3 Comments on Report: Domestic Terror Threat on the Rise

scott on Wed, 25th Nov 2009 6:56 am


Jenni,

I believe what people found to be so offensive was the language and timing of that report. Generalizing anyone who identifies with the political-right or has served in a military capacity as a potential terrorist is counter-productive to the real security discussion and not actually actionable intelligence. I submit to you that, in fact, that report was political grandstanding designed to ensure that, in the event of any domestic terrorist event, that the blame would be laid squarely at the feet of the political right.

For instance, the report mentions that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.” but fails to mention that for the past 20 years, military training of White, Hispanic, and African-American gang members, who subsequently return to their communities and choose to use those skills in the commission of violent crimes, has been a serious issue that the armed-forces have failed to address even though it has been well-documented.

Similarly, the report characterizes issues like immigration and economic hardship as one-sided, and that disagreement with government policy towards these issues is a gateway to violence. The report softballs the right of protest and says “Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment” but fails to clarify the distinction, leaving the conclusion open to broad interpretation.

Finally, I am really struggling with your comments regarding the “gem” status of this report when I contrast them with your examples. Which of your examples are called out in the report exactly? I don’t see any of those cases (with the glaring exception of Timothy McVeigh) showing up in the conclusions of the report. The domestic terrorism plots you refer to were all linked to Islamic religious extremism, and protests at the G20 summit in Pittsburg hardly constitute anything new or different since that protest was, in fact, tame when compared to past events of this type that have been occurring since the 1990s (anyone remember Seattle?). Lastly, while we may discover what motivated Nadal Hasan to commit those heinous crimes, I don’t think we’ll find that they were motivated by feelings or beliefs around illegal immigration, economic hardship, or any of the other findings in the report. In the final analysis I think you have made the very same mistake the authors of the report have; over-generalization. This report provided nothing other than an insight into what government is thinking about its populace; and that revelation is chilling.

Brad on Thu, 26th Nov 2009 4:09 pm


Scott, I could not agree more with your commentary, This last line and I quote “This report provided nothing other than an insight into what government is thinking about its populace; and that revelation is chilling.” The government needs not concern itself with the veterans , It should be concerned with the 7 to 10 million unemployed that have been written off by their government and for the most part the people of the United States. Nothing fosters rebellion and extremist action like being hungry, homeless , and having nothing else to lose.

Jenni Hesterman on Tue, 1st Dec 2009 8:34 am


Thanks to both of you for your comments and know that I totally appreciate your insights! I never presume that mine is the only (or correct) viewpoint and I am please that this site not only published my blog, but encouraged comment by its savvy readers.

It is hard to argue with what you’ve stated, Scott. My only follow on point is the report was written by some of my colleagues — who are apolitical and only care about the security of our country and safety of our citizens. Unfortunately, their work and (motives) were dragged through the mud when the veteran issue exploded.

You are correct that we are continually concerned about not only veterans, but active duty military being recruited by al Qaeda and violent gangs such as MS-13. For those of us who have studied and cared about the topic for so long, this was nothing new.

However, your average American only wants the 10 second sound byte - the CNN ticker, the USA Today 2 sentence coverage. So this report certainly provided more than is usually parceled out to the public! Certainly the best actionable intelligence is specific and law enforcement sensitive, or classified. We just need to arm our 360 M citizens in a way where they are force multipliers, and don’t just rely on the resource constrained law enforcement and intelligence agencies to address the terrorism dilemma. With sleeper cells in small towns across our country, our citizens would be a powerful tool in our arsenal. When a man wants to buy cases of hydrogen peroxide from a beauty parlor, or a chlorine fuel tanker is stolen, or a paintball business owner suspects more is going on with a group than just a fun time on the range - I want our average citizen’s hackles to go up and to pick up the phone and call law enforcement. But they first need to understand the threat.

Finally, recall the report was “For Official Use Only” and was actually leaked to the public, not issued to the public by the government. The government was then in the defensive position, rather than on the offensive. Which means less spin and “purer” data — potentially — but due to the veteran issue, it looked like political backpedaling.

Finally, Brad - I completely agree with your last line - think of that same population as ripe for recruitment by radicals. When you have nothing to lose, the call of jihad and martyrdom is very powerful.

Thanks to both of you for further fueling the discussion and for your active interest and involvement with our national security! I wish everyone out there cares as much as you both do. Jenni

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!