Rutgers University Reviews The Fertile Soil of Jihad

Patrick T. Dunleavy, in The fertile soil of Jihad: Terrorism's prison connection, examines the terrorism recruitment process inside the United States prison system. Though it is presumed that prisons isolate convicts from the public, in the ever-expanding global world, “convicts today are not isolated from society” (p.100). Operation Hades, the focus of the book, exposed the ease with which Abdel Nasser Zaben was able to recruit and convert prisoners, all the while maintaining contact with the outside world.

Dunleavy describes in detail how Zaben’s background contributed to his radicalization, especially once he entered the prison system. Zaben’s ever widening net is uncovered over the course of the book. Throughout this process, Dunleavy exposes points where the United States government had the opportunity to intervene. These repeatedly missed opportunities allowed Zaben to gain more power in the prison system while adding more recruits.

How then does the United States identify the next Zaben? Dunleavy highlights a number of issues with the prison system as exemplified by the New York experience. First, many of the imams in New York State correctional facilities had radical views. In fact, Warith Deen Umar, who was in charge of approving Muslim chaplains, hired clergy who espoused radical views. Second, Dunleavy highlights the ability of religious clergy to use the components of the religious system to further illegal actions. For instance, the monetary system was used to funnel money to terrorist organizations. Third, individuals used apprentice roles in the prison chaplain’s office to mask their radicalization while using resources in these offices to further terrorism. Fourth, prisoners were able to use the visitor system, especially female visitors. Zaben’s wife, to whom he was introduced by another inmate, did what Zaben himself could not do from prison. These are just some of the factors associated with that prison subculture that seemed to advance terrorism.

While Dunleavy provides a lot of depth regarding the radicalization process in prisons since 1993, the reader is left with more questions than answers at the end. What can we change about the prison system to limit radicalization? For instance, if alone the “New York State Inmate Commissary Account System handles more than $25 million per year (p. 33), how does one keep track of all the monetary transactions in prisons to limit terrorism funding across the country? While agencies are striving to work together, especially with Operation Hades, can law enforcement officials realistically achieve this goal?

Dunleavy provides an excellent portrayal of the radicalization process in the United States prison system. Now it seems incumbent on practitioners to begin making changes to combat this process. Having identified the factors that allowed Zaben to use the prison system to further terrorism, the author has given that system some specific deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to limit the radicalization process in prison. Nevertheless, Dunleavy cautions that jihad is global in nature. Even though law enforcement officials target prison radicalization, radical individuals will continue to find ways to further their goals. This book opens up discussion on the existence of prison radicalization as well as the current level of threat. It should provide a springboard to discussing working policy initiatives so as to target prison radicalization.

Brittany E. Hayes, Doctoral Student, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
 Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books is a joint project of Rutgers School of Law-Newark and Rutgers School of Criminal Justice.

Terrorists in Jail Demand Their "Rights"

On Sept. 11, the nation remembers that fateful day in 2001 when the earth shook, the buildings fell and the innocent were slain. On that day, we vowed as a nation to bring to justice, or bring justice to, those who committed the acts of terrorism. We did.
Leaders of the radical Islamic organization al Qaeda were either captured or killed. Osama bin Laden was taken out by a team of special operations forces while hiding in Pakistan. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, has been captured and is being held in Guantanamo.

With the influx of additional terrorists captured, there arose a debate regarding whether terrorists should be tried in the courts or by a military tribunal. The controversy was never settled one way or the other.
Mohammed is awaiting a military trial along with several other co-conspirators. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber,” was given his Miranda rights, and charges against him were filed in federal court. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison in February. Numerous lesser-knowns were tried in the U.S. courts and sentenced to long terms of incarceration with special administrative measures imposed on their conditions of confinement.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Once jailed, the jihadist does not surrender - he just takes a different path.

Case in point: John Walker Lindh, "the American Taliban" captured in November 2001 in Afghanistan fighting along side al Qaeda and Taliban members against U.S. military forces.

Among the charges filed against him were conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens and providing material support to terrorist organizations. He entered in a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney General's Office and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.

This year he joined with several other Islamic terrorists in filing suit against the Bureau of Prisons for violation of his rights. He states that he and the other terrorists have the right to

get together five times a day to "pray" in accordance with his religious beliefs.  

These would be the same beliefs that led 19 hijackers to kill almost 3,000 innocent Americans in one day.

He contends that allowing them to meet frequently for religious purposes does not pose a security threat. Hopefully the prison administrators will remind the Judge of the case of convicted Islamic terrorist El Sayyid Nosair.  Nosair, while an inmate in Attica State prison in 1992, regularly met in the prison mosque with other muslim inmates for religious purposes  It was there he convinced two of them to assist him in making phone calls to the Blind Sheik, Omar Adbel Rahman and several others as they conspired to bomb the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. The subsequent investigation revealed that Nosair utilized prison phones, visits, and religious privileges to commit a terrorist act while incarcerated.

Lindh is not the first, nor will he be the last to use the courts to challenge his prison time. The al Qaeda terrorist responsible for the bombing of the US embassy in Tanzania in 1998 has also asked a judge to loosen his prison conditions.  Khalfan Khamis Mohamed was convicted along with Mahmoud Salim for the attack in Dar es Salaam that killed eleven and wounded eighty five.

If that were not enough, while both were being held in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, Khalfan and Mahmoud brutally assaulted Correction Officer Louis Pepe, stabbing him in the eye with a jailhouse shank, and then pouring a searing hot liquid in the wound. The resulting injury  caused a permanent disability to Officer Pepe.

