harvard model congress san francisco 2015 domestic terrorism

HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
By Nicholas Mendez and Jimmy Biblarz
INTRODUCTION
In post-9/11 America, the threat of terrorist attacks originating from
outside of the United States has dominated the concerns of US
counterterrorism officials. Anti-American rhetoric, the volatile situation in
the Middle East, ongoing clashes in Ukraine, as well as in Asia, represent
significant threats to US policymakers. However, since the turn of the
millennium, domestic terrorist attacks pose a threat just as severe to the
safety and livelihood of American citizens as international attacks.
While US officials have been largely successful with thwarting
international terrorist attacks since 9/11, their efforts within the US at
preventing domestic attacks have been less fruitful. Domestic terrorists,
defined as “people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw
inspiration from US-based extremist ideologies and movements,” have not
received as much attention from federal law enforcement as terrorists
abroad. While foreign extremist plots and attacks garner significantly more
media attention than domestic ones, the efficacy of domestic attacks is
undisputed. The April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh claimed 168 lives, and
injured more than 500 others, representing the second deadliest attack on
US soil. More recently, the April 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings struck
deadly chaos in a city not normally a prime target for terror attacks.
And behind these “lone wolf” actors (a term which will be explained
later in this briefing), larger and more dangerous organizations exist on the
periphery of American society. Ranging from right-wing white supremacist
groups with origins in the Civil War to radical eco-terrorist groups and
animal rights activists, these domestic terror organizations represent just as
dangerous of a threat to national security as those abroad. Therefore,
proper legislation must be implemented to ensure the continued safety of
American citizens.
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM
Historical Background
Since the inception of the United States of America, domestic terrorism
has been a constant threat. One could even argue that the Revolutionary
War was an act of terrorism. A rogue group of political extremists
employing irregular units and tactics, including the destruction of private
property, in their fight against an occupying force could easily have
committed what we might now label as terrorist attacks. Through the eyes of
the British occupiers, the Patriots could be considered the first domestic
American terrorists.
During the Civil War, guerrilla warfare was commonplace in both the
North and the South, as irregular militias and fighting groups formed and
terrorized the countryside, mostly in the Border States of Missouri,
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. These groups, loosely affiliated with
the Union or the Confederacy, would wreak havoc on civilian populations
to settle grudges and exert control. Additionally, the strategy of scorched
earth practiced by military generals such as William T. Sherman in his
March to the Sea could be considered an act of terrorism for its wanton
destruction of civilian property and infrastructure.
Yet not all types of domestic terrorism occurring in the United States
have been perpetrated by quasi-military actors. The 1920 Wall Street
Bombing in New York City killed 38, wounded 143, and caused over $2
million in property damage (approx. $23 million when adjusting for
inflation). Italian Anarchists, who had previously conducted a series of
bombings targeting prominent politicians and businessmen across the
United States, are believed to be responsible for the attack.
th
Domestic Terrorism in the 20 Century
Following the events of World War II, domestic terrorism carried out
by groups, gangs, and movements gained a higher profile in the American
public. The rise of religious evangelism, the heyday of the Civil Rights
Movement, the Vietnam War, and the resulting increasingly polarized
political landscape created a fertile ground for extremist groups to operate.
In fact, for most of the post-World War II era, most Americans considered
“terrorism” as only domestic terrorism, associating terrorist organizations
with those fighting against the Vietnam War. The most prominent of these
organizations was a radical faction of the Students for a Democratic Society,
known as the Weather Underground, which conducted a string of
bombings, arson attacks, and robberies throughout the 1970s.
In addition to the rise of extremist groups, the latter half of the 20
century also saw the rise of individuals, or small groups of people that plot
and carry out terrorist attacks independent of larger organizations, known as
“Lone Wolf” actors. Fueled by prejudice and radical beliefs, lone wolf
th
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
2
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
actors pose a significant threat to the thwarting of terrorist attacks as they are
difficult to identify prior to their actions. Between 1978 and 1995,
Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, carried out a mail
bombing campaign in support of his radical anti-industrial beliefs. Between
1996 and 1998, Eric Robert Rudolph bombed a series of abortion clinics,
gay nightclubs, and even the 1996 Atlanta Olympics in furtherance of his
radical religious beliefs. The most visible of all lone wolf actors in the 20
century was Timothy McVeigh, discussed above, who bombed the
Oklahoma City federal building in response to the federal government’s
actions in Waco, as well as their handling of the Branch Davidian siege.
