It seems an easy solution to terrorist fears to just call for fingerprinting all the members of this or that other "threat group."  It appears a simple solution on the face.  It jibes with our emotional need in the wake of 911 to treat "foreigners" like criminals, guilty until proven non-threatening, as it were.  It suggests the easy accounting of entries and exits to the country.

Unfortunately, it's far more than that.

Fingerprinting a given group simply isn't going to prevent terrorism.  The belief that it will stems from 5 logical flaws in the arguments offered by those who support the plan.

1.  That fingerprinting only a certain subset of people will be effective in stopping terrorism.

2.  That fingerprinting will act as a deterrent.

3.  That monitoring internal movements in the United States of foreigners with fingerprints is effective, or possible.

4.  That fingerprinting is a "100%" pure method of identification.

5.  That fingerprinting is only used for identification.

Understanding the risk.  Knowing and respecting the enemy.

It's important to understand how modern terrorists worked in the United States to really address how to deal with them.  If we do this it is easy to see that terrorists shouldn't be treated like criminal conspiracies at all, but instead like foreign intelligence operations- as this is effectively what they are.

One of the tragic mistakes in the United States is that the U.S. tended, (and continues to) underestimate terrorists.  It's fairly easy to do this because of the clear racial divide between U.S. citizens and the 911 terrorists.  It becomes easy, and part of the demonization process, to make Arab terrorists out to be stupid, unintelligent and rash.  Nothing could be further from the truth and 911 should have taught us all otherwise.

First, modern terrorists look to the long term.  The 911 terrorists in particular mounted a very complex, rehearsed, expensive and time consuming operation.  It seems clear that it involved in excess of a year's planning and hundreds of thousands of dollars.   For the most part 911 terrorists presented themselves as law abiding citizens while in the United States.  Several of them obtained legitimate visas.  Several were on their first visit to the United States.  Several operated with their real names and appeared to maintain normal social lives and blend in reasonably well with their neighbors.  In some cases 911 terrorists managed to do all this, as well as obtain both fake and real driver's licenses while still on terrorist watch lists.

It seems apparent that some other support personnel gained entry to the United States illegally.  Their missions in the U.S. were short term, message couriers, information or financial relays, and didn't require longer term stays or covers.  From this we can see that the 911 terrorists are proficient not just at clandestine infiltration, but also possess the wisdom of when and how to use it.

In the face of these properties it becomes more obvious why fingerprinting won't prevent the kind of terrorism the United States encountered on 9/11.

Firstly, fingerprinting a subset of the population (immigrants) won't be effective.  Once inside the United States (even if they had been fingerprinted) the 911 terrorists operated with impunity.  Their fingerprints would not have been checked when they obtained driver's licenses (unless they were in California, and even California does not match the thumbprint with other records (NCIC) on application).  As a result their fingerprints would not have been checked when they rented a house, a car, bought plane tickets, took flying lessons or any other of the activities that led them to the execution of their plan.  Additionally, given the ease of obtaining alternate identification (which the 911 terrorists did with impunity) even if some print checking facilities were available at the gates of every airport it would be trivial to evade theme merely by presenting a legitimate photo ID in a name not registered as an immigrant.  As citizens/non-immigrants are not printed in the proposed scheme all one needs to do to avoid a check is pose as a citizen.  Absent an internal passport system there will be no way to prevent or police this.  It quickly becomes clear that every living being in the United States would have to be printed to make this an effective scheme.  Either the current plan eventually envisions this or it is merely "feel good" law designs to earn votes and appease a population screaming for foreign blood.

Second, fingerprinting is an ex post deterrent.  As such it will not be effective in "last round" problems (like suicide bombings, there is no second round for the terrorist where fingerprint records might cause a problem).  Fingerprinting is therefore unlikely to deter 911 style terrorism.  This is because dead suicide bombers and terrorists don't much care if their fingerprints are on file somewhere.  The "sleeper" style operation of the 911 terrorists shows that the long term thinking and dedication of the terrorists would set aside any deterrence effect.  (No 911 terrorist was deterred by photographs on driver's licenses, for example).  Additionally, since NCIC checks prior to entry are not being proposed in the current plan, even assuming that the United States may discover (belatedly) that a terrorist has entered, finding that terrorist will be entirely another matter.  Once in the country that approaches impossibility unless the terrorist is arrested or otherwise encounters the legal system.  (Note that INS was apparently aware of the presence of 2 suspected terrorists in the United States and unable to apprehend them regardless).

