From the NYT: Bombing Case Points to Gaps in Trump’s and Clinton’s Antiterrorism Plans

- Click here for the article.

There is nothing in Donald J. Trump’s or Hillary Clinton’s antiterrorism plans that would have had much chance of stopping the bombings in New York and New Jersey that Ahmad Khan Rahami is accused of carrying out.

The subject of how to prevent terrorism will almost certainly be a major topic on Monday night, when the two presidential candidates face off in their first debate. But the truth is that cases like Mr. Rahami’s fit neatly into no categories.

And his journey from childhood immigrant to naturalized citizen to accused terrorist shows that the debate now underway on the campaign trail is too simplistic. It fails to address the hardest and most common cause of radicalization in the United States, when personal demons morph into ideologically driven violence.

Mr. Rahami came to the United States from Afghanistan as a 7-year-old, and later became a citizen. Mr. Trump’s insistence in recent days that he has no problem with ethnic profiling might have led to tougher interrogations of Mr. Rahami when he traveled to Quetta, Pakistan, the center of Taliban power, and returned, or when he came back from there with a Pakistani wife.

The strongest indication of his leanings came in 2014 when the local police and the F.B.I. investigated Mr. Rahami’s father’s claim that his son was a terrorist. But finding no evidence, the authorities did not act. Since Mr. Rahami is an American citizen, the only way he could have been locked up without being charged was with a detention system similar to the way Japanese-Americans were placed in Japanese “internment camps” during World War II.

That was a technique, Mr. Trump told Time magazine in December, that he might or might not have supported at the time. He added that as undesirable as it would be to revive such an arrangement, in an age of terrorism, “war is tough.”

Mrs. Clinton’s approach would be to rely on countermessaging to prevent radicalization and to try to recognize early signs of extremism. But no one seems quite certain how Mr. Rahami was radicalized — on the internet, during trips to Pakistan or perhaps by his new wife. And Mrs. Clinton’s approach, even its advocates acknowledge, is no guarantee — it tries to stem the tide, rather than reverse it.

Mr. Trump, in short, has described a policy of keeping potential terrorists out of the country altogether, even if that means suspending or violating America’s longstanding principles of taking in refugees and not discriminating against immigrants on the basis of their religion. Mrs. Clinton, in contrast, has argued for the vetting of immigrants — about their history or sympathy for radical ideology — but working to counter extremists messages or behavior.

From the NYT: House Passes Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia; White House Hints at Veto

Great checking and balancing going on here. Congress is expanding the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the president is promising to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override it. Shows the control the general public has over the House - its tough to vote against this sort of thing just prior to the anniversary of 9/11, Even though it it may not be the wisest thing to do. Critics worry about nations allowing their citizens to sue the US in their courts.

- Click here for the article.

Here;s a chunk of it:

The bill “is a politically cost-free way for Congress to send a signal of seeming seriousness about terrorism on the dawn of the 15th anniversary of 9/11,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. “Congress itself could have investigated lingering questions about 9/11, but instead is delegating those tasks to the unelected judiciary. The costs of the law will be borne by courts, which are an awkward place to ascertain Saudi responsibility for 9/11, and especially the president, who will have to deal with the diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia and other nations.”

The bill addresses a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. It amends the law to allow for nations to be sued in federal courts if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on home soil. It also allows Americans to direct financial claims against those who funded the attacks.

The administration has argued that it would put Americans at legal risk overseas. That position seemed at least somewhat validated when Pierre Lellouche, a member of the French Parliament who is chairman of the rough equivalent in France of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would pursue legislation that would permit French citizens to sue the United States with cause.

"I have sympathy with the notion of hitting those countries which actively support terrorism,” Mr. Lellouche said Friday. But the American bill “will cause a legal revolution in international law with major political consequences.”

From the Washington Post: Trump and Clinton and their very different responses to the Orlando shootings

The issues that impact elections can change on a dime.

- click here for the article.

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s first tweet Sunday morning was a fairly measured comment about the deadly mass shooting in an Orlando gay nightclub. “Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.”

His second tweet, an hour and a half later, was a return to campaign trail politics — an attempt to falsely recast a verbal attack he made against a disabled journalist.

Then came another, more sympathetic tweet about the Orlando tragedy, followed by one in which he took credit for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” And then Trump went fully on the attack, saying, “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

Trump’s approach to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history posed a sharp contrast to the conventional one of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. She first tweeted a note of concern for the victims; hours later, she issued a statement that sought to address the main issues that the tragedy touched on — terrorism, gay rights and gun control.