Though eclipsed in more recent memory by the events of 9/11, the
Oklahoma City bombings are regarded as one of the most significant
terrorist events occurring in the 20 century.
th
th
Homegrown Terrorism
It is important, when considering the topic of domestic terrorism to
understand the nature of homegrown terrorism, and how it differs from
domestic terrorism. The difference between homegrown and domestic
terrorism is not clearly defined, and thus part of the role of this committee
might be to establish more specific definitions or procedures for
distinguishing between the two.
In general, domestic terrorist acts are those committed by American
citizens on American soil to protest specific actions of the US government.
The reasons or motivations for domestic terrorism are varied, as mentioned
above, and the actors carrying out the attacks are not limited to a certain
demographic, and range in age, race, socioeconomic class, national origin,
gender, etc. Alternatively, homegrown terrorists is not constrained to
American soil unlike domestic terrorists, who operate either as lone wolves
in furtherance of their own agenda, or as members of a larger domestic
terrorist organization, such as the Weather Underground. Homegrown
terrorists typically work in collusion with external terrorist organizations
operating overseas. These types of organizations have ranged from al Qaeda
to the Irish Republican Army. Typically, homegrown terrorists spend
considerable time in the US, many their entire lives, and operate as
domestic cells of these external organizations. These individuals may be US
citizens, or may have immigrated from overseas.
In more recent years, classifying these homegrown terrorists usually falls
along religious lines, and has more specifically pertained to the operations
of radical Islamic extremists. This classification scheme is highly
controversial, as is the unclear divide between the two types of terrorism.
Organizations such as the FBI, the CIA, and local antiterrorism authorities,
use varying definitions of the separation between these two branches of
terrorism, and thus their operations often overlap, creating inefficiencies
and sometimes criminal breaches of justice. The most important and
relevant reason for establishing a distinction is in terms of law enforcement
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
3
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
procedures following apprehension of citizens. As it stands, domestic
terrorists are US citizens, and therefore entitled to the rights and privileges
guaranteed by the Constitution and the US legal code, including the right to
counsel and due process by law. The right to counsel (a lawyer) is
guaranteed to all American citizens, even if they cannot afford one, by the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, while due process refers to
the idea that all Americans, regardless of the crime for which they are
charged, have the right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and that all
involved with the proceedings have followed the law. This relates, especially
to police processes in gathering evidence, the attainment of proper warrants,
and other protected rights.
Homegrown terrorists, on the other hand, while sometimes US citizens,
are usually acting as proxy operators of larger, international organizations,
and thus their status is sometimes blurred in the eyes of the law. If they are
not US citizens, or sometimes even if they are, the American public and
political leaders are more likely to forgive violations of due process,
suspension of habeas corpus rights, and other extra-legal actions when
dealing with the aftermath of homegrown terrorism. The writ of habeas
corpus refers to the rights individuals have in the judicial system to hear the
reasons for why they are being charged.
While this distinction might seem arbitrary in the larger context of
terrorism, the separation between the two is necessary for US law
enforcement and the federal government in crafting response practices and
strategies. Additionally, the distinction is helpful for the American public,
and the media, to differentiate between the more recent “War on Terror,”
and the longer-term threats posed by domestic terrorism, which has had
presence in American history since the birth of the nation. As it stands,
there is one section of the United States legal code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter
113B, ß 2331, which provides a definition of the term “domestic terrorism”
as referring to activities that:
• Involve acts dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal
laws of the US or of any State;
• Appear to be intended—to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
• To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
appear to be intended—to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
• To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.
st
However with the changing threat landscape of the 21 century, it is highly
likely that these definitions are in need of updating to remain relevant and
useful.
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
4
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Radicalization
While differences emerge between domestic terrorists and homegrown
terrorists, the common theme amongst all cases is their radical beliefs
surrounding certain issues. Often, in the hunt to identify domestic and
homegrown terrorists, law enforcement officers start their investigations with
radical groups across the United States. Often these groups, such as
Greenpeace, the Students for a Democratic Society, or the Hell’s Angels
motorcycle gang, have legitimate, nonviolent functions that comprise the
majority of their operations. However, many are closely monitored by law
enforcement, such as the FBI, as they might represent possible incubators
for more violent actors. While there are no hard and fast rules for
determining the reasons an individual might become radicalized, law
enforcement uses a system of profiling based on certain general
characteristics including: gender, ethnicity, age, level of Education,
socioeconomic status, and political beliefs.
