THREATS TO FREEDOM JULY 19, 1996 TRANSCRIPT

---

A terrorist bomb continues to circulate as one of the possible reasons behind the downing of TWA Flight 800. In light of continuing speculation, a panel of terrorist experts and civic leaders discuss attempts to balance security versus personal freedom.

---

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How much security is enough and how much is too much when balanced against individual liberties and personal enjoyment? We hear four views. Wellington Webb is the mayor of Denver and chairman of a committee that coordinates anti-terrorism policy for the Conference of Mayors. Melanie Lomax was on the Olympic Security Commission in charge of airport security during the 1984 games in Los Angles, she is now a civil rights attorney. Larry Johnson was deputy director for counter-terrorism at the State Department from 1989 to 1993. He is now a private security consultant. John Strauchs was formerly with the CIA--sorry--John Strauchs was formerly with the CIA. He now designs security systems for the federal government and for private companies as a consultant.

Thank you all for being with us. Mayor Webb, you're dealing with a major security situation right now because of the trial of the alleged Oklahoma City bombers. How have you reconciled--how have you put together the need for security with your citizens' other interests?

WELLINGTON WEBB, Mayor, Denver: Well, obviously, it's a balancing act that you have to go through. One is we have to maintain protection for our existing citizens, but at the same time we have to provide extra security working with the U.S. Marshal's Office, the FBI, Justice, and others, in terms of providing security around the courthouse, providing support for the marshals, and the businesses downtown, but I also believe that we're going through a different era within, within America. I think Americans understand they're much more vulnerable than they have been in the past, whether it's the trade bombing that took place or the bombing that took place in Oklahoma City or here in Denver.

About 10 years ago we had an assassination of a radio talk show host by right wing extremist groups. I think people are more cautious. People are also understanding that whether the issue is foreign or domestic that we have to take certain precautions to protect, to protect the democracy in which we live, and it costs money, and it also causes changing some lifestyle habits.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You've heard the kind of debate that goes on about what's happened outside the State House. Surely you've had that kind of debate in Denver. Are people upset with some of the security measures though, even though understanding the necessity for them?

MAYOR WEBB: Well, some of them obviously wish things did not have to be like they are in terms of making changes. But the other thing is that we do live in a democracy, and we live in the strongest country in the world, and to have an assassination of world leaders and prominent dignitaries that administered this country. It certainly doesn't say a lot for our ability to be the strongest country in the world. We've had to deal with that issue in the past, so I think that the American people, although understanding that they have to have some changes and would prefer not to, that common sense normally prevails in terms of saying it's better to be safe and a little discomfort, rather than have some people dead with no changes in behavior.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Melanie Lomax, the mayor referred to things that have changed and some of the reasons for the changes, the perception of our vulnerability. As the person in charge of airport security for the Olympics in 1984, do you think the challenge is quite different in '84 than for the people in charge of security in Atlanta this year?

MELANIE LOMAX, 1984 Olympic Security Commission: Well, first of all, you've given me a promotion which I don't think I quite deserve. I was not the head of security during the Olympics. I was on the airport and police commission and worked on security issues for the Olympics.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Good. Sorry about that.

MS. LOMAX: That's all right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I meant to say head of airport security. Was I wrong about that too?

MS. LOMAX: No. As a commissioner, you work on security.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay.

MS. LOMAX: What I was going to say is I, I think that the mayor is very sensible in his explanation. I don't think that security in America means, you know, that you're relinquishing your First Amendment or constitutional rights. I mean, there is a certain amount of liberty to be had, as we all understand, with security precautions being taken for the public good. I don't get my sense of freedom in America as an American through whether or not I have to go through Israeli type precautions in the airport since for a year and a half now here in Los Angeles in the Unabomber threat, there has been what they call a stage three alert which is the next to last on the scale of most severe. You're required to show your identification both upon boarding and at the--outside the airport. You're required to go through more vigorous checks than ever possible--than ever before. And I think that that is all service to the common good. We live in this world. We've seen violent after violent incident that doesn't make any sense, that's for some idle political thought, and I don't think that the people in this country are willing to, you know, to continue to have unbridled freedom with a loss of security.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think the situation has changed a lot, or is it just a perception of change? I mean the threat from terrorism.

LARRY JOHNSON, Security Analyst: I think the perception has changed more than the actual threat. If you go back when Melanie was dealing with the issue in 1984, you had a higher number of international and domestic terrorist attacks at that time than you do now. At the same time, the number of states that were sponsoring terrorism in 1984-85, seven. Right now, even though there are six countries still on the list, there are only two that are really aggressively involved with that.

Domestically we've not yet seen the rising up of an organized, coordinated group that's going out and attacking government infrastructure. I view the attack in Oklahoma City as an aberrance. It was not part of an organized group that said, look, we're going to attack the United States Government, we're not going to stop. That incident happened last April. Fortunately, we've not have a reoccurrence. So I am concerned that--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Even with the World Trade Towers and with Oklahoma City, you think it's a perception of that, more than a reality?

MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. There's a threat out there, but I think you run the risk of exaggerating it and in exaggerating it, as happened during World War II, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, an overreaction and then the result of that, citizens of the United States lost their freedoms, particularly the Japanese-Americans. So I think we need to have an eye open, realistic approach, but we don't need to be emotional about it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think about that, Mr. Strauchs?

