The July 11 attacks by the Somali Islamist group Al-Shabaab killed more than 70 people watching the finals of the World Cup in Kampala, Uganda's lakeside capital city. The tragic bombings, and the response, have brought up an interesting issue in the field of international security - why countries react in different ways to terrorist attacks.

On one end of the spectrum is Spain's reaction to the March 11, 2004 attacks by "homegrown" Al-Qaeda members on the Madrid subway (Ed. note - why do so many terrorist attacks happen on the 11th day of the month?). The attacks occurred shortly before the 2004 parliamentary elections, and led to Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's party, known by its Spanish acronym PSOE, taking power from the Conservative Jose Maria Aznar. In the aftermath of the election, tinged by Aznar's contention that the bombings were caused by the Basque separatist group ETA, Zapatero's government withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.

On the other end of the spectrum is the U.S. reaction to the September 11 attacks in 2001, with a death toll of over 3,000. Within a month, after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members, U.S. and allied forces had entered the country. On October 7, 2001, airstrikes began in Kabul. U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan today, 105 months after the initial invasion. 9/11, far from deterring future action, led directly to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

In reacting to the 7/11 attacks, Uganda's government has remained uncowed, despite being singled out for attack by Al-Shabaab because of the presence of Ugandan peacekeepers in Somalia. President Yoweri Museveni was defiant, stating that "we shall go for them wherever they are coming from. We will look for them and get them as we always do." Although this rhetoric is not likely to be backed by immediate military action, Museveni's words are no retreat. In fact, he has already hinted at changing the mandate of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia to one of "peace enforcement." Such a shift in the rules of engagement would allow for a more proactive military effort against Al-Shabaab.

Leaving aside the (important) question of why Al-Shabaab would attack Uganda or what their broader agenda may be, why did Uganda react in this way, and why do countries react so differently when responding to terrorism?

Anyone who knows me will likely tell you that should you ever hear me say anything good about the most recent Bush administration that you may want to get your ass to a Church because there is a decent chance that its a sign of the ends of days. However, some recent thinking I have been doing about Al Qaeda has led me to believe that the Bush Administration might have actually done something that prevented further attacks inside the United States for the seven years following 9/11 despite the general overall level incompetence shown by the White House in those years.

While the vast majority of the Bush administration's security policies produced nothing more than a frightened U.S. population convinced that Saddam Hussein had actually been behind 9/11 and that democrats hated the troops and were going to get us all killed, their scare tactics might have actually cut Al Qaeda off at the knees.

Now what I mean by all this is that with the Bush administration constantly talking about the imminent threat posed by Nuclear terrorism, anthrax and dirty bombs etc. that the bar for what would be considered impressive feats of terrorism have simply been set beyond Al Qaeda's tactical reach. While the Bush administration insisted that Al Qaeda was close to obtaining weapons of mass destruction for its own political purposes, the rest of the world (including the Muslim world) began to buy into the myth of Al Qaeda's power. At this point should Al-Qaeda perpetrate any attack against the US that was considered less shocking than 9/11, the rest of the world would view them as the relatively weak organization that they are.

Here are some facts for you. According to the Al-Qaeda defector Dr. Fadl, Bin Laden tried to purchase some highly enriched Uranium from a Sudanese General in 1993 for $1.5 million. Turns out the canister he bought was actually filled with a substance known as Red Mercury or "Cinnabar," a compound that physically resembles Uranium Oxide but is chemically quite different. This is the closest that Al-Qaeda has been to a nuclear weapon and that was back when bin laden had relative freedom of movement.

As far as Anthrax goes, no Muslim terrorist organization has ever approached the level of sophistication needed to produce Anthrax. As it turns out, the Anthrax attacks that killed five people back in 2001 were actually the result of an army biologist named Bruce E. Ivins who blew a gasket and decided to use American government produced anthrax against his fellow citizens.

