The Future of Terrorism - Ushering in the New Year

"In the soil of hatred and despair sprouts the seed of violence"

As the year draws to a close many pause to reflect on the past and what the future may bring.  Terrorists  are no different.  They, like the average individual,  have aspirations and make resolutions for the future.  Their ultimate goal can often be seen more clearly by examining the short term objectives an listening to the rhetoric.    That is why Counterterrorism analysts continue to monitor communications from radical organizations made both publicly and privately.  Their job has not changed.

"The key job of an intelligence officer is to paint an accurate picture of a national security issue…" (Michael Morell, former CIA Deputy Director, Washington Post 12/28/13)

The increase in the use of social media as a means of communicating within terrorist organizations is significant.  Thus the call by intelligence experts for the collection of metadata in this area is not unrealistic.  We may debate the methodology of that collection.  We cannot overlook the necessity or importance of the data.

One of the most revealing communiques by a terrorist organization in 2013 was issued by the Amir of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He said;

"This work "is on two fronts," he explained. "The first is awareness and education of the jihadi vanguard, which carries the burden of establishing the caliphate and will continue to do so. The second is raising the awareness of the masses, inciting them, and aiming to mobilize them to rise against their rulers and favor Islam and those who strive toward it."

His first point reveals the ultimate goal of the radical Islamic terrorist.  That is the land.  It is always about the land.  Whether the battlefield is in Algeria,, Chechnya, Somalia or Syria,  the terrorists strive to drive out the infidel and bring the land under the control of the Caliph, the supreme Islamic leader.
The ultimate goal is reclaiming the third holiest site in Islamic culture, Al Quds, better known as Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

Zawahiri's second objective, "inciting the masses"  reveals his means to the end.  The how to, if you will.
Again if necessary an impassioned plea to a crowd to attack an embassy or a call to an individual to take action by whatever means necessary in their home country, be it the UK or the United States, so be it.  Blood must flow to satisfy the terrorist.

What can we expect in the coming year.  Somethings, if not predicable, are reasonably anticipated by Intelligence and Counterterrorism experts.
There will continue to be suicide bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.  Radical elements will attempt an attack during the  Olympics in Sochi, and somewhere in the United States some individual will heed the call to become a mujahideen.  Hopefully before any sustainable injuries to innocents, authorities will apprehend him or her.

 Our hope for the coming New Year is that on both fronts we may defeat them.  Either by refuting the erroneous message given by jihadists or by infiltration and disruption of terrorist groups through the interception of their data.

In 2014 our resolution to remain vigilant in the fight against terrorism remains unwavering.

Remembering 9-11, How far have we come, what still needs to be done?

On the twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on United States soil,  we reflect back on those who were lost on that fateful day.  We remember the heroes and where we were.  How far have we come in the journey of grief and how far must we continue to go in striving to protect the innocent from another senseless act of violence by Islamic extremists?
Have we done all that is necessary to improve our chances of detecting another plot?  Are all tools in place to assist both Counter Terrorism and Law Enforcement Agencies in their job?  Sadly the answer is no.  While we have had many success stories of thwarted plots both by foreign and homegrown terrorists, there is still a ways to go.
One of the areas that desperately needs improvement is in information sharing between Federal, State, and Local agencies.  A stark reminder of this was the Boston Marathon attack.  What was previously known, by whom, and what was withheld, are questions still demanding to be answered in a satisfactory manner.
Did we not know that this, information sharing,  was vitally important? Yes we did.  Sadly we don't often follow our own initiatives.

The 9-11 Commission in it's final report stated the following: "The United States has the resources and the people.  The government should combine them more effectively, achieving unity of effort.  We offer five major recommendations to do that."

One of the five was;  Unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network- based information-sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries."