Third, fingerprints serve no purpose whatsoever in "tracking the movements" of those fingerprinted at the border.  Because the prints are unlikely to be checked at all during the immigrant's stay, and aren't checked on departure, the United States won't even be certain the immigrant is in the country, much less where specifically that individual might be located.  Absent the means to perform (and compel) checks on state borders, at point-of-sale or point-of-risk locations those prints will sit in a file gathering dust uselessly.  To actually "track movements" would imply regular print checks and an infrastructure to do such checking at literally tens of thousands of locations.  Additionally, because only immigrants are being printed, the terrorist has only to pose as a non-immigrant to avoid the check.  Proponents of the plan either eventually plan to print and check every single individual in the United States at regular intervals and in regular locations, haven't considered the issue, or know their plan won't work as advertised.

Fourth, just because an individual is fingerprinted does not mean an individual is identified.  Several 911 terrorists were on their first trip to the United States.  The United States had no fingerprint records for any of the terrorists prior to 911.  Terrorists could easily have posed as anyone, provided fingerprints at the border and gone about their merry way thereafter.  The United States would actually be certifying this false identity as a consequence of the fingerprint scheme.  (Who would ever question a fingerprinted legend?)

Fifth, if the plan was only designed to identify individuals it would only require photographing.  Fingerprinting, rather insidiously, provides far more information than a photograph, as fingerprints are left on nearly everything the individual touches bare handed.  This suggests a far different motive.

I find it interesting that supporters of the plan cannot, no matter how approached, provide a scenario where fingerprints would stop 911 style terrorism without also fingerprinting the entire population and calling for mandatory checks of these fingerprint credentials at all high-risk soft targets.  This would be an unprecedented bit of internal oppression.

So what could be done?

1.  Take off the gloves.  Revoke Executive order 12333.

1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 which, among other things, prohibited political assassination, reading in part: "Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."  Carter and then Reagan affirmed the orders, the Reagan version, 12333, remains on the books.

The United States needs to send the message that the gloves are off with respect to leaders who sponsor or encourage terrorism.  Giving the United States intelligence apparatus the ability to strike in this fashion, and making it clear that the threat is a very real one, is an important tool of defense in the modern terrorist world.

2.  Crowd control starts before the crowd congregates.  Impose a zero tolerance policy with respect to illegal immigration.

Starting in the 1960s illegal immigration began to become viewed as a "victimless" crime.  Particularly as a result of strong political influence of the Hispanic communities in the late 1970s and early 1980s "illegal immigration" has slowly but surely become de facto legalized.  The tolerance of illegal immigration is an insult to law abiding immigrants and visitors (like me) who take great pains to avail themselves of the benefits of the United States legally and responsibly.  Immigration needs to become a new and very potent policy priority and zero tolerance is the only way to achieve it.  Immigration needs to be a jailable offense and stiff penalties should be imposed and executed prior to deportation.

Enforcement needs to be concentrated where the United States has control of foreign visitors, at the border, not after visitors have entered the country- when control is illusory.  Far fewer long-term Visa's should be permitted (on the order of 1/5 of the current number) and they should be closely controlled.  An expanded voluntary (in the real sense, not the administration-speak sense of the word) "safe traveler" system whereby pre-cleared frequent visitors to the U.S. (of all ethnic origins) are permitted to bypass immigration procedures when they are positively identified at the border is an ideal mechanism to introduce this policy.

3.  Have to pay to play.  Foster a renewed emphasis on intelligence budgeting.

The current intelligence budget needs to be nearly doubled to provide the infrastructure required to quell the threats to the United States to the degree required to provide the safety citizens and visitors to the U.S. deserve.

4.  What happened to secrecy?  Develop a focus on intelligence classification and confidentiality and stronger criminal penalties for leakers- including legislators.

The modern media in the United States is privy to nearly every antiterrorist initiative and operation before it's implementation, during its planning and after it goes into effect.  When before in the History of the United States (or elsewhere) have cameras preceded beach landings, outlined planned but not yet executed military operations in foreign lands, and described security provisions in detail?  Leakers, anxious to curry favor with reporters, routinely pass secret information to the media without consequence.

These are a few measures I think would be far more effective to providing for the security of the United States than the useless fingerprint plan currently proposed.

I also want to add something on a personal note-

The tenor and nature of comments directed at me and others on the thread that started this all [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=122020[/url] are childish, inappropriate and in several cases clearly violate the forum code of conduct which provides in part:

1) No racial slurs or comments. This isn't about being "PC" it's about respecting each other.
and
7) No personal attacks towards ANYONE.

In particular, the comments from progun, AlClenin, shooter69 and especially Boomer and The_Macallan, were far out of line.  Know this: I'm not going to tolerate that here.  Personal attacks directed at me or any ethnic group are out of line, against the conduct code and will be dealt with.

