Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[SWJED]

NYPD Intelligence Division: The Homegrown Threat - SWJ Blog.

Recently released report from the New York Police Department’s Intelligence Division - Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat by Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt.

Preface

If the post-September 11th world has taught us anything, it is that the tools for conducting serious terrorist attacks are becoming easier to acquire. Therefore intention becomes an increasingly important factor in the formation of terrorist cells. This study is an attempt to look at how that intention forms, hardens and leads to an attack or attempted attack using real world case studies.

While the threat from overseas remains, many of the terrorist attacks or thwarted plots against cities in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States have been conceptualized and planned by local residents/citizens who sought to attack their country of residence. The majority of these individuals began as “unremarkable” -they had “unremarkable” jobs, had lived “unremarkable” lives and had little, if any criminal history. The recently thwarted plot by homegrown jihadists, in May 2007, against Fort Dix in New Jersey, only underscores the seriousness of this emerging threat.

Understanding this trend and the radicalization process in the West that drives “unremarkable” people to become terrorists is vital for developing effective counter-strategies. This realization has special importance for the NYPD and the City of New York. As one of the country’s iconic symbols and the target of numerous terrorist plots since the 1990’s, New York City continues to be the one of the top targets of terrorists worldwide. Consequently, the NYPD places a priority on understanding what drives and defines the radicalization process.

The aim of this report is to assist policymakers and law enforcement officials, both in Washington and throughout the country, by providing a thorough understanding of the kind of threat we face domestically. It also seeks to contribute to the debate among intelligence and law enforcement agencies on how best to counter this emerging threat by better understanding what constitutes the radicalization process...

Much more at the blog entry and on the NYPD site (entire report)

[davidbfpo]

The link to this document no longer works (not known why). There are numerous Google links that do work, try:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_b...n_the_West.pdf

I note the document caused considerable comment, mainly in the USA and little to date in the UK. Normally we would see a review from London.

Also found an Islamic critique, which I've yet to read in full:

http://conflictblotter.com/files/SalafiManhaj_NYPD.pdfNo onger readily available, although multiple hits on Google.

Back to the NYPD document, which I read at the weekend. It is a useful reference, especially as it is based on open source and interviews. Worth reading.

Added March 2011 post 115 on the following thread has a critique of the NYPD report:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=7188&page=6

davidbfpo

[Ponce]

The key word here is "homegrown"...... anything need fuel in order to grow just like a plant needs soil, sun and water.

A homegrown "terrorist" is nothing more than someone who has decided to do something against the dictators that are at this time running the government.

The American people like to make fun of the "bananas" latin countries for having a revolution all the time...... well, if 26% of the people are against the government and the government do nothing about the situation then there will be a revolution. Here in the US 72-79% of the people are against Bush and yet........ he is stil in power......who is more free?

"Is is the right of the people to declare war on its govenment if they are for the people, after all the people are the real government"... Ponce

[Ron Humphrey]

The key word here is "homegrown"...... anything need fuel in order to grow just like a plant needs soil, sun and water.

A homegrown "terrorist" is nothing more than someone who has decided to do something against the dictators that are at this time running the government.

The American people like to make fun of the "bananas" latin countries for having a revolution all the time...... well, if 26% of the people are against the government and the government do nothing about the situation then there will be a revolution. Here in the US 72-79% of the people are against Bush and yet........ he is stil in power......who is more free?

"Is is the right of the people to declare war on its government if they are for the people, after all the people are the real government"... Ponce

We are because:

1- We the People chose the process through which our President is elected

2- We the people have the ability to partake in the process to elect those who represent us

3- We the people have three branches of government which work in an effort to maintain a balance between the three

4- Those we as elect are as We the people (only human) and thus prone to err from time to time
a- In the case that this happens we refer back to number 2 to attempt
to correct any mistakes


It is easy enough to find something to fight against anywhere you look in this world, it's finding something to fight for which comes at a much greater price but with much greater reward

[marden]

The key word here is "homegrown"...... anything need fuel in order to grow just like a plant needs soil, sun and water.

A homegrown "terrorist" is nothing more than someone who has decided to do something against the dictators that are at this time running the government.

