Only a college professor would be surprised at the public reaction of the creation of a futures market for terror attacks:

In the market, investors would have bought contracts that pay out if specific events happen. The contracts could have been complex, such the number of terrorist attacks against US citizens by the end of 2003, if US troops are not removed from Saudi Arabia. Other examples given included the assassination of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or the overthrow of Jordan's ruling family.

The value determined by the market for these contracts is then a measure of the likelihood of the events happening.

From a purely academic point of view I have to question whether or not this would have been effective. The other futures markets the article cited were fundamentally different, not even tangentally related to violence or destruction.

But I mean, come on. Politicians live for sound bites, and the media thrives on distortion. Just how hard did they think it would be for both to come up with "market of death" when they heard about this thing?