However, as demonstrated by terrorist attacks in the recent decades, this
system is extremely imprecise, and impractical in its usage for identifying
potential terrorists. As well, action undertaken by law enforcement and
intelligence gathering agencies employing this method of profiling often
impinges on the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. As the US
moves further into the post-9/11 era, it will be increasingly important to
develop a new set of standards and best practices for addressing domestic
terrorism that are independent of those formulated for addressing radical
extremism from overseas.
Notable Individuals and Organizations
Anwar Al-Awlaki
Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who became a major leader
in al-Qaeda. He was involved in the planning of terrorist attacks against the
United States. His official position was that of a talent recruiter for al
Qaeda. Al-Awlaki moved to Yemen, and in 2010, President Obama put AlAwlaki on the permission-to-kill list of enemies of the United States. AlAwlaki was killed in 2010. His death was undoubtedly a blow to al-Qaeda,
but still prompted important questions for American citizens to answer
because al-Awlaki was an American citizen. One issue that the CIA will
have to confront is deciding what the appropriate guidelines are to kill an
American citizen without a trial, as in the case of al-Awlaki.
Animal Rights Groups
Animal Liberation Front
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
5
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is a domestic, underground,
leaderless resistance group that engages in illegal direct action in pursuit of
animal liberation. Activists see themselves as part of a modern-day
Underground Railroad, removing animals from laboratories and farms,
destroying facilities, and arranging safe houses and veterinary care. Many
critics have labeled them terrorists, though the organization has vehemently
denied such a characterization. Active in over 40 states, ALF cells operate
via small groups of friends, and sometimes just one person, which makes
the movement difficult for authorities to monitor. Activists affirm that the
ALF is non-violent. According to its code, any act that furthers the cause of
animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions are taken not to harm
human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action. There has
been dissent within the animal rights movement itself about the ALF’s use
of violence and increasing attention from the police and intelligence
communities. In 2002, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which
monitors extremism in the US, noted that ALF’s involvement in the Stop
Hunting and Animal Cruelty campaign has caused property damage. On
their official website, the North American wing of the ALF has publicized
actions carried out by its affiliates ranging from the sabotage of mobile cattle
slaughter units (which aid in the butchering of cattle for meat), to the
creation of multiple “How To” guides instructing individuals wishing to raid
fur farms. Their rhetoric is military in nature, advocating actions such as
arson in furtherance of their agenda. The Stop Hunting and Cruelty
Campaign is an ongoing, coordinated international effort to prevent animal
abuse and promote animal rights and welfare in the western world. In 2005,
the ALF was included in a US Department of Homeland Security planning
document listing a number of domestic terrorist threats on which the US
government expected to focus resources.
Religious Groups
Army of God/Anti-abortion Violence
Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and
organizations that provide abortions. Incidents of violence have included
destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people,
including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and
crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings.
Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the US, where
violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people,
including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic
escort in the last ten years. According to statistics since 1977, in the US and
Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153
incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against
abortion providers. One of the leading groups in anti-abortion violence is
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
6
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Army of God, a Christian terrorist anti-abortion organization that sanctions
the use of force to combat abortion.
Racial Groups
Aryan Nations
Aryan Nations is a white supremacist religious organization originally
based in Hayden Lake, Idaho. Richard Girt Butler founded the group in
the 1970s as an arm of the Christian identity organization called the
Church of Jesus Christ. The origin of Aryan Nations is in the teachings of
Wesley Swift, a significant figure in the early Christian Identity movement.
The Christian identity movement was a sub-group of churches in the
American Christian community that espoused a white supremacist
ideological theology. Most mainstream Christian groups thought the religious
merits of this program highly suspect. Swift combined extreme anti-Semitism
and political militancy in his ideology.
He founded his own church in California in the mid-1940s, and he had a
daily radio broadcast in California during the 1950s and 1960s. In 1957, the
name of his church was changed to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is used
today by Aryan Nations churches. The group became notorious in
September of 2000, when the Southern Poverty Law Center won a $6.3
million judgment against Aryan Nations. The courts awarded punitive and
compensatory damages to a woman and her son who were beaten with rifles
by drunken Aryan Nations security guards in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho in July
1998. The woman and her son were driving near the Aryan Nations
compound when their car backfired, which the guards claimed to
misinterpret as gunfire. The guards fired at the car, striking it several times,
leading the car to crash, after which one of the Aryan Nations guards held the
family at gunpoint. In the summer of 2004 the Aryan Nations moved to
Sebring, Florida.