The disparity between the two encapsulates the choice facing voters this fall: Do they see Trump’s bombast as the solution to a dangerous world, or do they find comfort in Clinton’s more familiar manner?

Security trumps Civil Liberties

I guess there's no better verb to use.

This part of an occasional series looking at how the general public handles this seemingly inevitable trade-off between freedom and security. Little surprise that during times of crisis people are willing to yield on civil liberties like free speech and press, and procedural freedoms against unreasonable search and seizures and self incrimination.

Given that there have been no large scale attacks sustained in the nation in some time, and ISIS has been out of the news for a while, it's worth figuring out what's driving this attitude. Language used on the campaign trail is a likely suspect.

- Views of Government’s Handling of Terrorism Fall to Post-9/11 Low.

Concern over government restrictions on civil liberties has fallen dramatically since July 2013, following Edward Snowden’s leaked details about NSA surveillance programs. At that time, more expressed concern that government policies had gone too far restricting civil liberties (47%) than that they did not go far enough to protect the country (35%).

The share expressing greater concern that policies do not go far enough to protect the country is now roughly the same as the historical high seen in early 2010, shortly after the failed Christmas-Day terrorist attack on an airliner en route to Detroit (when 58% said policies did not go far enough).

Both Republicans and Democrats have become more likely to say that the government’s anti-terrorism policies do not go far enough to protect the country (rather than that they have gone too far restricting civil liberties) since Snowden’s disclosures in 2013. But the shift has been more pronounced among Republicans. Slightly more than seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) now say their greater concern is that anti-terrorism policies do not go far enough, up 14 points since January (57%) and 33 points since July 2013 (38%).

How have the Paris attacks impacted public opinion on terrorism?

I'll elaborate later.




- Gallup Poll: Gallup Review: U.S. Public Opinion on Terrorism.
- Texas Tribune: UT/TT Poll: Texans Say Immigration, Terror Are Greatest Threats to U.S.

From the NYT: In Presidential Campaign, It’s Now Terrorism, Not Taxes

The Paris attacks have influence the presidential race.

- Click here for the story.

Bernie Sanders dispensed with the threat from the Islamic State in two sentences at the start of the Democratic debate before abruptly pivoting to the dangers of a “rigged economy.” Ben Carsonstruggled to answer a simple question on Sunday about how he would form a coalition to fight the militant group. And Marco Rubio, after pushing out a new video about the “clash of civilizations,” revamped his plans for an important Monday appearance before a group of executives on the assumption that terrorism, not tax rates, would be their most pressing concern.

The assault on Paris has thrust national security to the heart of the presidential race, forcing candidates to scramble and possibly prompting voters to reconsider their flirtations with unconventional candidates and to take a more sober measure of who is prepared to serve as commander in chief.

Until now, the campaign, when it did not descend into insult comedy on Twitter or become mired in biographical disputes, was focused on a subtler sort of threat to the country’s way of life: economic and racial inequality, for Democrats, and a less-defined fury about a loss of America’s identity, for Republicans. But the bloodshed in the heart of Paris posed concrete questions about how the contenders would respond to an urgent and seemingly metastasizing threat.

For more:

- Republican Candidates Urge Aggressive Response After Paris Attacks NOV. 14, 2015

Could the Boston Tea Party be considered an act of terrorism by the British?

This appears to be one of the questions that set off the opponents of CSCOPE and led them to believe that the curriculum is fraught with political bias.

Here's a related clip from a news source covering the debate:

Criticism intensified when parents discovered a lesson plan used in previous incarnations of CSCOPE that asked students to consider whether participants in the Boston Tea Party could be considered terrorists in some contexts by the British. Another sample lesson asked students to design a flag for a new socialist country. Some critics also suggested that lessons on the world’s major religions contained too much material on Islam.

Patrick opened Saturday’s debate arguing that studies showed that students in school districts that use CSCOPE performed worse on state standardized tests that those who didn’t. However, he acknowledged that his source was a survey conducted by a ninth-grade business class.

When the debate shifted to the question of bias, Ratliff referred to the Boston Tea Party lesson, saying: “The lesson does not say the Boston Tea party members were terrorists. It does not say it.”

Patrick shot back: “Do you think it’s a good idea to plant the seed (of terrorism) in the mind of high school students?” When Ratliff tried to answer about international perspectives, hecklers shouted: “This is America! You’re American!”

“Read it for yourself and see if you become a terrorist overnight,” Ratliff responded.

