Reviews: The Price of Sleep

Glenn Schweitzer, the director of Central European and Euroasian Affairs at the National Academy of Sciences and an expert on terrorism, agrees that we must try to punish, rather than reward, terrorists. But he also believes, in contrast to Dershowitz, that we must make a major effort to reduce conditions that give rise to terrorism by creating jobs and building schools in impoverished countries. "Ethnic groups living below the survival line," Schweitzer writes, "will not remain passive as they watch their neighbors enjoy a better life."

In theory, the notion of thwarting terrorism by never rewarding it makes perfect sense. But behavioral research shows that even occasional rewards can be enough to guarantee the use of violent tactics and, unfortunately, we simply cannot eliminate all rewards for terrorism. For instance, news reports of the devastating attacks in New York had Palestinians dancing in the streets and boosted enlistment by individuals in that country in terrorist groups. Yet given our ability to transport information almost instantaneously, it is absurd to think that we can keep such events-deemed by terrorists as successes-a secret.

Punishment also raises problems. It is generally effective only when it is immediate, certain and relatively intense compared with the rewards obtained from the punished behavior. How do we punish people who kill themselves by flying airplanes into buildings, or the unknown leaders who send these suicide bombers on their missions? It seems that we simply cannot effectively punish the bad guys.

Even the long-term approach of reducing the conditions that generate terrorism has limitations, a major one being the fact that they are long-term. Another problem is that while Americans are willing to spend billions of dollars to attack an enemy, they are loathe to spend the same amount to make friends-even though it might save more lives.

Recognizing that these methods designed to end terrorism are insufficient, both authors assert that we must take additional measures to make it more difficult for terrorists to do their work. That means curtailing our own liberties. As Schweitzer puts it, "The time has arrived...to reconfigure some aspects of our concept of democracy." That might mean issuing national-identity cards; restricting immigration; making wider use of wiretaps and other forms of surveillance; monitoring Web communications; increasing security checks and searches at public events; and establishing a nationwide neighborhood-watch program.

Such steps inevitably conflict with the right to come and go as we please, assemble peacefully, enjoy privacy in our homes, criticize the government without fear of retaliation and communicate privately, but it is precisely these rights that make us vulnerable to terrorism. By limiting them, we make violent acts more difficult to execute successfully.

Former President Clinton once said, "To curtail the freedom that is our birthright would be to give terrorism a victory it must not and will not have." Most Americans probably agreed with those words when he spoke them in 1996, but this is 2002, and much has happened. After the next attack-a "dirty bomb" detonated in Washington, D.C., perhaps, or a poisonous gas released into the ventilation system of an apartment complex-a majority of Americans may be eager to trade civil liberties for security. One day soon we may all sleep better-and dream of freedoms we once enjoyed.

Paul Chance is the book-review editor ofPsychology Today and a senior research fellow of the Cam-bridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Massachusetts.