Business's Role In the War On Terrorism

Using substantial military and intelligence resources, the American government is engaged in a war on radical Islamists who use terror as a weapon.However, because terrorists are an unconventional enemy, with no military structure or the trappings of state, America must counter with an unconventional weapon: its business community, one of the most potent forces on the globe.
The collateral damage of terrorism reaches deep into the business community. Investors reasonably wonder about investments in a world where terrorism is coddled. When governments kowtow to the unmitigated evil of terrorism, it's better to buy gold and hide it under a pillow. Businesses have few prospects in such an environment, and thus the business community is a natural ally in the war against terrorism.
Many of us rightfully recoil at the prospect of a cozy relationship between business and government. Surely civil liberties are at risk where government and business are indistinguishable. Balancing civil liberties with security is the challenge of a great nation. In authoritarian countries, such as Cuba, there is little terrorism because the government is omnipresent. Terrorists run rampant in countries where governments are weak. America seeks an elusive middle ground, where civil liberties are protected but terrorists are not. To fight this war, some of our laws need updating.
Recently, the Maine Public Utility Commission sought to have Verizon publicly swear that it had not turned over information about customer communications to the National Security Agency. Otherwise, the Maine PUC may open an investigation into the company. Civil libertarians applauded the stance of the Maine government. AT&T has come under similar scrutiny for potentially facilitating NSA review of the communications of alleged terrorist networks.
Now it turns out that federal surveillance, perhaps including that done by the NSA, helped uncover the airline mass murder plot. There may be more than a few airline passengers who hope that Verizon will publicly swear that it has turned over any and all information requested by the NSA.Better yet, Verizon should remain inscrutably silent, neither confirming nor denying information that may benefit the planning of terrorists.
Disclosing information on surveillance hinders our efforts in the war on terrorism. Two months ago, few people had heard of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Now all of us, including terrorists, know that SWIFT provides information to governments to help track the transfer of funds by terrorist organizations. No doubt, terrorists now know what Mafia and other criminal organizations have known for decades: deal in cash only and avoid banks, except as targets for criminal activity.
Many civil libertarians were appalled by the willingness of SWIFT to help track terrorists. If SWIFT can help monitor terrorists, how anonymous can any personal transactions be? The answer is that SWIFT does not provide information on transactions of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
The value of the business community in the war on terrorism goes far beyond information gathering. Financial institutions know about individuals' credit-worthiness because there is a well-developed market for credit information. Some of that same credit information might be useful for screening passengers. For example, an individual who recently purchased online videos of Osama bin Laden might reasonably be subject to different treatment at an airport than other passengers.
Even more importantly, if airlines shouldered more of the responsibility for screening passengers, terrorists would be less likely to penetrate airline security. Banks do not have to treat all potential customers equally, and they can discriminate on the basis of creditworthiness. Airlines have common-carrier obligations and cannot lawfully treat various passengers differently, no matter how likely the terrorist profile. Such common-carrier laws make sense in a perfect world, but they do not make sense today.
Many businesses cannot survive in a terrorist-dominated world. We should unleash the survival instincts of these businesses to combat terrorism.To do so may require changing antiquated laws and regulations that prohibit ordinary firms from identifying criminal businesses and taking appropriate action.
Reasonable businesses may suspect and even know of terrorist activities, but they are fearful of taking actions that may leave them liable to endless litigation for limiting civil liberties.We all lose when firms are discouraged from addressing terrorist threats. The sooner we adapt our laws to help these businesses, the better.