94
Popular Culture Review
“so they can infiltrate” domestic terrorist groups (NBC 1995e). Likewise, towards
the end of the week ABC anchor Peter Jennings said, “there is every indication
today that Congress is going to try to move very quickly to pass antiterrorism
legislation” (ABC 1995e). Existing terrorism pohcy initiatives were seemingly
placed on a legislative fast track due to this incident.
With the demands for, and proclamations about, the need for counter terrorism
pohcy, what specific initiatives were in play? Early in the week of coverage an
unidentified citizen called for “tighter controls on people coming” into the United
States (NBC 1995b). What is interesting is how this pubhc sentiment was ahgned
to the policy debates on immigration reform that had been active since the World
Trade Center bombing incident and embodied in pre-bombing pohcy initiatives
already before Congress.
Noting the opportunity to advance their cause, state managers stepped forward
and offered specific pohcy suggestions during the week after the attack. NBC
reporter Brian Wilhams reported that President Chnton “wants to set up a Federal
government counter-terrorism center headed by the FBI” (NBC 1995f). On the
same day, CBS reporter Rita Braver noted that President Chnton would “ask
Congress to give the FBI increased authority to monitor credit, hotel and travel
records, as well as telephone communications of suspected terrorists” (CBS 1995f).
Likewise, Dan Rather reported that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich “said
today he supports more Federal monitoring of possible domestic terrorists groups”
(CBS 1995f). James Fox, an ex-FBI agent, and at that time a CBS staff terrorism
expert, commented on Gingrich’s observations and said he “would agree with the
speaker on this issue. Presently, Federal law enforcement agencies operate under
the restrictions of the Attorney General guidelines for investigating terrorist
operations and they can be ... too restrictive” (CBS 1995f).
The debate on which pohcies were going to be added to the terrorism proposal
before Congress had already begun prior to the bombing. It took on new urgency
as a result of the post-bombing pohcy advocacy by state managers, and was
seemingly legitimated by the media coverage. For example, the newly elected
Repubhcan majority added death penalty reform to the pre-bombing package, and
during coverage of the Oklahoma City incident, they put this firmly into the pohcy
debates. House Speaker Gingrich said he had “recommended that...if people are
indicted and convicted after a fair trial, they should be executed within a reasonable
time” (CBS 1995f). There was some dissension to these calls for new and restrictive
pohcies. Laura Murphy Lee, spokesperson for the ACLU, said “we don’t need any
more powers, we just need to do good law enforcement” (NBC 1995f). These faint
cries of dissent was overwhelmed by the shrill voices calling for immigration reform,
altered legal authority for the FBI, more monitoring of electronic communications,
and faster apphcation of punishments hke the death penalty.