January 7, 2007 Sunday

TERRORISM IN AMERICA; A BINGHAMTOM UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR'S NEW BOOK TRACES TERRORISM'S DEEP ROOTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Terrorism in America didn't start in Oklahoma City or at the World Trade Center. In his new book, Binghamton University adjunct psychology professor Joseph T. McCann argues that it has been a recurring event in U.S. history, and the better we understand it, the more tools we will have to conquer it.

In Terrorism on American Soil, (Sentient Publications), McCann studies violent attacks that date back to the as-sassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

McCann, 47, spoke with The Post-Standard about his findings.

You say some trends of terrorism repeat themselves. What do you mean?

Let's take John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln's assassin), along with the anarchist attacks of the early 20th century. The goals of these attacks were to topple the U.S. government or destabilize it, so the government wouldn't be effective. In the trends that we see today, while I believe they are more serious threats, the motive remains the same: to destabilize or destroy the United States government.

Did any terrorist acts accomplish what they wanted?

I haven't found one where you would say the U.S. government was destabilized... But if you look at other goals and motives - to draw media attention, and to provoke anxiety and fear among the general population - then many attacks have been successful.

But I haven't found one that destabilized the government. Even with the (William) McKinley assassination, where a sitting president was killed, our government continued to function. There was the attack on the U.S. House of Represen-tatives in the 1950s by Puerto Rican nationalists. They certainly drew attention to their cause, but the government con-tinued to function. And then there was the Wall Street bombing of 1920, which for 75 years, until Okla homa City, stood as the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

What happened in that?

It was in September, 1920. A person packed a horse-drawn carriage with dynamite, a gelatin explosive. It was also packed with old-fashioned window sash weights, broken up, to create shrapnel. The person parked it on Wall Street and then left. It exploded... The final death toll was 40 people. The investigation identified the likely perpetrator as an anar-chist.

There are different theories about why it was done. The most likely is that it was someone protesting the prosecu-tion and indictment of Sacco and Vanzetti, two anarchists who were associated with a robbery in Massachusetts. The theory is that this person was protesting their treatment.

The New York Stock Exchange shut down briefly, and there was a little blip in the market, a slight downturn. But it didn't really affect the market all that much. We rebounded, just as the markets in the U.S. rebounded from 9/11.

Did anybody claim their work?

There was a letter found in a mailbox nearby, signed by a group called American Anarchist Fighters. It claimed re-sponsibility. There were circulars and fliers distributed at some bomb sites...

A group claiming responsibility has always been a predominant theme. Terrorists seek to influence an audience, to garner support for those who may be sympathetic, and to invoke fear in those who are not. They want to raise the visi-bility of their cause. So it is a common theme.

How did the government react?

Following the 1919 series of bombings and the 1920 Wall Street bombing, there were many controversial issues. There were the Palmer Raids, where large groups of people were deported... There were U.S. citizens, anarchists, who were deported, and there was a lot of concern about civil liberties, similar to what you see today.

The crackdown following the Wall Street bombing diminished the severity of anarchism. The government took a pretty hard line. There were concerns about how it was addressed...but by the 1930s, anarchism had diminished.

How does terrorism affect us?

In a number of ways. The most prominent one is in what terrorists seek: to instill fear and anxiety. One part of the definition of terrorism is that it seeks to influence an audience - and the influence is fear and anxiety.

It causes us to question our policies, our leaders, which can undermine the support base. The other thing it can do is create common psychological reactions. It can provoke stereotypic thinking; it can magnify prejudices that some people have.

The other psychological impact it can have is the "contagion effect." An act of violence can provoke other acts of violence. These can be in retribution or they can spur other like-minded individuals to act accordingly. It can act like a trigger to spread violence, both similar types and also in a backlash - attacks against people who are seen as a threat.

Did terrorists ever seek to use what we'd call weapons of mass destruction?

The anarchists used explosive devices, and they were pretty proficient at what they did.

I would say the doomsday movement - groups that see the end of the world, or seek total destruction - are a phe-nomenon that's come with the evolution in technology. Groups operated with what the technology allowed. The anar-chists used dynamite, the primary means of the day, a major discovery. Our first commercial airline hijacking came in 1961, within a few decades of the advent of widespread commercial air travel.

Now we've moved into the area of nuclear power and biological technology, much more dangerous means, and some groups have gravitated toward those methods...

The theory of "self-imposed constraints" was proposed in the 1970s by Brian Jenkins, a prominent terrorism expert. It said that terrorists want a lot of people watching but not a lot of people dead. He's now acknowledged that that has changed.

I think in the early part of the century, the target selection was very specific. You wanted to draw a lot of attention, but you didn't want a lot of people dead or a lot of property damaged, because if the destruction was too widespread, it would hurt your cause. Today, the view is different, especially with some religious movements that believe their view is the right way. They have a different vision of the world.

—The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York)