Misplaced Priorities in U.S. Counter-terror Strategy

The recent attempted bombing of NWA Flight 253 in Detroit underscores the fact that the main terrorist threat to U.S. persons is from foreign terrorists linked to Al Qaeda. Every official review of U.S. intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attack concluded that bureaucratic cultures at the CIA and FBI impeded effective information sharing and analysis. Here again, U.S. intelligence agencies failed to share information regarding live tips and leads that should have triggered not only a secondary screening at Amsterdam’s airport, but more importantly, a full assessment of the threat posed by the 23-year old Umar Farouk Abduulmutallab.

The development of a vast network of urban and state intelligence fusion centers is one illustration of how the U.S. intelligence enterprise has lost its way since 9/11. Domestic “extremism” (however loosely defined) has supplanted focused and sustained investigation of foreign threats as the highest counterterrorism priority. Data-mining, biometric identification, fusion centers, and beat cops as “force multipliers,” now take center stage in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Instead, the focus should be on improving foreign intelligence capacities and enhancing the coordination and performance of the Terrorism Screening Center, Transportation Security Agency, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is they relate to identifying suspected or known terrorists.

You can’t do it all. Choices have to be made. But senior U.S. officials – particularly from the Department of Homeland Security and its 22 member agencies – have taken their eyes off the ball (foreign terrorism), in favor of peering into Americans’ everyday activities. They have dispersed limited resources across the entire nation to protect vast numbers of potential (but unlikely) targets, instead of focusing on the most likely target of foreign attack: airliners. As one senior TSA official tells PRA, the lack of focus “is disgraceful, criminal, and very, very sad. But there is simply no will at the top to change the systems’ problems.”

These bureaucratic decisions steer antiterrorism grant funding to thousands of police agencies to buttress local budgets and domestic surveillance capacities, while neglecting the hard work of foreign intelligence analysis and investigations. While it has been important to improve emergency interoperability and response capacity at the local level, the push to develop local and state-based intelligence capacities does more harm to civil liberties and political freedom than it does to keep us safe.

At home, we need a sensible law enforcement approach to terrorism, rather than a pre-emptive intelligence model that undermines community trust, privacy, and political freedom. The intelligence paradigm, in the hands of domestic authorities, inevitably treads upon constitutional rights. Witness, for example, the recent spying by a military employee of anti-war activists in Washington state. A lawsuit filed on January 10, 2010 by National Lawyers Guild attorney Larry Hildes on behalf of members of Port Military Resistance, asserts that a force protection employee infiltrated the peace organization, tried to disrupt activities, and used his position as listserv administrator to channel private information to multiple policing agencies. The Fort Lewis episode illustrates how national security can be manipulated to justify interfering with free speech. We must insist that counterterrorism resources are directed at Al Qaeda, not dissenters and American communities.

Homeland's Lexicon of "Extremism"

In May 2009, Homeland Security released -- and quickly retracted -- a "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," one in a series of reference aids designed to provide operational and intelligence advice to state, local, and regional fusion centers. This Lexicon is likely to increase suspicion and surveillance of activists from the right and left.

During facilitated workshops, Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence analysts developed definitions of a range of domestic political groupings using "open source" materials and unclassified information. The 11 pages of the latest Lexicon define:

animal rights extremism





antiabortion extremism





anti-immigration extremism





antitechnology extremism





anarchist extremism





black bloc





Black nationalism





Black power





Christian Identity





direct action




environmental extremism




green anarchism





hate groups





Jewish extremism





leftwing extremism





militia movement





neo-Nazis, and





racist skinheads

Just last month, a DHS report on the threat of rightwing extremism sparked an outcry across the blogosphere from political conservatives for suggesting that returning veterans could become terrorists. Now, according to Matthew Harwood of the Guardian, conservative websites are "apoplectic" about how "rightwing extremism" was described by DHS:

A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly anti-government and reject federal authority in favour of state or local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

William Jasper at the New American wrote that "The 'definitions' provided in the lexicon are politically slanted to poison the law enforcement community against millions of Americans who might be called (and who might identify themselves as) political, social and religious 'conservatives.'"

