Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jedburgh]

CQ Politics, 2 Nov 07: FBI Hoped to Follow Falafel Trail to Iranian Terrorists Here

Like Hansel and Gretel hoping to follow their bread crumbs out of the forest, the FBI sifted through customer data collected by San Francisco-area grocery stores in 2005 and 2006, hoping that sales records of Middle Eastern food would lead to Iranian terrorists.

The idea was that a spike in, say, falafel sales, combined with other data, would lead to Iranian secret agents in the south San Francisco-San Jose area.

The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI’s criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal.

A check of federal court records in California did not reveal any prosecutions developed from falafel trails......

[Jedburgh]

The Investigative Project on Terrorism, 7 Nov 07: The FBI's Latest Outreach Outrage

Much has been written about the U.S. government's current bout of schizophrenia in its outreach to the American Muslim community, specifically related to the Department of Justice. While federal prosecutors in Dallas have labeled several Islamist organizations as unindicted co-conspirators – describing them as front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood - in the terrorist financing trial against the Holy Land for Relief and Development (HLF), the FBI is meeting with the very same groups to hold outreach events and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is setting up booths at their conferences.

As wrongheaded and shortsighted as these policies are, they do not hold a candle to a recent outreach event held by the FBI's Detroit field office at the end of last month.....

...follow-up on the Counterterrorism Blog: FBI's New Friends Were Kicked Out of UAE For "Talibanization"

As a follow-up to Steve Emerson's post about the FBI's meeting with Tanzeem-e-Islami, I want to suggest to the FBI that they use a website named "Google" to comprehensively search the groups and individuals with which they are planning to meet. If they had done that search well, they would have found that the UAE government kicked Ahmad's supporters out of the country back in May, fearing "the spread of Talibanization.".....

[slapout9]

Hi Jed, This really is pretty funny.

CQ Politics, 2 Nov 07: FBI Hoped to Follow Falafel Trail to Iranian Terrorists Here

[Rifleman]

Maybe an FBI special agent should sit down and have coffee with a CIA case officer.

Who knows, something positive and productive might happen for both sides.

[bourbon]

Maybe an FBI special agent should sit down and have coffee with a CIA case officer.

Who knows, something positive and productive might happen for both sides.

Phil Mudd had 20 years at CIA and was the deputy director of CIA's Counterterrorism Center. My understanding is that was the whole point of putting him at FBI's National Security Service, to have someone who knows the difference between the West Bank and the West Side. I hope there is another angle to this story.

[Jedburgh]

Robert S. Mueller, FBI Director, 7 Apr 08:

From 9/11 to 7/7: Global Terrorism Today and the Challenges of Tomorrow

.....We in the FBI are panning for gold. First, we have to determine in which streams we are likely to find gold. Which suspected networks? Which human sources? Which websites? Then, agents and analysts must take their pans and wade through the waters of intelligence, carefully searching for nuggets of gold amid streams of repetitive or irrelevant information.

The gold might be a phone number, or a name, or a receipt from a bank transaction. It will likely be hidden among thousands of other scraps of information. With deft, methodical sifting, we can separate the gold from the dross, as Dame Eliza would say. But as she also points out, gathering the intelligence is just the start. It then must be verified and connected to other intelligence. And even then we are only seeing part of the picture.

Our goal is to get as close as possible to having the complete picture. For the FBI, this means we often continue to collect information long after we have gathered enough evidence for prosecution. Once we have the threat under control, we use these cases as intelligence collection platforms. Our mission is not just to disrupt an isolated plot, but to thoroughly dismantle the entire network that supports it.....

[davidbfpo]

Thanks to a vigilant US press watcher: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/us...l.html?_r=2&hp and linked is a FBI December 2008 'Domestic Investigations Current Operations Guide', obtained in a FOI court case and has large parts blanked out: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-new...-the-f-b-i#p=1

Too large, 269 pgs, to readily absorb on a fine autumn afternoon. So try this;

“It raises fundamental questions about whether a domestic intelligence agency can protect civil liberties if they feel they have a right to collect broad personal information about people they don’t even suspect of wrongdoing,” said Mike German, a former F.B.I. agent who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Interesting that this domestic issue has similar echoes in the UK, not over invesigations, but preventative activity by public agencies to stop the flow of recriuits to violent extremism.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Slightly dated as this was a speech on 22nd October 2009, entitled Los Angeles Police Department's Counterterrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau "Counterterrorism and Crime Fighting in Los Angeles": http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/h...LAPD-Stein.pdf (Hat tip http://counterterrorismblog.org/ ).

