that only the executive branch of the federal government could adequately determine what was in the national best interest. Powell articulated the dangers of allowing the government to be the sole judge of the necessity of employing high-tech surveillance against its citizens:

History abundantly documents the tendency of Government--however benevolent and benign its motives--to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. Official surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech. Security surveillances are especially sensitive because of the inherent vagueness of the domesti c security concept, the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering, and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the President's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the Fourth Amendment. In this case we hold that this requires an appropriate prior warrant procedure. [30]

CONCLUSION

Nearly every president since FDR has sought to increase the s cope of the executive authority, some with more success than others. No president since FDR has been as zealous in securing expanded power for the presidency as has William Jefferson Clinton. While entire volumes could be written about the excesses of C onstitutional torture indulged in by the current sitting president of the United States, it is sufficient here to say only that America is at critical jurisprudential juncture. What is needed desperately in our leaders (all three branches of government) is a profound sense of commitment to principles; those historic principles of right and wrong which animated our nation during its formative years. Unless, and until, our president, our legislators, and our judges understand and embrace the notion that the liberty of the nation is tied directly to the liberty of the people; and unless the people wake up and take their rightful place at the helm of the great ship of state, we will continue our tumble towards tyranny.

Footnotes

[1] Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism and The Liberal State, New York University Press, New York, 1977, p. 23-24.

[2] Id. p. 30

[3] Id. p. 51

[4] Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656 f (d)

[5] Doing " The People's Work", Doug Fiedor, Heads Up,Weekly Column, March 1, 1999, via the Internet at http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html p. 1

[6] Id. pg. 1

[7] Gwynne Dwyer, Monday Morning, (English Language Weekly) Beirut, August 31, 1998, reprinted in World Press Review, November, 1998, p. 13

[8] Timothy E. Wirth, Statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, July 13, 1993, Washington D.C., U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Vol. 4, No. 29, July 19, 1993.

[9] Richard J. Barnett, The Terrorism Trap, The Nation, Dec 2, 1996, Pg. 20.

[10] Phillip Wilcox, Jr., 1996 State Department Report on Global Patterns of Terrorism, Via the Internet at http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1996report/1996index.html on 18 April 1999.

[11] Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Remarks to the 15th annual Government/Industry Conference on Terrorism, Political Instability, and International Crime, Washington, DC, February 28, 1997. Via the Internet on 18 April 1999 at location http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/970228.html

[12] Wilkinson, pg. 95 \par

[13] Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Statement for the Record before the Senate Committee on Appropriations Hearing on Terrorism, Washington, D.C., May 13, 1997, Via the Internet at http://www.secretary.state.gov/statements/970513b.html on 18 April 1999.

[14] Vinod K. Jain, Thwarting Terrorism with Technology, The World & I, November 1996, Pg. 149.

[15] Id. pg. 152

[16] Id. pg. 152

[17] Id. pg. 153

[18] Id. pg. 154-55.

[19] The Highway Safety Desk Book Online version via the Internet on 18 April 1999 at location: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-hwy-safety-deskbk-brief.htm

[20] Id.

[21] Mugspot Can pick out a Face in a Crowd , Daily Science News, November 7, 1996

[22] Id.

[23] Via the Internet at http://www.worldmedia.com/caq/articles/brother.html on April 22, 1999.

[24] David Banisar, Big Brother Goes High Tech, From http://www.worldmedia.com/caq/articles/brother.html on April 22, 1999.

[25] Id.

[26] Sir Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, Book One, Chapter One, Oxford: Clarendon Press, MDCCLXV, Reprinted 1966, The Layton Press, Buntingford England, for Oceana Publications, NY, pg. 130.

[27] Id. pg 131

[28] David Banisar of Privacy International at http://www.worldmedia.com/caq/articles/brother.html

[29] Justice Brennan, dissenting in U.S. v. White, 91 S. Ct. 1122 (1971) quoting R. Clark, Crime in America (1970) pg. 287

[30] Justice Powell, writing the majority opinion in U.S. v. Plamondon, 92 S. Ct. 2125, (1972)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

3. Terrorism and the Liberal State , Paul Wilkinson, New York University Press, NY 1986, (Second Edition) Wilkinson is professor of International Relations and Head of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Aberdeen. This book was useful in defining essential terms and describi ng how terrorism is similar (and dissimilar) to other forms of political expression. He describes how the modern democratic free state is inherently vulnerable to terrorism and the unique problems that are involved in combating it. The author asserts th at, as terrorism changes, international law must change to permit varying degrees of force to counter the threat.

4. The Other Path, Hernando De Soto, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1989,

De Soto is a Peruvian entrepreneur. He was president of the Instituto Libertad y Democracia (ILD), director of several Peruvian companies, and a member of the United nations Committee for Development Planning. His book looks at the economic conditions that are the breeding ground for social unrest and discontent in Latin America. He describes an " underground economy" that has definite political ramifications for the oligarchies in power. To the extent that economic influences shape political responses, and these responses may be military in nature, the "cure" for unrest in Latin American countries may be worse than the "disease." Violence may be curtailed by encouraging governments to pursue economic solutions to their domestic problems.

5. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America, Walter LaFeber, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1983.

LaFeber is considered one of the premier historians of American foreign policy and has authored other books on the subject. He is Profess or of History at Cornell University. This work explains the unrest in Central America by looking into the past involvement and manipulation by major world powers (especially the U.S.) into the economics and politics of the region. The United States has used military force to overthrow constitutionally elected leaders because they proposed giving land back to the peasants thereby taking steps to become economically self-sufficient. When it is apparent that powerful U.S. business interests are threatened, Washington will favor political and economic \ldblquote order\rdblquote from the atrocities o f U.S. trained dictators rather than allow unpredictable economic outcomes that might flow from a self-sustaining, economically viable, constitutionally elected, local leader. This kind of intervention by the U.S. leads, says LaFeber, to Inevitable Revolutions.

