Centerfield

This is only one area where there's a public policy tension between the people's right to know and the fact that secrecy can foster security.

And while I see the point, my take in such instances is that I'd be much more concerned if I felt that the primary reason we haven't had additional domestic terrorism is because the terrorists are unable to identify any targets that could be successfully attacked, effecting great fear, havoc, and uproar.

But this seems pretty unlikely to me. Because sitting here I can think of dozens of ways to wreak havoc. Extreme and violent havoc so ugly and easy to do that I'd indeed be remiss to list them for fear of giving anyone any ideas. But come on, as a thought exercise, spend 10 minutes privately brainstorming with someone else to convince yourself of this.

Identifying targets and coming up with schemes is the easy part. And arguably a large number of small scale but widespread terrroist events would have as great an effect on our psyche and the economy as 9/11. This leads me to speculate that the reason why there haven't been more domestic terrorist events is that they lack the manpower, means, resources, and freedom to operate without surveilance. There aren't that many, and we're keeping a close eye on those we suspect.

What Brian said, but also don't forget the politics. If you live in NY, DC, or LA you actually care about this issue. I don't see how a change like this could be made without politicians avoiding the urge to tell everybody what good they have done. Overall, I just don't think it matters that much. We know they like to to target large populations crammed into smaller geographic areas, and they know that we know so what is the secret? It's not as if they said we are diverting funds to protect bridges that span the San Francisco Bay.