Amidst the speech is a section on Legitimacy and Constitutionality and

Legitimacy and intelligence are equally important tools for U.S. law enforcement to use in counterterrorism efforts. Legitimacy starts with an organizational knowledge and pride in operating constitutionally and within the law. The need for transparency - being perceived to be and authentically honoring this principle - in intelligence and counterterrorism activities cannot be understated. Taking great care to ensure that intelligence and enforcement operations are narrowly targeted against terrorist cells determined to go operational is critical.

The hardware of surveillance --CCTV cameras, license plate readers, "rings of steel" - which has become widespread despite a demonstrable lack of effectiveness in crime prevention or solution is less compatible with the freedoms and privacies Americans expect. Those methods, designed to fill a gap in law enforcement capabilities, are the worst of all worlds when compared with proper intelligence gathering; they are intrusive - despite the legalistic arguments that there should be limited expectations of privacy in public spaces; they are without question damaging to the freedoms of expression and speech that are constitutionally enshrined (unless you are of the persuasion that authorities should be the uninvited guest at the party whenever they choose to join in); they fail the test of logic (can cameras and license plate readers effectively stop secret plans?); they turn on its head the value systems we hold dear because like it or not, their placement speaks for itself -- they enshrine property and capital above human life.

Coming from a police officer in CT this is fascinating and shows how different the USA is from the UK on the use of mass surveillance, notably CCTV. Admittedly CCTV is invariably post-incident and may act as a deterrent. This is regular debate in the UK, albeit on the fringes and in some surprising places, like a conservative paper - The Daily Telegraph.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

In recent weeks it appears that a series of un-connected 'home grown' plots to attack targets in the USA have been revealed. The first article suggests a way of grading threats: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114343626 Note the reference to the Zazi plot (Denver to NYC) having a direct link and communications with AQ. Hence the assessment this was the most serious threat since 9/11.

There is a good descriptive piece on the Zazi plot: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscel...verArrests.pdf This IMHO lacks a good analysis and Bruce Hoffman has provided that - if wanted please PM (no link found for a recent lecture he gave at Oxford University).

[jmm99]

Constitutional Questions

You certainly have been busy. Your first two posts are the stuff of which books are written - and many have been written, covering such "illustrious" US "constitutional" eras as WWI's German and Red Scares, WWII's German and Japanese Scares, the initial Cold War Red Scares, the Vietnam Era Domestic Radicals Scares, etc. You could go back further in our history to the Civil War, the Alien & Sedition Acts and finally to the Revolutionary War.

For every action, there is a reaction (not necessarily equal or proportionate); and to that reaction, a reaction, etc., etc. Whether we are going to perdition in a handbasket depends very much on the people in office, but more so on the people who put them in office. Eventually, things tend to level out as folks on one side of an issue realize that their own oxen could be gored by the same LE measures they are advocating.

People also begin to live with the threat that initially seemed so large. The sight of 3000 dead from 9/11 loomed large, but once people begin to compare it to the 110K that die each year in accidents (home, industrial and auto), that threat is placed in perspective. And those of us who lived through the early Cold Wars "duck and cover" and after, realize that the "GWOT" scenarios, even the most extreme (and hence unlikely), are frankly chump change (harsh words, but comparatively true). We are still maturing in this "GWOT" thing.

-------------------------
Degrees of Separation

The articles on AQ affiliation and degrees of separation are dear to my own heart (nice to see some re-inforcement), since I last beat that drum here about six weeks ago:

The domestic US cases seem to fit three basic patterns (as to which, there is some legitimate and some illegitimate arguments about classification):

1. AQ members (in effect, their "SOF" teams) - e.g., 9/11 perps.

2. Domestic US insurgents (US citizens, legal resident aliens, illegal resident aliens) linked to AQ by some training and mission support - there have been quite a few of these cases.

3. "Parallel thinkers" (not clearly linked to AQ, but ideological counterparts) - e.g., DC snipers and Arkansas shooter.

The present case, on the basis of its present (limited) facts, fits into the second category - i.e. the theory of COL Jones that AQ is the base for waging unconventional warfare (in its traditional SF sense) via use of domestic insurgent groups who have a common ideology.

From a legal standpoint, that classification has no bearing - homicide is homicide; and a conspiracy to manufacture and use explosive devices is just that. From a military and law enforcement standpoint, classification is important to determine what systems we are confronting (e.g., the nodes of the network and which ones are most important).