This objective has not yet been fully achieved.  Progress has been made in the development of the National Data Exchange Program (N-Dex), but full participation by all the Agencies has not been accomplished.  One of the problems causing this is a basic lack of trust between Federal, State, and Local Criminal Justice / Intelligence agencies.  It is based on historic cultural differences that run deep within both the law enforcement and intelligence communities.  Often it comes down to a game of "Texas Hold-em"  where each player waits for the other to show his cards before he will disclose his own.
   Old town rivalries are admired in sports.  In combating terrorism and crime, they are unhealthy and detrimental.
 We do indeed have the resources and the people to accomplish the goal of a unified information sharing system, but only if we, the professionals,  lay aside the old mistrusts and hesitancy to share what we know, when we know it.
The memory of those who lost there lives on that day demands no less.

Author Comments on ACLU lawsuit against NYPD's Counter Terrorism Policy

Officers from the NYPD's counterterrorism unit stand outside Yankee Stadium (Photo: © Reuters)

Last month the American Civil Liberties Union, acting with two Muslim civil rights groups on behalf of three New York Muslims and the associations they represent, filed suit against the New York Police Department and the City of New York for their “unlawful policy and practice of religious profiling and suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers.”

Asra Nomani, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and author of Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.  Writing for the Daily Beast last year, when news of the NYPD Muslim Surveillance program hit the headlines, she argued in favor of the project: “Indeed, just as we need to track the Colombian community for drug trafficking and the Ku Klux Klan for white extremists. I believe we should monitor the Muslim community because we sure don’t police ourselves enough.”

Moreover, she added, “The last 15 years of battling extremism in our Muslim community has revealed one truth: mosques and Muslim organizations are institutional spaces used by Muslims intent on criminal activity, not much unlike the pews of a Catholic church or a Godfather’s Pizza might be the secret meeting spot for members of the Italian mafia.”

She couldn’t have been more on-target.  In fact, it is exactly the reasoning behind most ordinary criminal investigations of such a scale, as Patrick Dunleavy, former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections, observes, calling it “sound police practice with historical precedent.”

“When both the FBI and other other law enforcement agencies, including the NYPD, were investigating organized crime such as La Cosa Nostra, they focused on the Italian community,” he explained in an e-mail. “When police were investigating a violent organization called the Westies, who were responsible for a number of homicides in the 1970s, they infiltrated and surveilled the Irish community in the ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ section of New York. And when the country was flooded with cocaine in the 1980s, police set their sights on the Hispanic community, not for reasons of bias, but because the vast majority of the narcotic was coming from South America.”

That practice, he maintains, “produced legally admissible evidence” that not only produced successful prosecutions, but “prevented additional crimes from being committed."

...of the ACLU’s complaint itself.  (Dunleavy puts it most succinctly: “The complaint does not represent accurately what the NYPD is doing,” he said.)

Read the complete article by Abigail R Esman: 

Fanaticism and the Assault on Western Democracies

Declaring War Against Democracy

As U.S. and coalition forces begin to draw down in Afghanistan many are being led to believe that the war against radical Islamic groups such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda is drawing to a close. However several incidents in recent months have shown us that wars are often fought on many battlefields.


The Boston Marathon Bombing demonstrated not only the jihadists' ability to strike at a popular public event but their willingness to kill and maim innocent civilians including children.  We are told that the Tsarnaev brothers' motivation was retaliation for the prolonged wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq and what they called "America's attack on Muslims."  Right or wrong this was the opinion voiced
Officials sought to down play the significance of foreign influences on this attack by saying either the brothers were "lone wolves" or "self radicalized".  Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) sees it differently.  They believe it was a result of their call for jihadists to act within their own countries and that it was not necessary to travel overseas to a training camp to become a bona fide mujahid.  They also took credit for providing instructions on how to construct the IEDs that were used in the terrorist attack through their organizations Inspire Magazine article "How to make a Bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom".


Again whether this was an embellishment of the truth or not, Al Qaeda got their message out.  Why?  Because Wars are fought in many places other than the battlefield. Wars are also fought in the arena of public opinion. They are seeking to influence a whole new generation with their brand of Islamic fanaticism.   Truth matters not to them.