In a story last year, the Huntington Post hunted down the assignment, which has since been changed. It asked student to comment on a news story and whether the event covered met the definitions of terrorism:

News report: New Act of Terrorism A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

Its actually a question historians have asked before, so there's nothing new about it:

Here's the simple definition of terrorism from Websters: 

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

And a description of the event from about.com: 

On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, a loosely knit secret organization of American colonists in favor of American independence, illegally boarded three British East India cargo ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the harbor, rather than let the tea be landed. Today, as some have argued, this protest might be considered an act of terrorism, since it was property sabotage designed to bring to wide attention the political objectives of a non-state group, the American colonists. The event is considered one of the catalysts of the American revolution.

Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the Boston Tea Party.

So the question seems to be whether property sabotage is an act of violence that tries to achieve a political goal. The goal was in fact to provoke the British to do something extreme, which it did by passing the Coercive Acts, which included shutting down trade. This hit the merchants in the pocket and drove them to stop waffling on independence and start supporting it.

So it did have its intended political consequence, though no lives were lost - maybe that does not make it terrorism in the minds of some.

Its worth trying to dig into what drives this dispute - aside from pure politics of course.

Damage Control

The Obama Administration tries to contain three separate scandals with three separate actions yesterday

1 - Benghazi emails were released.
2 - The internim IRS commissioner was fired.
3 -  Media Shield laws were proposed.

We'll try to determine their effectiveness soon.

And since Obama is interested, James Carville offered unsolicited advice on how to address them.

Don’t let opponents lump all three issues into one, big scandal.

“They’re not related,” said Carville on MSNBC Thursday. Benghazi is “a scam, it’s not a scandal. Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen have already thoroughly investigated this.”

The IRS controversy is another matter, he said, one with “legitimate questions.”

“I think the president needs to get ahead of it,” advised Carville. “Probably put a new person in there, find out what happened, and report to the American people.”

President Obama on Thursday appointed Daniel Werfel as acting-IRS commissioner, after requesting and accepting Steven Miller’s resignation Wednesday. In a press release, Obama said that Werfel “has the experience and management ability necessary to lead the agency at this important time.”

As for the AP probe, Carville rejected Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s assertion that the sweeping subpoena of journalists’ phone records represented a White House “culture of intimidation.”

“It was an overly broad subpoena that was given power by a political appointee,” said Carville. “I have no idea what Sen. Rubio actually is talking about.”

Above all, Carville recommended keeping this week’s finger-pointing and inflammatory rhetoric in perspective and under control.

“Remember that the earth is warm, that the economy is growing, that the deficit is shrinking, that the healthcare costs are flattening out, that Benghazi was nothing,” he said.

From the American Prospect: Benghazi Was Neither a Terrorist Attack Nor an Act of Terror

Apparently, "terrorism" has a specific legal meaning and the attack on Benghazi does not fit that definition:

. . . Many awful things are not terrorism. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. Jeffrey Dahmer's murders weren't terrorism. Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is something quite specific: the intentional killing of civilians in order to achieve a political end. It's the "civilian" part that makes it terrorism and not something else. . . .

As it happens, there's a nice succinct definition of terrorism in U.S. law, section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code, which reads, "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target.

 

Terrorism 2002-2005

This internal report from the FBI might be of interest to some students.

Terrorism 2002-2005.

Its provides definitions of terrorism, and a look at terrorist activities. Here's it's definition of terrorism:

Definitions 

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). 
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

• Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

• International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

Busy night apparently

The Dish has complied a variety of posts on Twitter that followed last night drama in Massachusetts.

- #MITShooting.

Apart from the bombing itself, the big news will likely be the role social media - and the proliferation of smart phones - has played in breaking this case.
- Reddit: Find Boston Bombers.

NPR commented that the 1996 bombing at the Atlanta Olympics would have been solved much more quickly if a similar amount of images had been available at the time.

By the way - I find it troubling that two guys can effectively shut down a city.

What is "terrorism?"

Was yesterday's bombing an act of terrorism, or a criminal act? What's the difference? Is it significant?

It took a little while for the Obama Administration to decide to use the term

From the Washington Post:

The word, and whether President Obama used it quickly enough or correctly, became a political issue in last year’s campaign.

But Obama and his staff still appear to be puzzling over when — and how — to call an attack a “terrorist” act and when to wait for a clear determination of the motives behind one.

Hours after the Boston Marathon bombing, Obama appeared in the Brady briefing room to assure the nation that whoever carried it out would “feel the full weight of justice.”

He did not characterize the attack as terrorism, advising instead that the public “shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts.” It was the caution of a president who once snapped at a reporter during a news conference, “I like to know the facts before I speak.”

Not long after Obama’s appearance, though, a senior White House official e-mailed reporters to make clear that the Boston bombings “will be approached as an act of terror.”