The American people like to make fun of the "bananas" latin countries for having a revolution all the time...... well, if 26% of the people are against the government and the government do nothing about the situation then there will be a revolution. Here in the US 72-79% of the people are against Bush and yet........ he is stil in power......who is more free?

"Is is the right of the people to declare war on its govenment if they are for the people, after all the people are the real government"... Ponce

Can you cite the sources for your %'s?

[bourbon]

Can you cite the sources for your %'s?

Marden, Ponce had a brief tenure on the forum and is no longer a member. It would appear that he was basing his “72-79% of the people are against Bush” on job rating polling. Approval ratings for 2007 have been in the high 20’s to mid 30’s. He incorrectly assigned the remained to disapproval. Job approval polling offers three choices: approve, disapprove, and unsure. ‘Unsure’ has ranged between 5-10% for 2007, ‘disapprove’ has fell between 55-65% for most of the year.

pollingreport.com is an excellent website for this stuff btw.

[jkm_101_fso]

All of them may get life in prison. Glad to see some closure to this.

5 Men Are Convicted in Plot on Fort Dix

By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
NY Times
Published: December 22, 2008

A federal jury on Monday convicted five men of conspiracy to kill American soldiers at the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey last year, but acquitted them of attempted murder, according to the Associated Press.

The jury deliberated for six days before returning its verdict against three brothers -- Shain, Eljvir and Dritan Duka -- and two other defendants, Mohamad Shnewer and Serdar Tatar.

The men, all Muslim immigrants who lived in Philadelphia’s southern New Jersey suburbs, face a maximum of life in prison.

Federal prosecutors said that the five men were planning to attack Fort Dix and the military personnel within it, and had taken concrete steps to train and arm themselves. During the men’s trial, prosecutors argued that evidence, including hundreds of secretly taped conversations between the defendants and F.B.I. informants, jihadist propaganda videos recovered from one suspect’s computer, and videotapes of an illegal purchase of several machine guns, showed they intended to carry out an armed assault on the base.

Defense lawyers argued that the men were never serious about attacking Fort Dix, and that the government informants repeatedly coaxed the men into making incendiary comments on government wiretaps.

[jmm99]

(no surprise there) if the judge gives them life; however, basic conspiracy to commit murder is Base Offense Level: 33 (under US Sentencing guidelines, whcih are here).

However, I expect the base level of 33 (2nd degree murder is base level 38, here) could be enhanced. Life is a base level 43, as in 1st degree murder, which you see here.

[JeffC]

The link to this document no longer works (not known why). There are numerous Google links that do work, try:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_b...n_the_West.pdf

I note the document caused considerable comment, mainly in the USA and little to date in the UK. Normally we would see a review from London.

Also found an Islamic critique, which I've yet to read in full:

http://conflictblotter.com/files/SalafiManhaj_NYPD.pdf

Back to the NYPD document, which I read at the weekend. It is a useful reference, especially as it is based on open source and interviews. Worth reading.

davidbfpo

Thanks, David. You've just taken care of my reading for the next few days!

[Ponce]

Ron? you should know by now that Bush stole the election..... and like he said "The Contitution is nothing but a piece of paper" that in itself voided him as MY president........ my president is by the people and for the people according to the US constitution.

[Ken White]

NYPD Intelligence Division: The Homegrown Threat.

Let's try to stay on topic. I'll also point out that this in not a political weblog; for anyone who wishes to make political commentary, there are plenty of weblogs out there that welcome such comments. Here, we avoid it and try to stick to the subject of threads.

Thanks, Guys.

[Ron Humphrey]

NYPD Intelligence Division: The Homegrown Threat.

Let's try to stay on topic. I'll also point out that this in not a political weblog; for anyone who wishes to make political commentary, there are plenty of weblogs out there that welcome such comments. Here, we avoid it and try to stick to the subject of threads.

Thanks, Guys.

I probably should have just left that one alone

Although in my own defense, since my crack team of defense lawyers are on vacation; I did try to make the answer as apolitical as possible

[bourbon]

Ponce,

I may just happen to share some of your sentiment, I've even mistakenly crossed the apolitical line here in some posts. We both may even agree that the term 'terrorist' is malleable and oft bastardized. That said, I think we can delineate between Guy Fawkes and say; a Mohamed Atta, Mohammad Sidique Khan, or Adam Gadhan. The NYPD article - which is excellent btw - illustrates the 'homegrown threat' as far more than "someone who has decided to do something against the dictators that are at this time running the government."


