Counterterrorism in the U.S.

Seeing footnote A in the CVE Task Force Reference Aid acts like the fine print with the devil in the details. It's interesting to note that there exists a government definition for domestic terrorism, and has extra punishments for it, yet didn't designate any organization as one nor have existant punishments independent of other crimes. It makes you wonder if the term "terrorism" really only applies to foreigners and can conflate those sentiments in an insidious xenophobic way. It is also curious that the footnote mentions domestic terrorism giving enhanced sentences connected to other crimes, meaning it can't be stood alone. I have a minor hunch that the number of attacks between 2000 and 2016 is too low and may be underreported, or there are more since 2016 considering the past year of racial tensions. The Asian American community has had an uptick in attacks since the pandemic started and been underreported for instance. Also being pushed and punched spontaneously sort of undermines the "not premeditated" part, so I wonder where bare-handed attacks rank. I also wonder how the social media trend for WSEs will go now that the private sector is finally taking steps to address this issue. That progress started off from Election season flagging Trump's and others' potential misinformation and disinformation, then escalating into account bans from the Capitol Hill riots. Going back to yesterday's document, they'll probably become even sneaker as "ghost skins". China and Kazakhstan also reflect a similar parallel with the US strategy of limiting communications with foreign extremists with the Internet, in which China suspects the Uighurs of doing so with those in Kazakhstan. This probably adds on to the use of social media being restricted for Uighurs to talk to their families and friends abroad.

I took a class last semester that was fully dedicated to the first amendment. Reading this reminded me of how fragile and confusing it is to draw a line between freedom of speech and speech that can cause harm. In the case of Dylan Roof, he voiced his opinions on social media which is a form of protected speech, so it would be unconstitutional to carry out an interrogation with him just based on his opinion. In his case he took action based on his words but becasue of the constitution I think that there would be controversial opinions on depriving him from his freedom of speech and expression.

Russia has also had a long history of racism and nationalism. In April, the US State Department declared the Russian Imperialist Movement, which is a white supremacist group, as a terrorist group. However, I do not believe that there has been as many fatal attacks as in the US, with discrimination of People of Color being the main expression of WSE.

I have previously done a lot of research on domestic terrorism in the U.S. Beyond the sheer number of WSE, I also think that comparing the ratio of WSE to other forms of extremism is important. A statistic I clearly remember is that since 9/11, nearly three-quarters all fatal violent extremist attacks in the U.S. were carried out by far-right wing extremists and the other quarter of attacks were by Islamist extremists (I can look up the citation if anyone is interested). WSE is the greatest domestic threat to the US, and I would be interested to see what plan the Biden Administration has to address it.

While this has little to do with my specialization of Chinese maritime policy but today's reading is very interesting. WSE is contrary to American values, and while any of these groups continue to do harm to some of the most vulnerable communities in the United States then no one is safe. Until the US is able to deal with the threat of WSE then anyone with these beliefs or sympathy should be held with contempt. Individuals with these beliefs are the same as any extremist, ignorant and need to have their beliefs challenged at all times. Isolation and pressure is what creates groups like this and in the social media age it is easier then ever to have someone connect themselves with these groups and enter the world of WSE.

Again we are confronted with the issue of individual rights and where they stand in relation to the lines followed in order to protect civilians. I was a bit surprised, though impressed, with how detailed some of the behavioral indicators provided in the document were. I feel, so long as we keep the application of these signs fair, this is a decently comprehensive piece. Though, as Daivd already mentioned with the WeChat example, the nature in which these criteria are applied and how we respond to that application is beyond critical.

Although it is important for us to use any means necessary to help prevent WSE's, it is important to note that we still need to protect our freedoms and theirs. We cannot breach their rights to privacy even if they are suspected of committing unlawful acts without going through the proper channels. It is unnerving to see that these WSEs are so geographically dispersed because it means that they can strike many different locations at any given time. Many people tend to forget that there are rights that people have. Even if they commit egregious crimes, we still need to make sure they see a fair trial, that they are treated correctly, and that their rights are protected. I do think this is a very serious issue for our country and it is one we cannot take lightly. We just need to make sure to uphold the rights of every citizen, no matter their beliefs.

Today's document does a good job of summarizing key facts about white supremacists in the US and examples of attacks. However, it only covers attacks up until 2016. I imagine this account would have even more detail if it covered cases from 2017 to the present.