Ku Klux Klan
The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of three distinct past and present
far right organizations in the US that have advocated extremist reactionary
ideologies such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti immigration,
historically expressed through terrorism. The KKK is and has been arguably
the most active domestic terrorist organization in US history. Since the mid20 century, the KKK has also been anti-Communist. It is classified as a hate
group and is estimated to have between 3,000 and 5,000 members as of
2012. A hate group is differentiated from a terrorist group is that while a hate
group may espouse hateful words or ideologies, they do not have a history of
engaging in violent, anti-government actions. Some groups, like the Westboro
Baptist Church, an extremely right-wing Christian sect, is considered a
terrorist group by some and a hate group by others, evidence that the lines
th
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
7
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
between these two terms is often unclear. The modern KKK is not one
organization; rather it is composed of small, independent chapters across the
US. The formation of independent chapters has made KKK groups more
difficult to infiltrate, and researchers find it difficult to gauge their numbers.
Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the
Southern US, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest.
Klan splinter divisions grew substantially after the 2008 election of President
Barack Obama. The Klan has expanded its recruitment effort to white
supremacists at the international level. However, overall, the Klan's numbers
are steadily dropping. This decline has been attributed to the Klan's lack of
competence in the use of the Internet, their history of violence, a
proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of
young, racist activists who are willing to join groups at all. Recent membership
campaigns have been based on issues such as people’s anxieties about illegal
immigration, urban crime and same-sex marriage. Many KKK groups have
formed strong alliances with other white supremacist groups, such as neoNazis. Some KKK groups have become increasingly “Nazified,” adopting the
look and emblems of white power skinheads.
Black Liberation Army
The Black Liberation Army (BLA) is an underground, black nationalistMarxist militant organization that operated from 1970 to1981 and gained
strength from its members largely made up of former Black Panthers. This
organization followed the Black Power movement whose mission was for
“liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States”
(MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base). Their goals stemmed from Marx’s
theory that people are economically and socially tied to the hierarchical class
system to which they are born and the BLA sought to abolish this system and
seek freedom for workers, minorities, women, and therefore all people. The
Black Liberation Army fought for freedom through both violent and
nonviolent means; however they are most known for their militant actions
and performed over 60 violent acts from 1970 to 1976. These acts ranged
from bombings to shootings and even plane hijackings.
Environmental Organizations
Earth Liberation Front
Also known as “the Elves,” the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) engages in
both individual and small covert cell operations. Their mission, according to
the ELF Press Office, is to use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to
stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.” ELF achieves these
goals through destroying the property of companies involved in polluting or
destroying of the earth. Sympathizers would suggest that the aim of these
destructive acts is to economically disencourage the corporate disrespect of the
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
8
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
earth by damaging corporation property. The Earth Liberation Front is
believed to have started in the United Kingdom in 1992, and in 2001 it was
designated one of the top domestic terrorism threats in the US by the FBI.
However, the group consists of a decentralized terrorist organization that has
self- funded supporters and cells spreading through at least 17 countries.
Recent Developments
Looking at the future security landscape of the United States in the
coming decades, the threat of domestic terrorist attacks within the United
States is real and urgent. Events such as the Boston Marathon bombings,
the mass shootings in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and Tucson, and
the continued uncovering of international plots employing US nationals as
actors remind us that more action must be done to prevent not only another
incident such as 9/11, but to address the hole in our strategy to prevent
further domestic terrorist attacks. While much action has been made since
the events of 9/11, it has been aimed at addressing a specific type of terrorist
threat posed by Islamic jihad movements overseas, and, as has been shown
above, has proven to be ineffective, imprecise, and sometimes even criminal
when applied to broader strategies of fighting terrorism.
Congressional Action
The revelations prompted by Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified
intelligence related to our counterterrorism and espionage efforts around
the globe has prompted heavy debate in Congress about the further nature
of our strategy of combatting terrorism whilst at the same time upholding
the values and rights laid forth in the Constitution. Perhaps the most
notable anti-terror act in the 21 century, the Uniting and
Strengthening Americay Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act, or USA PATRIOT Act, has dramatically
changed the nature of domestic intelligence gathering within the United
States, and has proved to be highly controversial in the debate surrounding
terrorism.