Yes, but DHS is clearly not singling out rightwing views in its assault on free speech. Leftwing views are also suspect. Without reference to specific violent terrorist activity, the Lexicon vaguely defines "violent antiwar extremism" as

A movement of groups or individuals who advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to voice their opposition to U.S. involvement in war-related activities. They often target the military, seats of government power, and defense industry personnel, facilities, and activities.

Likewise, the "black bloc" is described as a collection of violent anarchists and anarchist affinity groups that band together for illegal acts of civil disturbance and use tactics that destroy property or strain law enforcement resources."

What are the implications of DHS analysts developing such an ideologically charged "reference aid" and pushing it out to state agencies?

1. Homeland Security apparently operates under a broad definition of what constitutes a threat to national security. The agency's emphasis on studying low intensity threats such as civil disturbance, property damage, and economic harm may risk missing large-scale, serious threats.

2. By focusing on political speech, Homeland Security may not only misperceive threats, but also chill freedom of speech and press. The Lexicon defines "alternative media" as a "forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets." By mining the alternative media to analyze the opinions and tactics of dissenters, the government tells people who challenge government policies and journalists who report on them: "We are watching you."

3. Without adequate oversight and a narrow definition of its mission, DHS officials have too much latitude to collect political intelligence.

4. In the past, the FBI used the pretext of foreign interference to justify surveillance and disruption of indigenous political movements. Today, Homeland Security has dropped all pretense of concern for foreign interference. "Homegrown extremism" is the new buzzword to justify spying on alleged "subversives."

In order to guarantee the constitutional rights of all Americans, whether on the Left or Right, we need to hold all domestic security agencies to a requirement of evidence of criminal activity before any kind of investigation can be launched. Without the safeguard of a "criminal predicate," DHS can continue to urge local and state police and fusion centers to conduct political witch-hunts.

Thought Police Patrol Virginia

If the Virginia Fusion Center (VFC) isn't careful, people might think its intelligence analysts are America's thought police. Take a look at its 2009 Threat Assessment, which talks about "subversive thought" as a marker for violent terrorism and identifies "university based student groups as a radicalization node for almost every type of extremist group." (pp. 9, 17). From anarchists to white supremacists, the fusion center analysts are either bored without actual threats to deal with or determined to prove that a web of homegrown stealth jihadists and green anarchists endanger Virginians' safety.

The 215-page threat assessment popped up on the website, http://cryptome.org this month. Labeled "Law Enforcement Sensitive," it was only meant to be viewed by law enforcement, Department of Defense, and intelligence analysts. According to the fusion center, the terrorism trends of greatest concern for 2009 include terrorism tradecraft, recruitment and radicalization, terrorist use of technology, and terrorism financing. (p. 4)

The emphasis of the report is the "Homegrown" threat. My favorite morsel references how Muslim Brotherhood members cross-populate into different Islamic organizations and attempt to obtain leadership roles:

Subject with ties to Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Student Association, appointed to a state immigration committee, subsequently resigned after public accusation of terrorism ties (TIPS C070773); The Muslim American Society, a group linked to the MB, used Boy and Girl Scout troops in 2006 as part of a massive get-out-the-vote campaign targeting Muslim voters in Virginia and elsewhere (Investigative Project on Terrorism). (p. 41, fn. p)

There you have it. A voter participation program and a government appointee dropping out after allegations of terrorism. Whether anyone ever proved that the appointee was a member of Muslim Brotherhood who had ties to terrorism, the report does not say. And self-proclaimed counter-terror expert, Steve Emerson, was the government's source for claims that the get-out-the-vote campaign had terrorist ties. Emerson, of course,is "repeatedly criticized for producing faulty analyses and having an anti-Islamic agenda."