Ranking threats on the basis of proximity to AQ is IMO a stretch, except as perhaps a necessity if resources are inadequate to cover all or most threats. This from the NPR article is desirable but not always feasible:

Finding The Connections

Sam Rascoff used to work the intelligence desk at the New York Police Department. He says that ranking plots based on how closely they are connected to al-Qaida or its affiliate groups is a good first step toward understanding them. But that's only the beginning.

"Part of what you do when you do counterterrorism is not to think about just this case, but the run of cases that are currently going on or may go on in the future," Rascoff says. Rascoff says law enforcement has to figure out why people in this country turn to violent jihad in the first place — and why the number of homegrown plots is growing at such an alarming rate.

My view (modifying Bruce Hoffman) is that one must also consider the possible threats that can be generated by small groups that are only loosely linked, or not at all to AQ. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols come to mind - one large bomb can kill 100s. And, groups the size of the Detroit and Boyd extremists could, by taking over a school or event Chechniya-style, could easily exceed that total with far more publicity.

The bright point in these cases is that people are informing. In "COIN" terms, we (USG) have not isolated ourselves from the people and they are doing what they as US citizens or resident aliens should be doing - turning on the bad guys.

I will also add my mantra: the best defense a people have against terrorists is not to be terrorised - and retribution is best savored eaten with cold anger.

Regards & thank you for the interesting (to me) links.

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMM in his comment referred to:

The bright point in these cases is that people are informing. In "COIN" terms, we (USG) have not isolated ourselves from the people and they are doing what they as US citizens or resident aliens should be doing - turning on the bad guys.

One point made by Bruce Hoffman in the Zazi case was that he moved from NYC to Denver, where purchasing supplies was far easier as NYPD had in place a robust reporting system - which acted as a deterrent. I'm not sure how much public involvement there has been.

In the UK there have been very few examples of public information on real plots; which has been commented upon in public statements. Northern Ireland was different, anecdote suggests for Republicans public information was not a significant factor and of greater use with Loyalists.

One of the few open source articles that provides some context for the role of the public is from Turkey:http://ccj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/142 (Behind a pay wall, although I have a copy)

In November 2003, a series of coordinated suicide bombings were carried out by
al-Qaeda in Istanbul. The targets represented Israel and the West, including two synagogues,
an HSBC bank, and the British consulate. The attacks resulted in 68 deaths and more than 700 injured. The investigation and arrests that ensued revealed that the network involved in the bombings had trained in Afghanistan. Of particular interest was the interpersonal web that grew from the four suicide bombers as well as the range of materials confiscated in the investigation. Specifically, nearly 300 people were identified who had some knowledge of the planned attack. Of these, 48 were viewed as hard-core committed terrorists, leaving approximately 250 community members who were not ideologically committed to al-Qaeda’s goals and who had some information that potentially could have been used in preventive action.

Chilling and possibly a reason why it is the only example in the public domain I know of.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

No doubt the US media will be reporting this, so just a couple of links: the BBC states:

A teenager has been arrested in the US state of Oregon after allegedly plotting to carry out a car bomb attack at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.

Somali-born Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested after reportedly making a telephone call he thought would set off the bomb in the centre of Portland.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11852953

The NYTimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us...HDt06ve78774Mg

Yet again a lone radicalised American comes to LE's attention, via email traffic to Pakistan and then the FBI befriend him ensuring the plot comes to naught. Two immediate points: his desire to launch an attack at home, not going to Somalia and a local target.

It will be interesting to see if there was any community or public involvement in alerting the authorities - parallel to email interception.

Mod's Note this post and the next two appeared in a separate thread and were merged on 6/12/10; partly as the episode illustrate aprt of the US CT approach at home.

[Kevin23]

No doubt the US media will be reporting this, so just a couple of links: the BBC states:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11852953

The NYTimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us...HDt06ve78774Mg

Yet again a lone radicalised American comes to LE's attention, via email traffic to Pakistan and then the FBI befriend him ensuring the plot comes to naught.
Two immediate points: his desire to launch an attack at home, not going to Somalia and a local target.

It will be interesting to see if there was any community or public involvement in alerting the authorities - parallel to email interception.

I read about this earlier and was actually going to post it.

However, I did realize this plot was as far along as actually attempting to complete the final stage of it, as I thought the "bomb" to detonated which caught this individual in question was another practice run?