Finally, not even Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese Cult that sought to speed up Armageddon by carrying out a Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway could properly pull of a successful mass chemical attack (12 people died). Aum Shinrikyo had over a billion dollars as well as high tech labs and technicians at its disposal, far more capability than any other terrorist group has ever had and even they failed to produce much more than temporary panic. Honestly, more destruction would likely be caused by yelling "Godzilla!" in the streets of Japan (bad joke...moving on)

Turns out carrying out attacks of mass destruction are hard and by setting expectations so high for Al-Qaeda, we forced them to make the strategic choice of trying to carry out less spectacular attacks that over time would destroy the myth of their power or instead rest on their laurels and allow self starter terrorists to draw inspiration from them. (they have gone with the latter)

My overall point here is that for the most part, terrorism is a nuisance not the likely apocalyptic reality that Dick Cheney would like you to believe. Occasionally, these groups can accomplish something big like 9/11, however, terrorist acts of mass destruction are the exception and not the rule. So take heed my fellow disciples of reason and realize that there may be some value to propping up the myth of Al Qaeda in the media, but when it comes to the list of things that keeps you up at night, don't let this be one of them.

And that's my fifty cents (inflation....)

I'm almost afraid to wade into this issue, as I'm sure I will anger many (I invite your comments!), but this issue is too important NOT to post on. Below is my analysis of the Obama Administration's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in lower Manhattan.

Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a criminal? Yes -- and, in a perfect world, he should get his day in court. He should be tried by an impartial jury lead by an impartial judge, and legally collected evidence should be presented for and against his guilt. The findings of the court should reflect the strength of our constitution -- finding someone guilty of a crime despite all of the protections afforded the accused.

How beautifully normative -- huh?

But we have problems here. Alot of them.

The Obama Administration has put on their normative caps (something I usually applaud) for exactly the wrong issue, at exactly the wrong time. Unfortunately, they have also pinned alot of their credibility and political capital to this trial.

Beyond moving the trial to the remotest corner of the globe, into a village without Internet, TV, radio, telegraph, semaphore, or word of mouth -- you are not going to find an impartial jury, much less an impartial judge. By holding the trial in Lower Manhattan a few blocks from ground zero, you raise the absurdity of this fact. Anyone who can swear in court that they are able to render an impartial verdict for KSM (especially in NY) is a liar. Can you bar the jurors from visiting something as innocuous as wikipedia?

Then there is the "evidence" issue. Will the transcripts of KSM's Gitmo interrogations be allowed? How do you transliterate the sound of water flowing over someone's gagged mouth? I would think that any lawyer would argue that there are some serious 4th and 5th amendment issues at play there. Should a judge rule that they are admissible, can a proper chain of custody be established over the content of the transcripts without violating alot of people's TS/SCI clearances?

Was KSM mirandized?

What evidence can be presented in open court? Will the government be granting temporary clearances to the jurors?

But more importantly, this trial will run the risk of perhaps the greatest opportunity for jury nullification even witnessed. Will this be a trial of a Terrorist, or a trial on Waterboarding? Will this be a trial of the 9/11 plotters, or an indictment of Gitmo?

Ultimately, I think this unlikely. KSM will be found guilty because he is guilty, but the issue is this: if the result of the trial is a foregone conclusion, is it a trial? The jury, upon entering the courtroom will not be questioning KSM's guilt or innocence, but rather how long they have to sit there before they can say "guilty" and go home.

Will the US government be issued a gag order on talking about terror, al Qaeda, KSM et al. during the trial to avoid charges of jury tampering?

This will be a show trial. Which is the polar opposite of what the Obama Administration wants, and it is a tragedy. We cannot find him innocent -- but we cannot give him a fair day in court either. What kind of defense will KSM present for his actions? Even scarier, what kind of defense will he be ALLOWED to present?

Ultimately, I don't know how else we can approach this mess. It seems that if we are to try terrorists like KSM in civilian court, they must be treated as criminals from their arrest to their incarceration. Since the Bush Administration failed to do this, we cannot attempt to reverse engineer a trial for those detained before Obama took office. This is something it appears the current President is seeking to rectify with the UndieBomber, but will a free and fair trial for terror suspects even be possible in this media environment?

In the words of my colleague Jeremy, that's my 50 cents (inflation...)

If you've got a better idea, let me know.