Foreign Terrorists in the U.S.: Like Dinosaurs on Venus?

Carl Sagan was a staunch proponent of scientific method. His arguments in support of that model often included anecdotes about both scientists and laymen jumping the empirical gun and proffering theories that were based on little more than fancy. In one of his Cosmos programs, he discussed how the planet Venus is shrouded by its own thick, opaque atmosphere. That blanket blocks our view of Venus's surface. Telescopes can't see the surface at all. Historically, Sagan said, the murky atmosphere led to all sorts of ideas about what Venus must be like, among them, that the atmosphere consisted of thick clouds; clouds are made of water; therefore, there must be a lot of water on Venus; therefore, the landscape on Venus must comprise vast swamps; those swamps would support tropical and primeval life-forms, such as ferns and dinosaurs. Sagan humorously finalized his point:

Observation? You couldn't see a thing. Conclusion? Dinosaurs!

There's an article by John Mueller in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, in which he advances some skepticism about the presence of foreign terrorists in the United States. (Continued below the fold) Says Mueller:

On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon."

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it?

[…]

One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

Instead, Americans are told -- often by the same people who had once predicted imminent attacks -- that the absence of international terrorist strikes in the United States is owed to the protective measures so hastily and expensively put in place after 9/11.

Mueller supports this notion by citing the lack of terrorist activity in the U. S. since 9/11, and also before 9/11, when, as he points out, "the United States was doing much less to protect itself." He also counters the many popular explanations for why there hasn't been another terrorist attack at home. Read the whole thing; whether you agree with him or not, it's an interesting read.

What caught my attention in (John) Mueller's article were two passages in which he quotes FBI Director Robert Mueller:

The FBI embraces a spooky I-think-therefore-they-are line of reasoning when assessing the purported terrorist menace. In 2003, its director, Robert Mueller, proclaimed, "The greatest threat is from al Qaeda cells in the U.S. that we have not yet identified."

Think about that for a moment. The greatest threat is from something that may not exist. Then, an encore:

… [Robert] Mueller repeated his alarmist mantra in 2005: "I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing."

The wisdom of Carl Sagan intervenes, here:

Observation? We can't see a thing. Conclusion? al Qaeda cells!

For me, the point of all this isn't so much the debate about whether terrorists are here. For all I know, the FBI could be right. I don't pretend to know enough about it to say one way or the other. For me, there's a point to John Mueller's article beyond asserting that there are no terrorists in the U.S. The other point addresses how we should deal with the possibility. Maybe we should apply a little more scientific method to it. As long as something remains hypothetical, we should treat it as such. Let's not go changing (and breaking) laws and rescinding basic freedoms based on something that only might be true … and for which there is yet no evidence. Continue investigating (within the law), to be sure, but don’t fold, spindle, and mutilate the Constitution over conjecture.

The steps taken by the Bush administration "to protect America" would be objectionable even if the threat of further terrorism in the U. S. were manifest. Those steps become all the more heinous when one considers that they were taken in reaction to a threat that is largely hypothetical. Many would argue that we should lock the barn before the horse is stolen, but that becomes an argument over safety versus freedom. We shouldn't put the safety cart before the horse of freedom. (Here’s how Benjamin Franklin weighed in on that discussion: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.") To those who would say that freedom isn't free, I would say that freedom isn't safe, either. We shouldn't be sacrificing our rights and freedoms (or too many of our tax dollars) to protect ourselves from Venusian dinosaurs -- without even having seen a footprint.

[That's all, folks]