The assessment hones in on domestic groups as a more significant threat than foreign ones on the grounds that there numbers are growing as are the number of incidents. (p. 43) Indeed, the fusion center examined many groups, including a wide swath of white supremacist organizations, including: Creativity Movement, American Resistance, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations, Vinlanders Social Club, and the American National Socialist Workers Party. In spite of the vast information in the report about the danger presented by militia and anti-abortion extremists, the Executive Summary emphasizes the Islamic threat (and seemingly endorses ethnic profiling). Ethnic diversity in itself becomes the problem:

All three of these regions [northern Virginia, central Virginia, and Hampton roads] feature ethnically diverse populations with cultural ties to the Middle East, the horn of Africa, Southeast Asia, and other areas heavily impacted by terrorist activities. While the vast majority of these individuals are law-abiding, this ethnic diversity also affords terrorist operatives the opportunity to assimilate easily into society, without arousing suspicion. Virginia's network of colleges and universities also represent a potential avenue of entry for terrorist operatives and a possible forum for recruitment of sympathizers. (pp. 5-6).

The fusion center also puts avowed hate groups on the same level as environmental activists and anarchists. Consider the following statement:

2008 was an active year for the environmental extremists protesting against energy companies in Virginia. The presidential campaign also generated increased chatter among militia and right wing extremists and resulted in a National Socialist Magazine cover mock-up suggesting the assassination of then Senator Obama. (p. 43)

Seriously? Promoting the idea of assassinating the president is on par with an active year for environmental protests?

Equally troubling is the emphasis on radical thought, rather than criminal activity. Even Harry Truman had the grace to say, "In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have." But consider this analysis of the As-Sabiqun Islamic Movement. As-Sabiqun (AS) is a Washington, DC-based group that stresses unity among Islamic organizations with the ultimate goal of establishing a modern Islamic state that has publicly voiced support for Shia movements and organizations including Hizballah and the 1979 Iranian Revolution (which overthrew a dictator). Its recent activities include anti-war rallies, prison outreach, and fundraising (p. 53).

Although the group has shied away from criminal activities, AS has promoted radical movements, expressed anti-Semitic views, and may be a conduit for Islamic extremists to pass through on their way to more militant groups. (p. 53)

The Virginia Fusion Center is not saying that As-Sabiqun itself is a terror threat because its activities are legal and legitimate -- anti-war rallies, prison outreach, and such. Political Research Associates and Liberty Beat have no tolerance for anti-Semitic views of any group, but it is troubling that AS comes under scrutiny because members may later go on to more militant groups. What other organizations does law enforcement suspect of being "conduits"?

In many cases, the fusion center reports on the legal, protected activities of radical groups. Literature distribution, student recruitment, internet usage, rallies, demonstrations, dumpster diving, train hopping, and activist training camps are mentioned. We read of "Anarchist Extremists'" public disturbances, conferences, and protests, including conferences in November 2007 and January 2008. The activists' "public disturbance" did not target the government, however. They confronted suspected white supremacists in Harrisonburg. (p.44, fn. r, s) Oh, the horror.

According to the fusion center, the New African Black Panther Party’s newsletter “Fed-Up” “catalogues a broad spectrum of alleged prisoner abuses and allegations of prison system corruption and features inflammatory rhetoric to rally prisoners and their associates on the outside to unite against law enforcement and the correctional system.” (p. 50). God forbid. Fusion Center analysts found reference to Virginia locales in an edition of Fed-Up found at the website of the Thomas Merton Center, a pacifist organization. (p.50, n. cc)

When it comes to current threats of terrorist activity, the 2009 Virginia Fusion Center threat assessment is weak on details. "Information of criminal and suspicious incidents is infrequent and inconsistent" in the Commonwealth. (p. 77) Most of the suspicious activity reported by citizens in the context of technology appears to be "spam related text messages or Nigerian style email scams." (p. 84) Of five reported hacking incidents, two email threats to university networks were sent by the hate group Army of God. (p. 84)

The fusion center's threat assessment is problematic because it conflates violent and criminal action with a wide range of ill-defined anti-government and political thought (no matter how racist some of it may be). After dealing with the threat of international terrorism for a mere 16 pages, it goes on and on to paint a picture of an ubiquitous, radical Islamic threat. "Clusters of radicalized local Muslims" are invoked as the boogeymen behind "unresolved suspicious incidents" like surveying, photographing, or videotaping critical infrastructure to include bridges, tunnels, military and government facilities and airports, although none "have currently been linked to terrorist activity." (p. 52, fn. ee)

