The above quote has it right, but it is necessary to look deeper than the rhetoric into some of the details and implications of this 4-step process.

First we must ascertain where the other hijackers are?  One would expect that to successfully hijack four planes they must have tried to gain access to 8 to 12 planes. Any planner for such an operation would have assumed a low probability of any one hijack attempt failing and would therefore have had multiple and redundant efforts.  This is not to suggest that there will be more hijackings, but it is to suggest that there are other members of the overall highjacking effort that were not able to board under the desirable conditions any other aircraft.  These terrorists constitute a future threat and a source of information about the cowards who were successful.

Many will argue that the Palestinian cause that had a number of American supporters in the United States and abroad is now dead.  Many who deplored the one sided US news coverage and the atrocities committed by the Israeli Army, now see an enemy that did not exist before. The Muslim celebrations will only further inflame the issue. The Palestinians best action would be to immediately cease all violence and to initiate a de facto cease-fire and let the situation calm down.  Does the Palestinian Authority have the decisive authority to execute such a plan and the political fortitude to do so?  The United States should be encouraging such unilateral actions using the lack of world political support for the Palestinian cause as leverage.

Americans will demand immediate action in retaliation. President Bush has said that he will make no difference between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.  This has significant implications for the peace process.  It is also a dramatic change in the war against terrorism.  Such a statement also creates several tight ropes.  There are obvious countries that become immediate targets--Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. These are obvious supporters of terrorism--not necessarily this particular act, but terrorism in general.  They become targets for preemptive attacks.  Preemptive attacks to retard or prevent future acts against unknown targets.  Preemption is a very aggressive policy.  One that, in the short term, should set back terrorism, but that in the longer term will drive them further underground and make them more difficult to find.  But, how do we deal with countries like France, which has a political culture of harboring political extremists--whether they are anti-abortionists or revolutionaries.  One must remember that one man's terrorist may be another's patriotic revolutionary.  This will take careful handling.

A preemption policy has political/legal implications such as changing The War Powers Act and the US policy against assassination.  The Congress and the administration will have to step up to the ethical and political aspects that such a policy represents.

In this country the security at airports is obvious, however the ability to gain early warning of a threat when an aircraft deviates from its flight plan is critical.  Next page