Six years of spying on Muslims by the New York Police Department resulted in not one lead or terrorism investigation, underscoring complaints that religious profiling and massive surveillance after 9/11 were counterproductive anti-terrorism tactics.

At present rates, an American's chance of being killed by a terrorist is about one in 3.5 million per year. The number of people killed worldwide outside of war zones since 2001 by Islamist extremists of all shapes and varieties is a few hundred per year. This number is regrettable, of course. But it scarcely presents an existential or apocalyptic threat.

Every good academic course on terrorism should begin with an inconclusive argument over the definition of the term 'terrorism.' The purpose of that debate is to explore the troublesome questions of legitimacy, targeting, and group dynamics that make terrorism not just a difficult word to define, but a vexing phenomenon to counter. As Menachem Begin recognized when he eschewed the convention of earlier anarchist militants to claim the title 'terrorist' and instead referred to the Irgun as "freedom fighters," terrorism is often a fight over language.

By crafting attacks designed to provoke a draconian state response, terrorists hope to exploit the inevitable societal polarization that results to attract new recruits to their banner while undermining the state's own claim to be acting legitimately.

Despite the perennial warnings about exotic weapons and targets, members and allies of al Qaeda's hirabi movement continue to carry out the same sorts of attacks they executed in the decades before 9/11.

The steady trickle of Bush-era security officials speaking out against his administration's policies continues as the founding warden of GITMO, Terry Carrico, says, shut it down!