(9 of 11)
What can democracies do to defend themselves in the war against terrorism? Some experts suggest increased surveillance operations (wiretaps, informers) to warn of approaching attacks. Reasons James Angleton, former CIA chief of counterintelligence: "If anything justifies a clandestine capability and counterintelligence, it is anti-terrorism." To be most effective, this would require improved international pooling of data on the movements of terrorists. Democracies could insist on tighter passenger screenings at all airports visited by their airlines; especially lax are the Spanish, Greeks and Indians, who do not want to hassle the tourists who bring in massive quantities of foreign currencies. In the last resort, democracies could maintain what experts call the "force option"—an elite military unit, like the West German commandos, ready to dash to all corners of the globe to rescue hostages.
The Israelis, who have long and bitter experience in dealing with terrorists, insist that surrendering to their demands is the worst of all responses. Most counter-terror experts agree. Says Heyward Isham, the State Department's director for combatting terrorism: "It may seem coldblooded, but the minute they think they can blackmail you, it leads to an endless chain of demands." Walter Laqueur concurs. His golden rule for handling terrorists: "The more dangerous your opponent, the greater the danger of giving in." When lives of hostages are at stake, democratic governments come under intense pressure to save them even if it means paying ransoms. One West German poll, conducted before the Mogadishu rescue but after Schleyer's kidnaping, disclosed that only 42% of the public backed Schmidt's policy of refusing to meet terrorists' demands, while another 42% favored meeting the terrorists' terms (the rest were undecided).
One of the goals of urban terrorist violence is to force democratic societies to crack down harshly on dissent, thereby alienating the populace and "proving" that the bourgeois definition of freedom is a sham. Thus libertarian states face a delicate balancing act in trying at the same time to limit opportunities for terrorists and to preserve essential freedoms. Two of the European countries most deeply affected by terrorism are opting for more stringent controls, although the proposed legal changes are far from authoritarian. Italy is considering preventive detention, which would allow police to hold terrorist suspects for 48 hours without charges. Schmidt's Cabinet has submitted a bill that would stiffen prison terms and toughen trial procedures; lawyers, for instance, would be barred from the courtroom if they were suspected of collaborating with terrorists.
There is predictable support for harsh sentences as a deterrent. London's Daily Express last week urged: "Hang them all and hang them high." Laqueur notes that while "the fate of the terrorists of the 1880s and 1890s, when apprehended, was not an enviable one, no West European, North American, Japanese or Middle Eastern terrorist of the 1960s or 1970s has been executed."