Until 1983, Western security forces did not believe that terrorists could attack well-fortified military targets. The terrorist group Islamic Jihad changed Western minds when their group attacked multinational peacekeeping forces in Lebanon in the 1980s. The Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Marine Barracks, and French Barracks proved them wrong.

The United States and other Western states pride themselves on being nations governed by law. They feel all problems should be governed by laws of the civil state, even barbarous acts as war fit into this legal framework. This assumes that acts of war can be legally rationalized.

After the Pan Am bombing, U.S. courts issued two arrest warrants for fugitive terrorists hiding in Libya. Did these warrants disrupt Islamic Jihad?  And let’s imagine for a second that these individuals are caught, found guilty and sentenced to die. End result: we prove we have a rule of law, terrorists are being punished. The latest example can be found in the Moussaoui trial. Moussaoui is the only actual Al Qaeda terrorist arrested in connection to the 9/11 attacks and yet lawyers fight over whether or not secret documents should be allowed to be used by that same terrorist for his own defense. What kind of a message does that send to the terrorist community?

Remaining advocates will not be deterred. Ideals are not changed by prison sentences! Worst case scenario: It could have happened in France. Since the death penalty has been abolished, Moussaoui would face a life sentence not to exceed 30 years, and would end up socializing with Ilich R. Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal). The Western World needs to wake up. When dealing with terrorists, consider the Nuremberg trial; military courts were convened to deal with the issue at hand. No world courts, no civilian courts, just swift military justice if found guilty.

For the past 20 years, American law enforcement agencies preached that it is necessary to deny criminals the opportunity to commit a crime. In terms of physical security, this principle resulted in the addition of external security measures to potential targets. Experts believed that terrorists who encounter a hardened target would opt for a weaker one. No physical security measures taken on the lobby level of the World Trade Center after the 1993 bombing could have prevented airliners from crashing into the top levels of both towers.

Since the September 11 attacks have set a precedent for aerial attacks, security starts at the airport. But since we can’t possibly harden everything around us, due to the lack of will, funding and the uproar from ACLU activists, terrorist will always find a way to overcome our extraordinary changes and escalate the threat by new means. So what can we do to reduce the terror, and its effects? Teach common sense to the population. Knowledge is power, education is the key. If the media would stop speculating (thereby increasing fear) and state facts and be honest about acknowledging what they don’t know, but be intelligent enough (achieved through education) to provide solutions, terror would be diminished.

Terrorists learn from their failures and successes. So should governments. Making mistakes is not dramatic, but not learning from prior mistakes and denial is criminal when lives are at stake.