A little over a month later in the Woolwich neighborhood of London a British soldier Lee Rigby, who had served in Afghanistan was brutally attacked by two men as he returned to his barracks. Immediately following the killing the two individuals, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale responsible stood in front of a video camera with Drummer Rigby's blood on their hands and declared the murder as an act of retribution for the U.K.'s participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The investigation has now linked one of Rigby's killers to Mohammed Hamid, the radical Islamic cleric who conducted training camps for terrorists including the 21/7 London Bombers.  Michael Adebolajo has also been linked to radical clerics Abu Izzadeen, and Anjem Choudary. Their organizations, Al Ghurabba and Al Muhajiroun have been banned in the UK after being designated as Islamic Terrorist Organizations with ties to other international terrorist groups.

In the immediate aftermath of this, British Home Secretary Theresa may call for stringent security measures to address the threat of more attacks by Islamic radicals in the UK.  Among the measures she suggested were steps to; "prevent radical clerics access to universities and prisons, calling those two environments; "the most fertile recruiting grounds for radicalized men who could turn to violence"


Two days later when a group of Muslim inmates in the UK's Full Sutton Prison assaulted a prison employee as an act of support for the Woolwich killing.  According to prison sources the inmates were led by a known radical insurgent in the prison population with a previous history of violence and a security risk.  The source stated, "It was organized and inspired by the terrible death of Lee Rigby. The ringleader wanted to start a riot and after taking a hostage he was shouting for ‘true Muslims" to join a holy war."


Full Sutton prison as well as other British prisons have a number of convicted terrorists within their walls.  For them the war (jihad) has not ended.


Read more...

What The Boston Marathon Bombers Tell Us About Radicalization

When an act of terrorism is committed in the United States often the initial assessment of it or the perpetrators is inaccurate or wrong.  This is becoming clear in the investigation into the recent bombing of the Boston Marathon by the Tsarnaev brothers.  As we search to find the motive behind the attack, we often hear the term radicalization bantered about.
Understanding what it is and, more importantly, what it is not is crucial in preventing future acts from individuals who think they have a divine right to kill innocent women and children or maim civilians at a public event.
Notwithstanding Peter Bergen, of the New America Foundation analysis of the term and how it applied to Tamerlan and Dzhokhar.  They were not "self-radicalized"
When we hear that we think in terms of self-taught or self hypnotized.  When it comes to radicalization nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the National Counter Terrorism Center, "Radicalization is a dynamic and multilayered process involving several factors that interact with one another to influence an individual.  The process is influenced by internal and external factors"
As someone who has observed the process during my career I can emphatically tell you there are always external factors.  The case of the Tsarnaevs is no different.
In their case there was overseas travel and contact with radical Islamic extremists.  This information was provided to us by the Russian intelligence agency two years ago.  It has been confirmed by the FBI and the CIA.  Now we are finding out that there was at least one individual in the united states, "Misha" who acted as a facilitator in radicalization process.  There was also a religious organization, in this case the Islamic Society of Boston, with a history of radicalization either with former members who were tried and convicted of terrorism or inflammatory speakers who incited others to act.

The same external factors were also evident with several other individuals who either committed acts of terrorism or conspired to act before they were stopped by law enforcement.

Among them were Carlos Bledsoe, Nidal Hasan, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber.

A terrorist is not hatched overnight nor does he live in a vacuum devoid of outside influences that shape his thoughts and actions.  The myth of "self radicalization" attempts to simplify a complex issue and as a result it confuses the public.  More importantly it absolves responsibility of those who were involved in radicalizing the terrorist brothers.  As the investigation continues and more information about case is developed, we cannot overlook the obvious.   Those who contributed to the radicalization of the Boston Bombers must be held accountable.

article link...

Radical Terrorist Becomes Scholar and Heroine

David Gilbert  

If you wait long enough, anything is possible on Broadway or in Hollywood. Yesterday’s villain can become tomorrow’s hero or in the case of Kathy Boudin, former member of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground and convicted murderer, a heroine.