The official said the multiple explosive devices placed at the marathon finish line were telltale signs of deliberate terrorism. On Tuesday morning, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the Boston strike “ a cruel act of terror.”

A senior administration official said Tuesday that “based on all the available evidence at the time, it was a very reasonable assumption that this was an act of terror.”

But White House officials said the evidence must be definitive for the president to use the term when speaking to a national television audience in the midst of a crisis. The flexibility available to White

House officials, though, allowed the administration to clarify what they didn’t feel Obama should — that the attack was assumed to be terrorism and that the government would operate its investigation under that assumption.

Obama spoke Tuesday morning on the attack, calling it “heinous and cowardly.”

“Given what we now know of what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism,” Obama said.

The “terrorism” term has been used subjectively for years, not only in the post-9/11 era but in conflict zones around the globe. Labeling a group or a state as “terrorist” has legal implications within the U.S. government, and for companies who may be doing business with those so classified.

But in the American political debate, the word has also become a rhetorical measure of how committed a politician is to combatting extremism.

For a president who has made repairing U.S. relations with the Muslim world a priority, Obama has sought to use the term as precisely as possible over the years — while avoiding the criticism that arises when an act, group or person is not labeled a “terrorist” soon enough

Office of Legal Counsel wrote secret memo justifying killing Awlaki

As we continue discussing the executive branch in 2302, the NYT has a story about an important office within the Justice Department - the Office of Legal Counsel - that has apparently written an internal secret memo justifying not only the recent killing of Awlaki, but any other American citizen engaged in terrorist activities against the US:

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed, does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.

The administration did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

The deliberations to craft the memo included meetings in the White House Situation Room involving top lawyers for the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and intelligence agencies.

It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman, who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, and was signed by Mr. Barron. The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.

Update: More claims that Obama has simply picked up where Bush left off.

From Andrew Sullivan: Did Osama Win?

This is bound to be controversial, but it's worth debating:

. . . it took me close to a decade to realize just how slickly Osama bin Laden had done his evil work, how insidiously his despicable performance art had reached into my mind and altered it, how carefully he had set the trap and how guilelessly I—we—had walked right into it.

We need to understand that 9/11 worked. It worked as a tactic to induce American self-destruction, even if it failed spectacularly as a strategy to advance Al Qaeda—and its heretical message of suicidal warfare—across the globe. It worked because this was not just another terror attack.. . .

NYT: "F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds"

The New York Times reports on the latest stage of the ongoing conflict between security and civil liberties in the age of terror:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.



Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had carefully considered each change to its operations manual. The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The story states that agents may take "proactive" steps against individuals and organization who they deem likely to act against the US.

The directives are contained in the FBI's new operations manual.

Who Was Osama Bin Laden?

Apparently not every knows.

While it is tempting - and perhaps reasonable - to blame this on public ignorance, it also illustrates public short terms memory, and the fact that time marches on. Younger generations that do not live through certain historical episodes tend to not have the same level of awareness of them as those that did.

This one of the reasons why opinions change, as we discussed in 2301. People don't change their minds, but they do grow old, die and are buried with their opinions. Younger generations often to not share the attitudes of their elders - for better or worse.

- Omigod, Who Is Osama Bin Whatevs?

Regarding Osama

For various comments and links regarding the killing of Osama Bin Laden this link to Andrew Sullivan's site should suffice: Live-Blogging: The Arc Of Justice.

And the obligatory political consideration: How does this affect the 2012 race?

Law Enforcement Seeks Expanded Surveillance Powers

From the NYT:

Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.



The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.



An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.

- Wikipedia: Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act.

The Director of National Intelligence Resigns

Story here.

Commentators argued that the position, designed after 9-11 to coordinate the 16 agencies which gather intelligence, has no real power and needs to be redesigned. Some argue that the position should be eliminated and the CIA Director should serve as coordinator of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

- Wikipedia.
- Times Topics: U.S. Intelligence Community.
- Times Topics: Dennis C. Blair.

The Future of Miranda Warnings

The recent arrest of the Times Square bomber has led some, and possibly even the Obama Administration, to call for limits to Miranda Warnings. Constitutional tests to the warnings are nothing new, and given the conservative slant of the court it is worth wondering how secure the warnings are. History tells us that in times of threat, civil liberties take a hit.

For my 2301s, this fits into our discussion of the constitution, as a document that defines and limits governmental power, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and how the Supreme Court defines constitutional language.

Links:
- Miranda Warnings.
- Miranda v. Arizona.
- Right Against Self Incrimination.
- Fifth Amendment.
- Due Process.
- Warren Court.
- Dickerson v. U.S.
- The Origins of the Public Safety Exception to Miranda Warnings.