I have gone out of my way to contribute to the United States.  I have happily adopted it and it's citizens as my home and brothers and sisters.  Every dollar I spend here goes directly to the trade balance as every dollar I spend here was made outside the United States.  I probably pay more in U.S. taxes than my critics on that thread combined.  I am STILL prone to tears if I see a folded U.S. flag, and at ballgames during the national anthem.

I WILL avail myself of that uniquely American right and privilege, free speech.  I do it responsibly and without personal attack.  If you can't handle that or address my points without insulting me, profanity, rudeness or ad homimen attacks, I will make quite certain that you no longer have a forum here to conduct yourself in that fashion.  If that's not clear enough for you feel free to ask me directly for clarification.  You can email me at [email protected].

I never violated the conduct code.  You did.  Quite clearly.  Matters not how upset you were by what I said here.  It does not give you license to make personal attacks.

I'm not going to respond to this in here anymore.  If you have anything else to say feel free to say it in email or to direct it to one of the other moderators.

I agree on all points for why it won't work.  Your second point alone shows that fingerprinting would be worthless (and was the only one that I had in mind on the subject).  Your points are always so well written that I am almost hesitant to even comment on them [:)]

I did not read the other thread, but from what I have seen, you have contributed more [u]useful information[/u] than many people on this board.  Certainly more than I have.  It seems to me that for fingerprinting to work in even the smallest case (non-suicide attacks), we would have to [u]become[/u] a police state.  We would have to check [u]everyone's[/u] fingerprints at borders, during traffic stops, in "high risk areas", and probably whenever something is purchased, like firearms.  Even that wouldn't stop the suicide bombers.  

When will America no longer be America?  So far, at 29, I have managed not to be fingerprinted - ever.  With an effective tracking system in place I would be required to give my fingerprints at the places listed above - just to verify I am not a foreigner.  So now I am being fingerprinted to buy a gun, cross state borders.... you see where this is leading.  Do you really believe that data will be thrown away?   If so, you must believe that registration of guns will never lead to confiscation - my lawmakers told me so.  We might as well register because we are law abiding citizens.

I see lots of claims that we should do these things differently to help protect us and that countries have much harsher methods for keeping track of its people. I am suggesting we are like the old Soviet Union but we are heading down that road. Anyone who would suggest that we should give up freedoms for protection absolutely has no clue.

For all you that would try to change things, it is the way of life we have that makes this country so great. If you haven't figured it out yet, the more you crack down on any given group of people the more they will resist. Whether it be the drug war, underage drinking or smoking, gun control laws, and a host of many other items that will just cause more resistance. This was the main reason that the government believed potential terrorists would change there minds once they came to live here. The more you give the fundamentalists reasons to attack us the more the attacks will grow.  

I agree that tightening the boarder crossings might help a little, but when there is a will there is a way. If terrorists want to get into this country they will be able to.

It was stated earlier that other countries take tougher steps, but these other countries seem to have a higher rate of terrorist attacks in against them. Not to mention they also subject their citizens to greater restrictions, least of not being harsher gun control.

Maybe I have my tin foil hat on this morning but I see things just getting worse for everyone in this war on terrorism. I just hope that we don't loose everything in the name of safety.

Freedom and security are opposite sides of the same coin - you can't have all of both at the same time.

The liberals have been calling for security - slower speed limits, helmet and seat belt laws, banning tag and flag football, higher taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms ...

Fingerprinting will only work when national smart ID's are handed out to everyone. Your papers please. How can you identify an immigrant from a resident alien from a guy who's family came over on the Mayflower (the boat not the moving company)?

If you focus on just Arab looking men 18-40 they'll use women like they've been doing in Israel. They'll dye their hair blonde, wear tight fitting clothing and makeup.

This is war like none other we've ever fought and it going to take unconventional warfare to combat it. I like tatjana's ideas as feed to a think tank tasked with developing the solution to the problem that we face.

We've avoided the second attack - the "second 9-11" so far. If you look back over the years you can see that this has been a war in slow motion. The USS Cole, the barracks in Beirut, an airplane here or there, the first World Trade Center bombing ... these fanatics fight in a different time scale than we do - rather than the lighting war we enjoy.

Let's develop some new methods of combating these pukes, seek them out and send them to their maker. Release the dogs of war to do what they do best and to hell with the feelings of the touchy-feelie people.

[b]Let's roll! [/b]

Let's roll across countries that harbor these killers of women, children, and freedom and show them no mercy. Unconventional warfare requires some unconventional tactics. Let's fight this war on our level and on our schedule. Let us dictate the rules and the limits of the playing field.

I'm not going to respond to this here.  Feel free to email me: [email protected]

Interesting post, overall.

However, since the above was publicly posted, I (and others, I assume) would like a public clarification of the quote above.

Agreed.



Yes but the question is, will my papers be accepted?  Are foreigners invited?

I suggest you retract that highly offensive remark.