Boudin,  sentenced to a life term in New York State  for the shooting deaths of two policemen, Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown as well as Brinks security guard Peter Paige was paroled in 2003 after serving twenty two years in prison for the three homicides.  The officers were killed in a shootout with members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army after a failed bank robbery in 1981.  Boudin minimized her role in the slayings by simply saying she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yet the groups that she was involved with utilized explosives and automatic weapons to destroy property, take lives, and instill fear in ordinary citizens through violence.  If that isn’t terrorism, I don’t know what is.
Today we read that Ms. Boudin has been quite active since her parole.   She has been working as an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of Social Work and was recently awarded the Sheinberg Scholar-in-Residence at NYU Law School.  And if being honored as a scholar was not enough, she is to receive accolades as a heroine in Robert Redford’s soon to be released movie, “The Company You Keep”  based on the activities on Boudin and her former husband David Gilbert, currently serving three life sentences in Auburn State Prison for his role in the shooting deaths of O’Grady, Brown, and Paige.  David has also received some portion of fame with his book,
“No Surrender” an unrepentant account of his life as a terrorist.  David is also actively involved in several radical organizations including Viva Palestina, even while incarcerated.  Could release be just around the corner for him?  Unfortunately he does not see the Parole Board until 2056 when he will be 112 years old.

Their son, Chesa Boudin, who was left at the babysitter’s while they went off to steal and kill was raised by former Weather Underground members Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn.  Chesa went on to become a Yale grad and a Rhodes Scholar while the nine children left behind  struggled to make their way in this world without the benefit of  a father taken by the violence of domestic terrorism.

No PR firm in the world could have scripted a better image conversion than the makeover given Ms. Boudin.  We are told she is an advocate for AIDS patients and adult education.  Her students at Columbia are said to adore her, a regular Mother Teresa to ex-cons and their families as they seek to reenter society.

She was a daughter of privilege who fell from grace but has now returned to bless us with her talents.

But the blood on her hands does not wash off that easily, nor does the stained ground where her victims fell. Twenty two years for three lives and now a heroine.  The price of fame may have come cheap to her, but the average citizen is not fooled by the glitter

New Books in Terrorism & Organized Crime Review

NBN Brisbane AU interviews author 

by MARK LAUCHS on MARCH 28, 2013

View on Amazon

Patrick Dunleavy is the author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism’s Prison Connection (Potomac Books, 2011). He provides us with a fascinating insight into the radicalization process within the prison system. This is a sensitive topic but Dunleavy does not provide a political commentary on radicalization or Islam but rather acknowledges that the process can occur and gives us a detailed recounting of one such group within the New York Correctional system. He discusses a few key characters and how they ended up in prison and the circumstances that led to their participation in radical thought. The most interesting parts of the book for me were the methods of prison life that aided the process; the ability to communicate with the outside world and the massaging of internal security routines to allow interaction and coordination with others inside the system. This is not a morality play, but rather a description of a process. We can certainly learn a lot through books such as these that reduce our naivety about the ingenuity of prison inmates who have a lot of time to think and experiment with their immediate environment. Radicalization is a serious issue but for me this was a book more about the world of incarceration than terrorism.

listen to interview...

Solitary Confinement is not Torture

“...and the winner is...”When those words were uttered at the Academy Awards sunday, we knew it would not be, “Zero Dark Thirty” in part due to the increasing criticism that the film, although critically acclaimed,  condoned the torturing of terrorists after their initial capture.

Whether the methods used were enhanced interrogation techniques necessary for the prevention of future attacks, or some barbaric dehumanizing treatment of wayward souls

is the questioned much debated in the public forum with little agreement as to a solution that is

both effective and humane.  Those conversations take place at the water cooler and in the halls of Congress stimulating a wide range of responses.

The cry going forth on one side often warns that if we torture,  we will become like the terrorist, reflecting the admonition of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche; “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

And make no mistake about it, those who fly planes into buildings or encourage others to blow themselves up as a service to god, are in fact monsters.  They care not for the innocent.