This assessment also defines "Anarchist extremists" as an anti-government movement which rejects governmental rule and police authority, and advocates violent means to overthrow social, political and economic hierarchies. The inclusion of such a group in an official terror threat assessment -- undoubtedly by analysts from Homeland Security and the FBI, including state employees who all come together at the fusion center's suburban Richmond compound -- shows that the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR1955) is alive in the minds of domestic intelligence. The thought police are on patrol. Everyone interested in knowing how your Homeland Security dollars are being spent should read this report. And they might ask whether Fusion Centers set their sights on "subversion" to find real threats or to justify the Fusion Center's continued existence.

"Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press

do not permit a State to forbid or regulate advocacy of the use

of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is

directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action

and is likely to incite or produce such action."

- Brandenburg v. Ohio (U.S. Supreme Court, 1969)

Texas Fusion Center Casts Wide Net

The North Central Texas Fusion Center (NCTFC) recently issued a Prevention Awareness Bulletin alerting law enforcement to beware of "significant" threats posed by a Muslim civil rights group, the antiwar organization ANSWER, and International Action Center.  When an intelligence fusion center puts forward analysis based on right-wing Web sites prone to conspiracy-mongering, it raises questions about who is watching the watchers.  But this fusion center is not alone in drumming up fears of a massive homegrown threat; some federal officials are beating a similar drum.

Like America's seventy other fusion centers, the North Texas facility regularly disseminates bulletins to thousands of state police, fire, public health, and emergency-preparedness personnel.  Rather than provide serious insight that might contribute to public safety, this February bulletin weaves a web of conspiratorial parallels between Muslim civil liberties groups, lobbyists, peace activists, hip hop bands and fashion boutiques, social networking sites, a former congresswoman, and the U.S. Treasury Department.  In an article entitled "Middle Eastern Terrorist groups and their supporting organizations have been successful in gaining support for Islamic goals in the U.S.," the bulletin spins religious accommodations for Muslims as creating an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish.  The Texas Observer said that the bulletin had a "Keystone Kops" ring to it, but this demagoguery has serious consequences.

Such fear-mongering threatens civil liberties and serves the development of a far-reaching political intelligence state.  The North Central Texas bulletin cites articles by the author of Stealth Jihad:  How Radical Islam is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.  It spreads a right-wing ideology which posits that groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are a front group for foreign-based radicals and indigenous subversives, in the same way that the Red Scare argued that Communist Party USA members belonged to a Soviet-controlled conspiracy.  Under such thinking, activists and allies who share common cause with American Arabs and Muslims in opposing Israeli aggression in Gaza or war in Iraq and Afghanistan are painted with the same brush.

Unfortunately, America's security establishment already buys into this logic.  In February, FBI director Robert Mueller announced that the FBI would no longer engage with CAIR, the largest Muslim-American civil rights organization.  The Department of Homeland Security severed ties with CAIR last year.  The FBI withdrew its outreach relations with CAIR and all its chapters due to concerns that CAIR leadership is tied to the Palestinian group Hamas.  One founder of CAIR was named as an unindicted coconspirator in a terrorist financing case last year.  A member of a Virginia-based "jihad" organizing effort worked as a communications director for a local CAIR chapter.

Rather than see these incidents as isolated criminal episodes, the government is suspecting Muslims -- at least those aligned with CAIR -- in a classic case of guilt by association.  In cutting ties with CAIR, the FBI risks undoing years of meaningful work with a legitimate community organization and vital links to the American Muslim community.  Until the recent ban, CAIR provided sensitivity training for FBI agents and was used as a liaison with the community.  Presumably, such links would be useful in developing trust and cooperation in law enforcement.

President Obama called for a renewed relationship with Muslims in Iran last week, while his administration appears to be distancing itself from Muslims at home.  While the North Texas Fusion Center's advisory seems extreme, recent reports that the FBI is planting informants in Orange County mosques remind us that the government is already spying on a wide spectrum of innocent Americans.  

(click here for a podcast of radio story on FBI surveillance of Muslims in California on KUCI)

"I can't run no more

 with that lawless crowd

 while the killers in high places

 say their prayers out loud.

