We call it 'Rich Picture'
This 'mapping' is a well known UK CT tool, often arousing controversy amongst those normally targeted an I've selected one of the first Google hits:
Quote:
‘Rich Picture’ is a mechanism to gather National Security intelligence to identify investigative opportunities for both local and regional levels. ‘Rich picture’ has been termed ‘neighbourhood policing intelligence for counter terrorism’....These will inform local decision-making and guide suitable interventions involving local strategic partners and communities.
Link:http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/mpa/2008/080724/08/
IIRC there are older posts on the subject, which has roots in what the UK did in Northern Ireland; others refer to it as 'ground cover'
Augustin Sting Operation Affirmed by 11th Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Augustin, has affirmed the convictions of Burson Augustin, Stanley Grant Phanor, Patrick Abraham, Rotschild Augustine, and Narseal Batiste (collectively, “Appellants”).
They were all convicted of:
Quote:
(1) conspiracy to provide material support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (Al Qaeda) by agreeing to provide personnel (including themselves) to work under Al Qaeda’s direction and control, knowing that Al Qaeda has engaged or engages in terrorist activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B;
and (2) conspiracy to provide material support by agreeing to provide personnel (including themselves), knowing and intending that they were to be used in preparation for and in carrying out a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f)(1) and (i), and to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, and ownership of such material support, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.
Abraham and Batiste were also convicted of conspiracy to maliciously damage and destroy by means of an explosive a building leased to an agency of the United States (the FBI) and a building used in interstate and foreign commerce (the Sears Tower), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(n). Additionally, Batiste was convicted of conspiracy to levy war against the Government of the United States and to oppose by force the authority thereof in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2384.
This opinion dealt with multiple issues, which Bobby Chesney has summarized at Lawfare, Convictions Affirmed in “Miami Seven” Case:
Quote:
* Charges under the material support statutes (2339A and 2339B) are not subject to the Treason Clause because the elements of those offenses differ from a charge of treason.
* The evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendants conspired to act under al Qaeda’s direction and control, rather than to act independently.
* The opinion is somewhat unclear regarding the defendants’ argument that taking photographs of federal buildings from public viewpoints cannot constitute material support. On one hand, the opinion clearly rejects the argument that such activity implicates the language in Holder v. HLP in which the Supreme Court discussed whether speech imparted specialized knowledge. On the other hand, the panel went on to focus on the defendants’ participation in an al Qaeda oath ceremony as well as their acts of photography, rather than just saying that the photography was itself an act of material support.
* It does not matter if a person takes an oath to support al Qaeda based on financial motivations rather than ideological affinity.
* It is not clear whether the definition of “personnel” contained in 18 USC 2339B(h) apply as well to a material support charge based on “personnel” under 18 USC 2339A, though that turned out not to matter in this case since the evidence sufficed to meet the direction-and-control standard.
* On the overall strength of the evidence and the fact that there were two prior hung juries: “We recognize that the evidence supporting Augustin’s, Phanor’s, and Augustine’s convictions on both Count 1 and Count 2 is far from overwhelming. Indeed, two juries failed to convict on these counts. But those juries also failed to acquit. Ultimately, with the benefit of three months of testimony and over five days of deliberation, the third jury arrived at a verdict, distinguishing between the various defendants and various counts. We cannot say that the jury was unreasonable in concluding that the government carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Augustin, Phanor, and Augustine violated § 2339A and § 2339B as charged.”
* Applying a plain error standard, the panel rejected the argument that the FBI’s role in the scheme amounted to outrageous government conduct in violation of the Due Process Clause.
* It was permissible for one of the investigating agents to testify about how various statements by a defendant had impacted the course of the investigation; this did not constitute improper testimony about the defendant’s state of mind, though the court called this a “very fine line.” The testimony also was relevant in that it was probative of why the investigation unfolded as it did, an issue that had become material because of the entrapment issue.
The importance of this case is that, from start to finish, the plot was fabricated by the FBI and its informant from the local Muslim community - and was, in that sense, not "real". As I've said a number of times, the defense of entrapment (in one form or another) is often asserted, bur rarely successfully.
Regards
Mike
Lone Wolf attack thwarted in NYC
An unspecified individual and threat was arrested earlier today in NYC after they were reportedly planning a lone wolf attack on armed service members returning home from deployment.
This is a just breaking story,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1104195.html
Out in left field -- maybe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
The example given for this thread was a homegrown threat that clearly was a police problem, but his mentor Anwar Awlaki was an intelligence/SOF problem, as are many others who plan and inspire operations against the U.S. from afar. The police can only act defensively, which doesn't give us much depth when it comes to defense. I think an offensive element for this conflict is critical.
And at home under the guise of support to law enforcement ? Our military would have no problem protecting our borders and supporting our police.
I realize I'm a bit out in left field, but, what good is it to have our intel and military if they are not covering home plate ?
Short of martial law that is :eek:
The Idiot Jihadist Next Door?
Reading US coverage of suspected terrorism within the USA I have been puzzled at the series of plots uncovered - as my earlier posts indicate - and of late the difference between NYPD and the FBI over the threat posed in plots NYPD investigated.
This FP article is rather stark:
Quote:
Pimentel had managed to scrape down "over 700" match heads -- which usually utilize phosphorus as the active agent -- to manufacture his explosive material. Leaving aside the stupidity of scratching match heads when gunpowder works just as easily, fans of the Discovery Channel's Mythbusters might recall that the show's hosts failed to produce an explosion when they ignited one million match heads. The idea that the scrapings from 700 match heads dispersed across three pipe bombs would kill "a lot of people" is suspect at best.
This paragraph refers to statistics and cites melons:
Quote:
That statistic warrants repeating: Despite dozens of plots, homegrown jihadists have only managed to kill 15 people in the United States since 9/11 -- and 13 of those deaths were the result of one unstable soldier's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas. Just to put this in perspective, more Americans have been killed here at home by contaminated cantaloupe in the past few months than have been killed by violent Islamic extremists in the past decade!
Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._door?page=0,0
For a host of reasons, many political, others bureaucratic and some sinister it is hard to get a sensible, public statement on the real threat posed by the "enemy within".
"American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat"
Hat tip to LWOT that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have published this report, which on a quick skim is encyclopaedic in coverage and sources. Maybe useful as a reference guide:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41416.pdf
Al-Shabab: a threat to the USA today?
Post created for a new thread; please refer to Post 5 for cross-references.
So much for African terrorism not being of concern to the US. In a story just out today by longtime federal prosecutor W. Anders Folk in testimony before th the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Quote:
According to an investigative report issued in July by the House Homeland Security Committee's majority staff, Shabaab-related federal indictments "account for the largest number and significant upward trend in homegrown terrorism cases" filed by the Justice Department, with at least 38 cases unsealed since 2009
Link:http://www.investigativeproject.org/...shabaab-threat
Al-Shabab: a threat to the USA today?
Post created for a new thread and so will appear out of sequence.
Three members have drawn attention whether the Jihadist group in Somalia, Al-Shabaab / Al-Shabab poses a threat to the USA and this discussion may take-off.
There are several threads on the subject, notably Terrorism in the USA:threat & response (merged thread):http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8828
Somalia: not piracy catch all thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8468
Horn of Africa historical (pre-2011): catch all thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=789