Additionally, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, the
Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies, or SAFETY,
Act of 2002, and the REAL ID Act of 2005 have all been passed into law
and seek to impose stricter penalties on perpetrators of terrorism, in
addition to authorizing better resources for its prevention.
st
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
9
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
FOCUS OF THE DEBATE
Conservative View
While the homegrown terrorism issue doesn’t immediately signal
ideological partisanship, the conservatives and Republican Party tend to be
more “hawkish,” or pro-war, pro-military/police than the liberals.
Conservatives are more likely to use whatever means necessary to
apprehend those suspected of crimes, as well as to engage in extra-legal
(torture, enhanced interrogation) mechanisms. They are less willing to cut
plea deals with criminals and are more likely to push for longer, more
punitive punishments. The conservatives are more likely to be sympathetic
with religious organizations and pro-life organizations than with progressive
ones; however, by no means do conservatives advocate terrorism in the
name of political views.
Liberal View
75 % of Americans said
in the wake of the
Boston bombings that
occasional acts of
terrorism will be part of
US life in the future.
- www.pewresearch.org
While neither side in the policy debate around terrorism advocates for
no action, in the United States, the Democratic Party is often perceived as
being “softer on terror.” While this may not be true, the accusations stem
from their historic wariness around engaging in pre-emptive military strikes
and their advocacy for military budget cuts. President Obama has faced
criticisms of this nature throughout his tenure as President, given his
decision to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and budget
proposal calling for reduced military spending. However, he has also
adopted a “kill-list” approach to counter-terrorism, attempting to isolate
individual terrorists to target with the hope of minimizing civilian casualties,
something he has received criticism from the left for.
In the case of homegrown terrorism, liberals are more likely to be
cautious in pursuing suspected criminals and are historically more inclined
to protected defendants’ rights than the conservatives. That said, in many of
these cases, local law enforcement and the FBI take jurisdiction, making the
issues relatively non-partisan. The liberal perspective also depends on which
group is engaging in the terrorist acts. While liberals may be more inclined
to be sympathetic with environmental and animal rights groups, they will
likely be more aggressive with nativist or homophobic organizations.
Interest Group Perspectives
The American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is an advocacy organization that
operates with the mission to “preserve the individual rights and liberties that
the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in
this country.” As such, they have been greatly concerned by the increased
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
10
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
amount of domestic surveillance taking place in the United States,
authorized by Executive Orders, and legislation such as the PATRIOT Act.
They advocate for reigning in the current domestic intelligencegathering apparatus for one, which is more respectful of the privacy and
rights of American citizens. They worry that the powerful, secret
surveillance tools possessed by intelligence officials will almost certainly be
abused for political ends.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation is a think tank that advocates, “Conservative
public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited
government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong
national defense.” They believe that more action must be taken to support
intelligence and law enforcement officials, and that Congress and the
Administration must increase information sharing and collective security
efforts with the goal of identifying and preventing future terrorist attacks.
They argue that the security provided by American legislation helps to
safeguard American liberty against foes abroad.
The RAND Corporation
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that “helps improve
policy and decision making through research and analysis.” Their research
with regards to domestic terrorism and surveillance has concluded that
there is a definite need for more action to be taken by the government to
develop new and better technology for intelligence gathering, whilst at the
same time ensuring that there are proper oversight and accountability
systems put into place in order to make sure they operate effectively.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
When is it Appropriate to Kill an American
Without a Trial?
Anwar Al-Awlaki
nnbd.com
Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American citizen when he was killed by the
American government. President Obama authorized the killing without
giving Al-Awlaki a proper trial. Whether or not the American government
has the authority to kill citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial is an
important issue that must be resolved.
One thing that the CIA might do is set up a rubric to evaluate situation.
The rubric might address the following: Whether the suspect is confirmed
to be collaborating with a known, violent terrorist organization; whether the
suspect is of a certain age; whether the suspect’s actions are sufficiently
worrying to merit the killing of the suspect instead of the issuance of an
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
11
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
arrest warrant or some other course of action. This is a particularly sensitive
topic given the recent rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has drawn several
American citizens and British citizens. It is very possible that America will
face a similar situation to Anwar Al-Awlaki in the near future.
Classifying Terrorist Organizations to Determine Actions
Just as the US has a hit list of worrisome terrorist individuals, the US
might also consider developing an official, congressional-approved list of
organizations that it considers worth policing more intensely. Things that
might go into this are the track record of the different organizations, the
location, the number of members and the mission of the organization.