Thread Related:
The Fort Dix Conspiracy, By Amanda Ripley. Time, Dec. 06, 2007.

A TIME investigation of the Fort Dix case shows that it is indeed an important prototype. Six years after 9/11, the U.S. government has begun to settle on a strategy for finding and stopping potential homegrown terrorists before they strike. Fort Dix offers a case study of this new and sometimes precarious method. The model is called pre-emptive prosecution, and like other pre-emptive strikes of late, it is risky. It means relying on often unreliable informants to infiltrate insular communities, and it means making arrests before anything close to a terrorist attack actually happens. The process sometimes ends with a trial but not necessarily a conviction, and that may be beside the point. It is, in all, a messy and unsatisfying ordeal, and possibly the best available option.

Decent article on the NYPD's intel division:
The Terrorism Beat: How is the N.Y.P.D. defending the city?, by William Finnegan. The New Yorker, July 25, 2005.

[Schmedlap]

... my president is by the people and for the people according to the US constitution.

Is that a recent amendment?

[Bob's World]

For the U.S. the real key will be coming to grips with the difference between those who threaten us and those who are a threat to us.

AQ, for example, threatens us. As does a handful minor knuckleheads such as Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong il.

None of these, however, are truly a threat to us. Not in a significant way.

Yet we go chasing after these minor annoyances in a very reactive and predictable way. People will say crazy things. Small attacks, and likely even some fairly large attacks will happen. These are symptoms of discontent and there will always be discontent. By chasing symptoms of discontent and making that our focus we end up engaging in overblown antics that make the underlying reasons for discontent worse in many ways

Better to learn to ignore minor irritants, ignore the minor threats; and focus more on the big picture and how we best achieve big picture goals in a manner that deters those things that truly threaten US in significant ways while consciously seeking to not inflame discontent unnecessarily.

Its really a simple matter of discipline and perspective. Americans as a culture tend to be undisciplined and fairly short and narrowly focused in terms of perspective.

Oh, and for my money, Islamist ideology driven terrorism has little to nothing to do with evangelizing Islam any more that the wars of reformation were about spreading Protestantism. Both are tools to mobilize bold and broad action among the people to challenge powerful political constructs. Sure, some of the individual actors I am sure truly believe they are doing God's work, but at the end of the day they are victims also, manipulated to conduct a violent political act that is actually in violation of the very religion they are so committed to. The men they have placed their greatest faith in betray them for their own selfish desires for personal power and also to take down the current political structure they find so offensive.

[davidbfpo]

A long article on an American Muslim who now prefers the label orthodox; it is a good illustration of the difficulties such individuals and wider society face when talk turns to the 'J word'. Not surprisingly it reflects the dilemma for the state in can we talk to such people, who are often now labelled non-violent extremists?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/ma...&_r=1&emc=eta1

A short UK comment on this dilemma in the UK:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourking...utm_campaign=0

[AdamG]

More importantly, based on the Defendant’s recorded statements and admissions made to law enforcement agents, the Defendant was a former member, or at the very least, associated with [Al-Ittihad al-Islami] AIAI, an SDGT, and that he believed that there was no separation of personnel between AIAI, the Council of Islamic Courts, and Al-Shabbab, a designated [Foreign Terrorist Organization] FTO.

He admits that he knowingly believed he was smuggling violent jihadists into the United States with the full knowledge that if the decision was made by the SDGT, for which he was associated with in the past, to commit terrorist acts in the United States, these jihadists would commit violent acts in and against the United States. Because the law enforcement authorities are constantly trying to investigate, detect, and prevent the infiltration of potentially violent jihadists, the Defendant’s lies hid critical information from the United States authorities regarding his successful smuggling activities. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence proves that the other obvious motivation for him to lie on his asylum application was to cover up and obstruct the fact from United States authorities that he facilitated the smuggling of violent jihadists who are now present into the United States. (pp. 10-11)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-mem...inglepage=true

And for sheer comedic face-palming,

In what appears to be a major security breach, components for a live bomb were allowed to remain in the federal building in Detroit for three weeks before the bomb squad was called in to remove it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/activ...ry?id=13202135