In filing his lawsuit, Khalfan claims he is rehabilitated and no longer a security threat to the prison or correctional staff. He wants to be able to mingle with the general population, receive visits from friends and family, and call whomever he wants on the phone. After all, he has rights, doesn't he?

What have we, as a free society, learned from this regarding effectively dealing with terrorism?

Well, if you incarcerate a terrorist, you grant him access to the courts. If you grant a terrorist access to the courts, you give him rights, and a terrorist will use those rights to continue to advance the jihadist goal. The war does not end for them when they are captured. 

Those terrorists who have been in prison are starting to become "jail wise" in using the legal system to advance their cause. They also find a sympathetic ear and support from groups like the ACLU or the Human Rights Commission.

And in touting their "rights" they make a mockery of justice and insult the memory of the fallen.

Hopefully, the judges who hear these cases will heed the counsel of prison security administrators and not be swayed by the crocodile tears of the incarcerated terrorists.

(Washington Times, September 10, 2011)

Counter Terrorism Strategist Comments on Author's Book

Dr Rupali Jeswal

The reviewer is an Intelligence and Terrorism Analyst, Clinical Psychologist and Clinical Hypnotherapist based in South-East Asia. She has also received training in specialsed areas including counter-terrorism, intelligence and tactical operations. She specialises in cognitive learning processes and neural pathway response and how these factors apply to specialised trainings.

She is an expert in the field of non-verbal micro and macro expression for deception and detection and also using non-verbal assets for psychological self-assessment in conjunction with Emotional Intelligence to enhance the human mind, personality, image and spirit.

She is a member of ICPA (International Corrections & Prisons Association), IACSP (International Association for Counter-Terrorism and Security Professionals) and a member of APA (American Psychological Association), APP (Association of Professional Psychologists), UK Certified Hypnotherapist and General Hypnotherapy Register.

A Global Problem

"
"If the devil leaders of New York think placing me in [prison] will end the war, they are wrong;; this is only the beginning.”

These words were spoken by El Sayyid Nosair following the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.  Nosair would later be convicted of the crime in United States Federal Court and sentenced to life in prison along with his co-defendants and their spiritual leader, Sheik Omar Abdel- Rahman.

Now the newly elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi

has vowed to have Rahman released from prison.

What can we make of this?  Are terrorists rendered inoperative when incarcerated?  Do the events in one country's war on terrorism have an impact on other nations?  read more...

Looking Beyond the Trial in Guantanamo

What Should Be Done With the 9-11 Plotters ?

After a prolonged delay and much political debate, legal proceedings against Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Hawsawi , the defendants accused of plotting the 9-11 attacks on the United States, began last week before a military tribunal held at Guantanamo.

Initial reports of the day's proceedings lead us to expect an even longer trial than that of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker in the 9-11 attacks, whose  case took almost five years to complete.

The day was filled with antics by the defendants and procedural posturing by the defense attorneys.  A simple 15 minute process took about twelve hours to complete.

The defendants refused to speak or even use the electronic translation headphones provided, then they requested to pray.  Meanwhile, one of them was placed in a restraint chair for disrupting the tribunal. 

One of the defense attorneys, Cheryl Bormann, wearing a hijab and long black robe, requested that the judge order the women in the court to dress modestly out of respect for the defendants' religious beliefs.  One forgets that it is those very beliefs that led these defendants to conspire to kill thousands of innocent Americans on one September day, in the name of Allah.

We were provided with a brief description of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the plot.  He was described as having a long flowing grey beard with red streaks in it.  This is traditional for conservative Islamic fundamentalist men who are forbidden by the Sunnah to dye their hair in its natural color but are allowed to use a henna extract following the custom of what many believe the prophet Muhammed did.

One might ask where he got the henna?  Or is it now the policy of the current administration to allow inmates to dye their hair?  When last I checked, any inmate found with hair coloring was in possession of contraband.  Changing one's appearance in prison is often a prelude to an escape attempt and is considered a serious breach of security.

Surely antics like these, and much more animated ones, are in store for the future. The defendants have been provided a platform to preach their virulent form of Islamism and inspire their followers to the path of jihad while shouting contempt for Western civilization.

But after the hearing and the verdict rendered, what then?  Only one of two sentences can be administered: execution or life in prison.  If the latter, then we must determine now where that will be.  Not too long ago, the current Administration pledged to close

Guantanamo and assimilate those held there into the US prison system.  And more recently, the current Attorney General sought to have the trial of these defendants held in New York City.  If not for the Congressional action taken to thwart that move, lower Manhattan would now be in a high security lockdown. 

If we do take the individuals into the Bureau of Prisons and place them in the SuperMax facility in Florence, Colorado, we will have created a conundrum far surpassing any ever seen by prison administrators, even with the most stringent Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) placed on the defendants.

In prison, time often works to the great advantage of the convict.  Mainstream society often forgets the most heinous of criminals once they are locked away.  But the terrorist never forgets, and knows how to manipulate the system. 

A recent example of this was in the case of Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, convicted in 2001 for the bombing of the US embassy in Tanzania.  Mohamed has been given access to the federal courts to challenge his conditions of confinement.  These SAMs were placed on him immediately after his conviction. 

Now, ten years later, he is telling the judge that he has changed, been rehabilitated, and it is no longer necessary to control whom he talks to on the phone, or who visits him, or whom he can write to.  In fact he wants to be placed in the general population so that he can attend services in the prison mosque.  Sounds absurd ?  What if the motion is granted?  Not today maybe, but five years from now, who will remember?  The families of the innocent victims - they will never forget and neither should we

So what is the purpose of the trial and what should be the outcome?  It is the high and noble cause that justice prevail and the rule of law be witnessed by the world, including those who would seek to destroy the United States.  Let us not stray from that and let the penalty fit the crime.