Additionally, the behavioral indicators show how difficult catching and preventing WSE attacks can be. Many of the behaviors listed could be linked to a number of nefarious or illegal activities. The common denominator in all of them is establishing a link with white supremacist ideology and a desire to purse white supremacist goals. Unless certain individuals are actively being monitored, those connections might not be made until it is too late.

I found it interesting that DHS has a list of possible indicators that could predict WSE violence before it happens. While most of these are constitutionally protected, ticking several of these boxes could be an accurate indicator of future radicalization to violence.

China employs similar indicators to extremism within its borders, heavily monitored and censored on all forms of social media. Some of these I have stated in the past, such as the posting of Islamic prayers on WeChat. Although the CCP's actions against their Uyghur population are meant to combat terrorist ideologies, the parallels between American WSE and domestic terrorist extremism in Xinjiang are striking. There have been attacks by Uyghur extremists against minority group, the Han Chinese, in the Xinjiang province and China approaches the issue similar to how the US approaches WSE. Both of these issues are seen by their respective States as a domestic terrorist threat.

White supremacy really has no relevance to Eastern Asia, beyond maybe a marginal discussion of tourist conduct in those states, but this article's list of indicators of possible radicalization was an interesting read; made sense.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t tie this article with my field of specialization. However, I wanted to still express my thoughts while reading this piece. I think it’s pretty crazy how now, radical groups can use social media to get their point across to millions. In the past, the government didn’t have to deal with social media. I can’t imagine what the future holds and how extreme groups like this one will get through to people.

Such an interesting article. I found it disturbing knowing that white supremacist infiltration in law enforcement can cause damage and jeopradize the nation's safety. I find it interesting that religious terrorism is not longer the greatest threat to the United States when it was our only focus for many years. I believe white supremacists is on the rise especially during the recent U.S. capitol invasion. This is perfect for my specialty in counterterrorism and I have made a couple of postings that Domestic Terrorism is a threat to the United States.

Today's readings left me feeling like I had to take a sit and focus on relaxing most of the muscles in my back for 15 minutes or so. Many times when my family has asked me what I'll do with a degree in political science, I joke with them and say that I'm dedicating myself to questions I know I can't answer until I die. But, when it comes to the question of white supremacy groups in the U.S., this isn't a joke. I genuinely don't believe I'll ever have an adequate answer for what is to be done about white supremacy, other than hoping it fades with time, which pains me to imagine, as it seems like a criminally lazy way of approaching the question, in my eyes. The FBI document made mention of the paradox that the freedom of association we enjoy in the U.S. presents. I'm ambivalent towards continuing to ponder that aspect of the question at hand, as I'm struggling to find out how practically it can be applied or restricted in both the public and private sector. I liked that the FBI document made mention of the fact that the lack of corroborated accounts of infiltration could go either way, either effective cover up, or lack of infiltration. It's been a while since I read a political piece that I felt had as fair and comprehensive of a perspective as this one.

I found these articles quite interesting and while I do agree with what the articles are saying they do not touch as much on my specialization. If we look at the historical damage that white supremacists have done throughout the history of the United States then it far exceeds the damages done by any outside terrorist organization. The oldest terrorist organization within the United States are white supremacist organizations. This is somewhat counter to the People's Republic of China where many terrorist organizations are minority based.

In China there are considered Three Evils, terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. For the Han majority they do not need to commit terrorism based on racial lines or against other ethnic groups, as the PRC does that for them. With the deadliest terror attacks in modern China being mostly done by terrorist groups from western China, which is where many minority populations live. There will never be a Han Supremacist movement anytime soon in China, because the Han already agree they are above the other minorities of China.

I found this article to be very insightful and brought to my attention aspects of white supremacy I haven’t previously considered. Particularly, the infiltration of law enforcement by individuals on behalf of white supremist groups. Specifically, once these individuals infiltrate law enforcement, the information sharing is one I find to be the most concerning. Either by individuals who infiltrate law enforcement or already established law enforcement members who have ties to these organizations. Knowledge is power, and as we’ve seen, information sharing can be one of the most useful methods to counterterrorism or the most detrimental (information sharing amongst nations as one of the good practices in a previous article). I would definitely like to see an expansion on the intelligence gaps in the last section and to know the answers to some of the questions the FBI is trying to answer. Specifically, these two: “Are white supremacist groups engaging in systematic efforts to infiltrate law enforcement communities?” and

“To what extent are law enforcement communities operating in environments sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs that could potentially hinder investigations into criminal white supremacist activities?”