 But they've summoned, they've summoned up

 a thundercloud

 and they're going to hear from me . . . .

 Ring the bells that still can ring

 Forget your perfect offering

 There is a crack, a crack in everything

 That's how the light gets in."

 

                           - Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

Fusion Centers: Just Part of the Problem

Props go to The Muckracker, a blog of the Center for Investigative Reporting for drawing attention to Obama's $260 million budget request for fusion centers.  Its critique of the reality show "Homeland Security USA" is also prescient, well-deserved, and spot on.

At Political Research Associates, we particularly appreciate the Muckracker's shoutout to Frank Donner, author of the Age of Surveillance and Protectors of Privilege:  Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America.  Donner's work is important because it reminds us that civil liberties abuses by the FBI are not anomalies.  Intelligence agencies have played a critical role in America's system of government by channeling and coercing movements for fundamental change.

Massive federal funding for state fusion center analysts is problematic, but it is not directly comparable to the FBI's COINTELPRO operations.  Fusion centers represent an unprecedented expansion of government's capacity to collect, analyze, and disseminate data about all Americans.  Russell Porter, head of Iowa's fusion center, said they may be "the most significant change in the structural landscape of criminal intelligence in the past twenty-five years."  

High levels of secrecy, lack of oversight, and non-binding, ambiguous privacy policies make fusion centers a serious threat to privacy and freedom of speech.  The mere knowledge that the government is "keeping lists" hampers freedom of thought and action -- let alone what the government might do with our personal information.

But intelligence analysts are just one facet of the problem.  Their job is to "connect the dots" and "fuse" the data about crime, "suspicious activities," and other personal characteristics fed into the system.  The aggressive and disruptive actions that are more closely associated with Cointelpro operations are being done by the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Homeland Security agents, and state and local police intelligence units (not the fusion centers).  Structurally, these agencies interact with fusion centers, but operate independently as an investigative arm of this enormous security apparatus. 

 "Well, the oppressors are tryin' to keep me down

  Tryin to drive me underground

  And they think that they have got the battle won

  I say forgive them Lord, they know not what they've done

  'Cause as sure as the sun will shine

  I'm gonna get my share now, what's mine

  And then the harder they come, the harder they'll fall, one and all

  Ooh, the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all"

  - Jimmy Cliff, "The Harder They Come" 

$260 Million for Fusion Center Analysts

Obama wants to hire thousands of intelligence analysts for state fusion centers to the tune of $260 million.  Liberty Beat thinks there are better ways to fight terrorism than sifting through commercial databases, "suspicious activity" reports, insurance claims, and court records, which is what these analysts will do in fusion centers.  

The core philosophy of fusion centers is that our protectors can find potential terrorists in our midst by examining all crimes and fusing that information with loads of other data about all of us.  This proposition is dubious.  For example, a 2004 Department of Justice study on fusion centers concluded:

A majority of states and experts believe that a nexus does exist among types of criminal activity, including illegal drug operations, money laundering, fraud, identity theft and terrorism.  It is well known that some of the September 11 terrorists were cited for traffic violations before the attacks while others obtained and used fraudulent driver’s licensees.  Many experts believe there is a good chance of identifying terrorists through their involvement in such lower-level criminal activity, as was possible with the September 11 terrorists. 

Proponents of this model argue that states should embrace an “all crimes” approach to terrorism prevention. 

Making these linkages among petty and larger crimes appears to be extremely difficult.  First, there is a shortage of research about the "precursor crimes"-terrorism nexus.  We need more evidence than anecdotes about 9/11 terrorists to know whether certain types of crimes are more or less likely to be used to support terrorism-related activities.  Otherwise, law enforcement analysts and investigators have to scan very broadly for linkages, wasting precious time and resources.  More concrete evidence would help law enforcement home in on those crimes that have the greatest chance for supporting terrorist-related activities.

In the rush to find the proverbial needle, the government is on track to take down the whole haystack.

"It has crooked past this crooked street

 Where cars patrol this crooked beat

 Badges flash and sirens wail

 They'll be taking one and all to jail"

                      - The Clash, The Crooked Beat