What then, should we coddle them, smother them with our kindness and hope that they will 

change.  Those that think that may be the most naive.  

Others respond rather callously ; “kill them all and let God sort them out.”

Neither position is realistically an effective means of dealing with the issue.

What is a viable solution for captured and convicted terrorists is solitary confinement, an often enigmatic technique used by prison administrators in the daily operation of correctional systems.

It is perhaps the most misunderstood treatment.  Conjuring up visions of Alexander Dumas’ “The Man in the Iron Mask”  or Steve McQueen’s portrayal of Henri “Papillion” Charriere in the French Penal Colony of Devils Island.  We see individuals living in squalor, in dark dungeons, forced to subsist on a diet of cockroaches, spiders and other creeping creatures, going mad with 

the absence of another human being to talk to.  Is this an accurate description?

George Will, whom I admire as a gifted and eloquent locutioner and journalist, got it wrong in his recent article on the subject of solitary confinement.  He wrote that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, a form of torture.  He cited the Supreme Court case of James J Medley, a convicted murder who was kept in solitary confinement awaiting execution in 1890 in Colorado.  

This was the definition of  solitary confinement then; “...and no person shall be allowed access to said convict, except his attendants, counsel, physician, a spiritual adviser of his own selection, and members of his family,”.   Justice Bradley in writing the opinion expressed his view that these conditions of confinement for Medley were a form of torture.  But there was not unanimous agreement on the issue.  In fact the dissenting judge in the case,  J Brewer, went on to say;  ”it seems a misnomer to call this 'solitary confinement,' in the harsh sense in which this phrase is sometimes used. All that is meant is that a condemned murderer shall not be permitted to hold anything like a public reception...”

And in part because of the disagreement of whether or not solitary confinement was torture, a convicted murder was set free.

And now one hundred and twenty three years later, we’re still trying to come to grips with the issue.

In modern correctional settings, solitary confinement is not social deprivation.  It is a managed social setting controlled not by the criminal or in this case the terrorist, but by prison administrators following generally accepted standards.  And those conditions are anything but torture.

You can read the Bureau of Prisons guidelines

 for operating a Special Housing Unit, which by the way is the proper name for those sections of a prison where inmates, who are a threat to other inmates or the general public, are held.   On the statewide level many correctional agencies follow the guidelines set forth by the American Correctional Association for the operation of these special units.  I can tell you as one who has both worked in, and toured these units, the 

inmates residing in them are not living in solitude.  They have access to library services for reading material.  They are served a wholesome and nutritious diet, not swill. They are visited daily by security staff, medical staff, counseling staff, clergy, and administration staff.  They just don’t get to pick and choose who they want to see or call or socialize with.

But that in a sense is one of the purposes of prison, removal from society at large.  Prison is not supposer to be a pleasant place.  Humane yes, but enjoyable, no.  Inmates will always complain about their conditions.  In the Netherlands, where inmates have private cells with television, some would consider it torture to take away the convict’s TV for disciplinary reasons.  That type of incarceration is a far cry from life in the first  New York state prison, Auburn,  described thusly, 

“ Auburn is the oldest existing State correctional facility. It was built to relieve overcrowding at Newgate Prison in New York City and received its first inmates in 1817. The "Auburn System" included separate confinement of inmates, congregate work during the day, enforced silence, lockstep walking, striped uniforms, and the use of the lash as punishment.”

Conditions have drastically changed in the almost 200 years since and no one is suggesting a return to the “good old days.”  

What then do you do then with those who, even in the prison society, can still inflict death or destruction to others?

Those you must isolate even from the general prison population.

Is that wrong?  No.  Is there a danger posed by allowing terrorists in prison to move about within the confines of the wall as they will?  Emphatically yes!

This week we remember the twentieth anniversary of the first World Trade Center Bombing which killed six and injured more than one thousand.  One of the architects of that heinous crime

was an inmate in Attica State Prison, El Sayiid Nosair.  In 2004 Kevin James, an inmate in California’s New Folsom Prison, not only formed a terrorist group, Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam, but oversaw the operation of the group, which included plots to attack US military installations, from his prison cell.  Both individuals cited used the privileges afforded them in the general prison population to reach beyond the walls and harm others.