JOHN STRAUCHS, Security Analyst: Well, on that same issue, if I could take that same kind of thought from a different perspective, and I think it's very important to keep in mind that whatever security measures we decide to implement as a society, we are not preventing this terrorist incident from occurring. We're simply preventing it from occurring to us. We're going to make it happen to somebody else.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you mean?

MR. STRAUCHS: It's easy to have the notion that by doing all these things that we are preventing a terrorist act. All we're going to do is prevent a terrorist act possibly at one specific location. That's the location being protected.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're saying if somebody's really determined, they're going to hit somebody?

MR. STRAUCHS: Right. And so in a cynical way, the idea is to make it happen to somebody else.

MR. JOHNSON: I disagree with that for this reason. We saw clearly when you started going after states that were involved with sponsoring terrorism, the groups that were carrying those acts out, their capability was reduced, and it's not only that they shifted their operations elsewhere, they stopped their operations. You can cut into that. At the same time, I think it's a little illusory to offer the goal of complete security, that you're going to be able to protect everyone from everything. We still continue to live in a dangerous world. I personally believe the greatest safeguard we have in the United States is having a democratic system that works because if people feel that they can participate in the government, they're not going to seek these, if you will, illegal methods for attacking the government, so I think protecting democracy and civil rights must be preeminent.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Strauchs, what do you--where do you come--fit in and weigh in on the question of whether or not it's a perceived threat more than a real threat that, that it's worse, that that's perceived more than it is real?

MR. STRAUCHS: Well, I basically agree that the levels of threat probably haven't changed dramatically, but they have changed a little bit.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In what sense?

MR. STRAUCHS: Well, generally speaking, when any movement is on the brink of extinction because it is no longer popular or they're not successful, there's a certain period of desperation and during that period of desperation terrorist acts are more likely to occur. That seems to have happened around the world. For example, the--it's very possible that the establishment of--or possible establishment of a Palestinian state may very well exasperate that particular threat because those people that are against that idea and are very anti-Israeli, they're desperate, and if they want world attention, certainly terrorist acts is one important way of getting it for them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Melanie--yes, Mayor.

MAYOR WEBB: Let me make a suggestion that I think I have a slightly different point of view. I think sometimes we get caught up in these intellectual debates. I think that if you ask people that are walking down any street do they think that America or as they as American citizens are more vulnerable today than we were 20 years ago, they're not going to give you a list of countries that are on the State Department list that are friend or foe. What they're going to tell you is that for the--for a federal building to be bombed in the heartland of America, in Oklahoma, makes them feel more vulnerable. They're going to say for people that went to work in the Trade Towers in New York City and for a bombing to take place there, that they feel more vulnerable.

I think that Americans by and large were not exaggerating it at all. What we're saying is that in many cases because the world is different today than it was before, that we are more vulnerable, and I think that for us not to suggest that the people that died in New York or Oklahoma doesn't make some people feel more vulnerable compared to the 1940's or World War I is quite different than what I hear from the average Joe Citizen.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mayor--go ahead, Ms. Lomax.

MS. LOMAX: Yes. I was just going to add to the Mayor's comments that I don't think that anyone, if you use the same Joe on the street, and you ask him whether or not he thought he was sacrificing fundamental principles of democracy in America because of the new real threats in the world, and the, you know, the clear appearance here that America is no longer exempt from, you know, the sort of mass violence and political violence that other countries have experienced in years, you know, for many years--you ask 'em, you know, do you think that you're sacrificing your rights if, you know, some additional measured increased security is taken, for example, at the airport, and would you be willing to for example go through a lengthier examination of your luggage as you board a plane? I think you're going to get nine or eight people out of ten, saying, you know, absolutely, it's not a question of freedom on that basis, and I'd much rather do what is ever necessary to lend itself to a more secure situation, with the clear understanding that you can't eliminate the dangers in the world.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let's look at that. Let's look at the future for a minute. Are we looking--do you think we will see more security, people having to wait longer at airports all, all luggage checked, more like Israel for example? Do you think we have that in the future? Let's use airports first as an example.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think we do need to have some fundamental changes in airport security. Right now we have a patchwork quilt system. We have one system in place for international travel, one system in place domestically. Domestically it's much more vulnerable because the same kinds of security measures aren't in place. At the same time, we don't have technology to reliably detect explosives. That needs to come on line to offer some advantage. So from the airport standpoint, it needs to move in that direction and I believe the federal government needs to take stronger leadership in that role.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And do you think--how about other public buildings, do you think we will see more security in other kinds of public buildings?

MR. STRAUCHS: Oh, I think in the next decade it's going to be a chilling change, in many respects, in terms of what we're used to. You're going to be able to tell your grandchildren what it used to be like to go to downtown Manhattan. I think you're going to have a very difficult time parking in any federal building, for example. I think that's going to be closed. I think curb lanes around many streets, if not the entire street, are going to be closed. I think we're going to build buildings entirely differently. Oklahoma City taught us that you need to build a building that doesn't entirely collapse when one column goes out. Umm, security inside the building is certainly not going to change, but you're going to see a lot more, and it's probably unavoidable. I mean, it's regrettable, but probably unavoidable.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mayor Webb, we just have a few seconds left, but are you in the commission of the Conference of Mayors, is it the kind of thing you're hearing?

MAYOR WEBB: Well, obviously, people are concerned, and I think that there will be more emphasis on security, but I think at the same time is that I think we also have to be realistic about saying that we want to do what is necessary to provide as much protection without giving up a lot of the everyday liberties that we've come to enjoy but the world we live in today is quite different than the world that we were born into.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, thank you all very much for being with us.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.