Developing More Intense Tracking Methods of Individuals
Some of the most recent and heinous acts of terrorism have been
conducted by individuals who have psychiatric conditions, and who have
gotten their hands on large assault rifles. Adam Lanza, for instance, killed
over 15 school children in Newtown, Connecticut with a large assault rifle.
The CIA could develop procedures to monitor individuals more intensely.
It could do so by tagging suspected individuals and requesting congressional
approval to track arms by geotagging the weapons. This would give the CIA
a more complete sense of where weapons are located.
QUESTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS
1. What intelligence confirms the need to kill a terrorist? What if
that terrorist is an American citizen? How do issues of country
sovereignty come into play if the citizen is in a different country?
2. What defines a terrorist organization? Are there different levels
of terrorist organization, and how should the CIA recommend
dealing with these different echelons of terrorist organization?
Does the mission of the organization matter?
3. How can the CIA best utilize technological and legal actions in
the 21 century to best track suspected terrorists?
st
CONCLUSION
Issues of domestic terrorism will remain of tantamount importance to
American security. Remembering the long history of domestic terrorism
should serve to remind Americans that anyone, if radicalized sufficiently,
has the potential to engage in terrorist behaviors. As the House, you must
pursue policies that will prevent terrorist activities from occurring in the
future. However you must also recognize the unique circumstances in which
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
12
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
you must work during a domestic terror crisis. The participants will be
American citizens, entitled to all rights guaranteed by the Constitution;
intelligence may be less credible or more localized; the media will be willing
and able to intensely scrutinize every decision made and every decision’s
ramification - the groups in question may even encourage it. Political
considerations must always be taken into account too - the terrorists are
often women, minorities, and other vulnerable populations. Making sure
this is taken into account in any policy pursued is essential to a successful
operation. Having a thorough grasp of the different categories of historic
domestic terrorist activity as well as the most marked domestic terror events
in American history, including the OK City Bombing and the Holocaust
Memorial Museum Shooting, should inform all decisions you make and
will hopefully lead to a more comprehensive decision-making process.
Recognizing the fine lines that exist in this discussion - the line between
terrorist and radical, the line between homegrown terror and domestic
terror (as is the case with the Fort Hood shooting) - remains essential. The
CIA must be prepared to deal with a wide range of domestic terror crises;
one occurring during your tenure is a likely possibility.
GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH
An ISIS entourage.
The Guardian
In conducting further research, it is best to look at the rise of political
radicalization in the wake of recent congressional gridlock. Radical liberal
and conservative rhetoric could be signaling the imminence of another
domestic terrorist attack akin to the Oklahoma City Bombings, perpetrated
by a member from either side of the aisle.
Important sources include mainstream media, including the New York
Times and the Washington Post, think tanks such as RAND or the
Brookings Institution, and foreign media such as the Guardian, or al
Jazeera, which provide an interesting perspective with regards to
homegrown terrorism within the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella. Igniting
a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth,
2006.
Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella, (eds),
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?, Lantern
Books: 2004, p. 8. Liberation, Imagination
and the Black Panther Party, 2001.
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
13
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Brenner, Marie. "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell".
Vanity Fair. (199702). Retrieved 2012-07-10.
Chase, Alston. "Harvard and the Making of
the
Unabomber".
The
Atlantic.
(June
2000).
<http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/c hase.htm.>
Claiborne, William "FBI Gives Reward to Unabomber's Brother". The
Washington Post.
(August
21,
1998). <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/national/longterm/unabomber/trialstory.ht m.> Retrieved 2012-07-10.
Cole, Leonard A. The Anthrax Letters: A Bioterrorism Expert Investigates
the Attacks That Shocked America--Case Closed?. SkyhorsePublishing,
2009.
Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York:
Basic Books. "Rebels with a Cause". Sdsrebels.com. 196511-27. Retrieved 2012-07-10.
Moore, John. "Beyond the Fragments
- A reaction to Industrial
Society and Its Future". Green Anarchist
#51
(Spring
1998).
<http://lemming.mahost.org/johnmoore/fragm
ents.htm.>
Peck, Abe, Uncovering the Sixties: The Life and Times of the
Underground Press, Pantheon Books, 1985; p. 58.
Rosebraugh, Craig (2004). Burning Rage of a
Dying Planet: Speaking for the Earth
Liberation
Front. Lantern
Books.
SAN FRANCISCO 2015
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
14