6. Modern Military Powers: Israel, Editor: Stan Morse, Copyrighted 1984 by The Military Press, Aerospace Publishing Ltd., The Military Press, One Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10016, ISBN 0-517-414-83X.

7. East Versus West, Leslie McDonnell, Copyright 1986, Multimedia Publications, Ltd., Published in the U.S. by Gallery Books, W.H. Smit Publications, Inc., 112 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y., 10016, ISBN 0-831-725-788.

8. The Modern US War Machine, Ray Bonds, Copyright 1987, Salamandar Books Ltd., 52 Bedford Row, London, U.K. WC1R 4LR. Published in the U.S. by Crown Publishing, Inc., One Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10016, ISBN 0-517-56097-6.

11. The War Against Terrorists - How to Win It, Gayle Rivers, Copyright 1986, Littopus S.A. and The Colophon Corporation, The Berkeley Publishing Group, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10016, ISBN 0-441-87187-9.

12. Entebbe Rescue, Yeshayaho Ben-Porat, Eitan Haber, and Zoev Schiff, Copyright 1977, Zipra, Bitan, Modan Publishers, Tel Aviv, Israel, published in the U.S. by Dell Publishing Company, Inc.,1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, New York, N.Y., 10017, ISBN 0-440-17304-3.

17. Spyclopedia, Richard Deacon, Copyright Donald McCormick, 1987, William Morrow and Company, Inc.,105 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y., 10016, ISBN 0-688- 08631-4.

19. Drug Wars 2000: Investigative Report, Neal Matthews, Boating Magazine, March 1999, page 151. An article about the high- tech, inter-agency war on drugs being waged in the waters off the coast of Florida. Matthews describes a typical scenario re-ena cted by some of Boating's staff and officer's from U.S. Customs, Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force. The article reveals some of the high-tech surveillance equipment and high-speed water craft (the main focus of the article) available for drug interdiction operations. Although the article doesn't give the reader any lessons on legality or the philosophy of technological "solutions" to the drug war, it does give a glimpse into the kind of inter-agency cooperation required to apprehend the lawbreakers.

20. The U.S. Intelligence Community, Jeffrey T. Richelson, Copyright 1985, Ballinger Publishing Company, 54 Chruch Street, Harvard Square, Cambridge, MA., 02138-3730, ISBN 0- 88730-024-3 (cl), 88730-025-1 (pb). and the Second Edition, Copyright 1989, ISBN 0-88730-245-9 (0- 88730-226-2 (pb).

21. The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, James Bamford, Copyright 1982, 1983, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, in the U.S. by Penguin Books, 40 West 23rd Street, New York, N.Y., 10010. First published in the U.S. by Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982. ISBN 0 14 000.6748 5

24. Secret Intelligence: The Inside Story of America's Espionage Empire, Ernest Volkman and Blaine Baggett, Copyright 1989, Doublday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., 10103. ISBN 0-385- 24590-4.

25. Black Magic, Michael O'Leary and Eric Martin Schulzinger, Copyright 1989, Motorbooks International Publishers & Wholesalers Inc., P.O. Box 2, 729 Prospect Avenue, Osceola, WI, 54020. ISBN 0-87938-358-5

26. VEIL: The Secret Wars of the CIA..., Bob Woodward, Copyright 1987, Simon & Schuster, Simon & Schuster Building, Rockefeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10020. ISBN 0- 671-60117-2

28. The CIA & American Democracy, Rhodri Jeffreys- Jones, Copyright 1989, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, Printed in the United States by Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, New York. ISBN 0- 300-04149-7

31. The Central Intelligence Agency: History and Documents, Edited by William M. Leary, Copyright 1984, University of Alabama Press, University of Alabama, Alabama. ISBN 0-8173- 0207-7 and 0-8173-0219-0 (pbk).

34. Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA, William E. Colby and Peter Forbath, Copyright 1978, Simon and Schuster, A Division of Gulf & Western Corporation, Simon & Schuster Building, Rockefeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10020. ISBN 0-671-22875-7.

35. Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II, John Prados, Copyright 1986, William and Morrow Company, Inc., 105 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y., 10016. ISBN 0-688-05384-X.

37. Terrorism: The Elusive Target, Andrew Marshall, World Press Review, v 45, Nov 98, p8

38. Does the U.S. Have the Will and the Means for a War on Terrorism? , Frank McCutcheon, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, v 56, Sept 98, pg 2352

39. The Terrorism Trap, Richard Barnet, Nation, v 263, Dec 2, 1996, pg 18

40. Thwarting Terrorism with Technology, Vinod Jain, World & I, v 11, Nov 96, pg 149

41. Provisions of Terrorism Law, Holly Idelson, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, v 54, Jun 15, 1996, pg 1713

42. Terrorism & Tyranny, Barbara Dority, Humanist, v 55 Jul-Aug 1995, pg 39

43. Meeting The Challenge of International Terrorism, Timothy Wirth, Dispatch, v 4, Jul 19, 1993, pg 516

47. Small Arms of The World, Edward Clinton Ezell, from a work originally written by W.H.B. Smith, Copyright 1983, Stackpole Books, 12th edition published by Barnes & Noble, Inc., ISBN 0-88029-601-1. This work is comprehensive with regard to tradit ional combat weapons still used by terrorists and counter-terrorist forces around the world. It is out of date with respect to the technological weapons of the modern electronic and computer aided terrorists.