Professor Paehlke wrote: “A response to terrorism can only be judged ‘over-militarized’ in relation to the possible non-military responses to terrorism. First and foremost among these is effective policing.” Paehlke gives as examples of effective policing better inspection of shipping containers entering the US, regulating military style weapons, making the kind of fertilizer used in bombs less readily available, and increasing security at nuclear facilities. I write to resist the idea that this sort of increased regulation and “security” is generally effective. Enormous amounts can be spent on reducing threats through security guards, inspection, and regulation. I recognize that some of this is necessary and useful. Often, though, one doubts that these measures really work or are necessary. Because of a single shoe bomber millions of Americans now have to remove their shoes to get to an airport gate. Possible modes of terrorist attack are extremely varied. Focus on the type of attack that occurred last time or that preoccupies your action-adventure fantasies and new modes will be invented. Today’s terrorists have proven that they are clever. Further, Paehlke’s contrast between military and police approaches may be overdrawn. Effective police work often involves offense rather than defense—using intelligence and investigation to find criminals or terrorists and get them convicted and behind bars. In the arrest phase, police work often looks much like military work (bullet proof vests, rifles, etc). A key difference is that during the arrest phase, police can use force and fire weapons only if arrest is resisted, whereas in war soldiers can attack the enemy without provocation. For a fuller contrast between “law” and “war” see David Luban, “The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights” http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/reports/vol22sum02/Summer%202002%20issue.pdf As Leif Wenar has argued in a recent conference paper, one of the best (and cheapest) ways to fight terrorism is by citizens refusing to be terrorized. Excessive “security” may do more to harm democratic societies than terrorists can. --James W. Nickel