I don’t know much about the interviewing process to work in law enforcement but perhaps it would be useful to know any ties to political organizations etc. that might be viewed as a conflict of interest? I could see the hesitation with establishing and enforcing that, but with law enforcement being a government entity/extension of the government, would it not be relevant? Maybe, maybe not? I know the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits political activity by certain federal employees at the workplace (except for the president and vice president), but I wonder if something similar could be applied on the local levels or in some variation?? I wonder what steps have been taken in the last 14/15 years to prevent or combat this?

This was a really grim but eye-opening read. I was struck by how the infiltration of one single white supremacist can have a cascading effect. A white supremacist in law enforcement can provide intelligence, volunteer its resources, abuse authority, passively tolerate racism, provide access to restricted areas, and benefit other white supremacist groups. One bad actor can make colossal damage.

It is also interesting that this document is from 2006 and said that white supremacists have historically and will continue to attempt to infiltrate law enforcement. It made me wonder what actions have been taken in the last 14 years to try to combat this? Furthermore, I can't help but see some similarities between the recent storming of the Capitol and the Black Lives Matter movement that culminated over the summer.

Despite this document being published in 2006, this information is still crucial in understanding the insurrection at the Capitol. People actively apart of twitter, specifically "Black Twitter" made jokes about why this was allowed to occur, and on the whereabouts of law enforcement. Two viral responses to this were that "The protesters had to change into their work (police) uniforms later" and that you never see "Clark Kent and Superman in the same room." This document reflects this sentiment. I think their sentiment of white supremacists being a large threat is understandable. Because of their infiltration of government agencies, ability to hinder state capacity, and ability to blend in at all levels of American society, this demographic has the potential to do serious harm. While I'm not shocked at the findings, I'm surprised to see how this is still an ongoing issue in the government sector. It's important to comprehend the effect that this has on the workforce. If many government agencies have white supremacists in them, the vetting process will definitely be saturated with racial bias. I would even make the argument that this is a reason as to why many agencies lack diversity in higher positions.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

I think that the threat of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement is terrifying. There are always issues of racism when it comes to police. Seeing that white supremacists want to get into police forces is a very concerning sight. Being Jewish makes me extremely warry when it comes to seeing those that are anti-minority in positions of power. We do not want to see history repeat itself, there is a large threat that comes with having hateful people leading. It is good that the government recognizes this threat and is planning ways to take action against this very relevant issue. It will be interesting to see how they plan to weed out those people that have ties to hate groups.

While the topic of white supremacy is completely outside the context of my specialty, and claims of "greatest terror threat" a competition I don't want to get into, I still found the documents to be interesting reads. The part about being aware that an inward focus is necessary to guard a group against infiltration/subversion from existing elements within was good to see, and could be applied to virtually any group, even outside of counterterror applications.

Even though we have been talking a great deal about foreign terrorist threats, it is important not to export the ideas of extremism and racial supremacy. The same psychological processes can and have played out entirely within US borders.

This document does an efficient job of summarizing the risks and realities of White supremacists in law enforcement and the national security implications of these developments.

One line that stands out to me in particular is how infiltration can lead to "passive tolerance of racism within communities served." It is important to remember that white supremacy does not always have to be explicit as killing members of a minority community. Americans can be harmed by something as simple as law enforcement turning a blind eye to their mistreatment.

I took particular notice to how one group infiltrating law enforcement can benefit many other white supremacist groups. The sharinging of law enforcement intelligence regarding operations/ actions against white supremacist groups can be ascertained by a single infiltrator and then distributed to other supremacist groups. This presents a big problem for law enforcement, as their operations against these groups can be thwarted from within the community. Currently, these groups are individual factions with no cohesive authority governing their actions. If these groups resolve its factionalism and unite under a single cause, the threat of infiltration will only continue to rise. A single, nationwide supremacist group would have greater capacity to coordinate its efforts to infiltrate law enforcement.

Another point of concern is not specific members infiltrating law enforcement, but sympathizers already within the law enforcement community that can aid and abed supremacist groups. The document highlights that US domestic policy debates can create hostility among law enforcement and cause them to volunteer intelligence/ support for white supremacist groups they sympathize with. The immigration debate was one issue of concern, as some in law enforcement wish to see reduced immigration; believing it would reduce crime in a parallel manner.

One intelligence gap in the document that is of primary concern is to what extent white supremacists have already infiltrated the law enforcement community. Until the FBI can discover the extent of the infiltration/ sympathizers within the broader law enforcement community, we will not know how big of a threat this causes.