Others have , as in the case of inmate Abdel Zaben, a member of Hamas who had sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and was serving time in a New York prison for kidnapping, used their stature in the prison community to recruit others to the cause.

A terrorist is not rendered harmless when captured or confined.  Where he can he will act, when he can’t he will influence.  For the true jihadist the war doesn’t end when captured.

Initially it was thought that placing special conditions of confinement or Strict Administrative Measures (SAMs) as they are officially called would be an effective way of neutralizing 

incarcerated terrorists.   That has been challenged in recent years in the courts.  Recently John Walker Lindh won a case against the Bureau of Prisons by challenging his conditions of confinement when he requested to meet five times a day with other radical islamic inmates.

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed,convicted in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, currently serving a life sentence in the Supermax Prison in Florence, Colorado, has file a writ to be restored to the general prison population saying that he has changed in the 15 years of incarceration and is no longer a threat.  What he fails to mention in his brief filed in federal court is that in 2000 while in the Metropolitan Correctional Center awaiting trial, he and his co-defendant Mamdouh Mahmud Salim brutally assaulted Correction Officer Louis Pepe with a jailhouse shank and scalding hot liquid causing a permanent brain injury to the guard.  No longer a threat?  I think not.  

And now Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center as well as the Bojinka plot to blow up eleven commercial airlines with passengers, in custody since 1995 has petitioned the federal court to be released from solitary confinement and restore certain

prison privileges that were taken away.

  This is the same individual whom the sentencing Judge Kevin Duffy described as “"an apostle of evil" and "a virus that must be locked away."   Viruses we quarantine until there is a cure.  I for one still believe  that Ramzi and his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammad, mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, still pose a threat to the health of this nation.  And when contemplating how to effectively deal with captured terrorists I’m reminded not of the words of Nietzsche, but of a line in a Tom Waits song, “you gotta keep the devil down in the hole.”

Solitary Confinement is not torture.  It is an effective management tool for dealing with incarcerated terrorists.
Washington Times 2013

Solitary Confinement is not Torture

Forgetting the Hero and Protecting the Terrorist's Rights, Court Rules in Favor of the Taliban

Johnny Micheal Spann
killed during prison riot
Afghanistan - 2001 

John Walker Lindh
captured in Afghanistan
2001

    U.S. District Court rules in favor of the Taliban.  A federal district judge, Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies even to convicted terrorists in prison.  John Walker Lindh, also known as "The American Taliban" sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the right to congregate with other Islamic terrorists in the Communications Management Unit of the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), in Terre Haute, Indiana.  Lindh who was captured in 2001 fighting alongside Taliban members in Afghanistan is serving a twenty year sentence for collaboration with the terrorist organization in fighting against U.S. forces.

Judge Stinson overlooks the fact that he is a terrorist and that when he was initially held in a military prison near Mazār-e Sharī in Afghanistan a riot broke out and CIA officer Johnny "Micheal" Spann was killed by the inmates. The uprising began on the same day Spann had conducted an interview of Lindh.  Spann,  the first American to die in Afghanistan,  was posthumously awarded the Intelligence Star and the Exceptional Service Medallion, the equivalent of the U.S. military's Silver Star.  He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

The Judge's description of John Walker Lindh is; [he is] "a low security prisoner who wishes to engage in a brief communal activity with other inmates".  That makes him appear to be docile, socially adept, and non-threatening. That narrative almost makes you want to invite him home for coffee.

Why is it that the average citizen can see this decision as insanity and yet the ACLU and the other inmate rights advocates do not?

The Court it seems cannot discern between a genuine rehabilitation and someone who has become "jail-wise" after more than ten years in the system.
 Prison officials and security experts must be given the leeway to administer measures which prevent convicted terrorists from acting again.  Anything less would be an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives in the fight against terrorism.