Will leave time for questions. Some of you have questions you want to ask our allstar panel. Secondly, in previous sessions at the festival, we have heard very interesting ring tones. [laughter] want to hear those interesting ring tones. Silence your phones, but if you want to take pictures, tweak them. Tweet them. We will take questions at the end. The microphone will be passed around, so if you want to get attention of the microphone, look around as we move to that portion of the program. Im david, the chief operating officer of and i worked in the cia both before and after september 11, so revisiting the terror issue from a different perspective. I am here to bring out the best expertise from our panelists. Bobby chesney is one of the cofounders of law fair, who served on the Detention Policy Task force. It is now the chair in law in World Affairs at the university of texas, where he also directs that center. Mary mccord has been the acting assistant attorney general for National Security, the Principal Deputy attorney for National Security. And for 20 years before that, a u. S. Attorney. She is now the legal director at the institute for constitutional advocacy and protection and a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University law center. Lisa monica. She was the Homeland Security and counterterrorism advisor to barack obama, as well as the assistant attorney general for National Security and chief of staff at the fbi to the then director robert mueller. Whatever happened to him . She is now the cochair of d ata security and privacy group. She teaches National Security law at new york universitys school of law. And is a Senior Analyst at cnn. Robert wast least, the director of the National Counterterrorism center after serving in government positions in the george w. Bush and barack obama administrations. He has now the senior director for National Security and the Counterterrorism Program at the Mccain Institute for International Leadership and a professor of practice with the Sandra Day Oconnor college of law at Arizona State university. That is a lot of background and experience to bring to bear on this issue that is confronting us today. So we will start off with laying the stage. Bobby, what is domestic terrorism and what statutes do we have to help us address it . The first thing to understand is that thereion can be and are there is often a difference between what we might describe as the ordinary common sense definition or sense of the phrase, and what particular Legal Definition there might be. Lets start with the commonsense understanding, which is usually described as Something Like the following illegal acts of violence where the mental state of the person conducting the act or intent is to have a coercive effect on government policy and a to intimidate or terrorize civilian population. So there is this motivation that distinguishes it from crime, trafficking violence, that kind of thing. It is the common sense understanding. What makes it domestic instead of just terrorism in general, would be where the nature of the threat actor does not have a substantial foreign time, the plot is not emanating in the form of direction or control or development of the plot, et cetera, from a broad. That is to say it is simply one of us doing it here. That is the common sense understanding. As for how it is spoken about in statutes, that is where it gets tricky. There lies a lot of our Current Issues in the area. At the federal level, we have a variety of what we might describe as generic Violent Crime statutes, the killing of a federal official for example, a murder statute. But then we have a slice of criminal law specific to terrorism, and you can find it in title 18 of the u. S. Code. There is a laundry list of all these offenses. Most of them are International Terrorism focused, because that scenario, of course the federal government will play the lead role. But it is widely said that we do not have a domestic terrorism federal statute. It is true we do not have one that is labeled as such, and i think we will talk about whether that is an important gap that needs to be closed for symbolic purposes and all the things that follow that symbolism, but also it is the case that some statutes in title 18 do apply to domestic terrorism scenarios. So the practical matter is, or the question is when can the , federal government get involved in charging . If its a terrorist attack, but involves explosives, federal officials, transportation hubs, in those scenarios, federal law can be charged in those scenarios. The practical gap, theres two, guns and other forms of violence. Domestic terrorism using the most common method of attack would be guns, that is not covered at the federal level. Secondly, you may have heard of something called the Material Support statute. It gets complicated. The one everyone has heard out that flat out supports to a Foreign Terrorist Organization that has been designated as such. We dont do that with domestic terrorist organizations. That is a separate gap and whether any of these gaps should be closed and i think we will talk about. You mentioned federal, federal, federal. Where there is a murder using a vehicle or a gun or an edged weapon, states will prosecute that. Theres no scenario involved in active violence that is going to violate general Purpose State laws. In our most recent tragedy here in el paso, there are capital murder charges have been filed by the District Attorney in el paso. It doesnt matter that we cant file a domestic terrorism charge in order to seek the death penalty. It might matter further reasons. Going back to previous cases of Mass Violence in the United States, there has been talk after almost everyone about what needs to be done, but not much has happened because of that. Lisa, you wrote that regarding domestic terrorism, its time to turn from talk to action and confront this threat. What specifically do you have in mind . What should be done to fill the gaps that bobby mentioned or addressed other elements of domestic terrorism . Lisa thank you for mentioning piece. Ace that that piece that we wrote was really about calling on all of us, political leaders, citizens, to put aside political and part aside the partisanship and do our duty as we how we put it to focus on the most urgent threat we have as a nation, domestic terrorism, gun violence, Mass Violence, russian attacks on our democracy all of those things that we need more bipartisanship and nonpartisanship. On domestic terrorism in particular, i think there are two things we should do. Number one, we need to call it by its name. We need to call it out. And here i would cite a good move by department of Homeland Security just last week in issuing a strategy paper that says in quite clear language from the department of Homeland Security, domestic terrorism and mass attacks are as great a threat as foreign terrorism. Headlines and the at the incredible tragedy that communities like el paso, dayton effaced, thate seems apparent that seems apparent but it has not been said, and it has not been set enough by federal government and experts at the federal level. So we have to call it out. I think we also need to put it on the same priority list. We have to put it on the same plane as foreign terrorism, which is not to say we should be ignoring or downgrading our approach and our focus on foreign direct state terrorism. I suspect there is a lot of unanimity on this panel on that score, but we need reprioritize or recalibrate how we think about domestic terrorism. Because without follows leadership, which gets to one thing we really need to do, which is a path to domestic terrorism statute. Mary has written on this. She can talk about it more. But doing that, i think, will apply the same moral opprobrium to acts of a violence that are directed with the intent to intimidate a civilian population, the same program that we have for foreign directed terrorism. So pass those statutes. We also need to restore the job of the Homeland Security and counterterrorism adviser in the white house. So that role, the one i had has , has been downgraded. The person who serves in the now downgraded function of that job, i think has been put into witness protection after he had to make a statement about the whole sharpeygate. I do not get off there still is a position, but it does not report directly to the president , like you did. Lisa correct. There is a position but doesnt report to the president. In that role and president bush started this quite rightly and smartly to. At thee person operating most senior level in the white house whose job it was to focus 24 7, wake up every day, faxed summit or next foreign leader engagement but on threats to the homeland and to immediately,ly and and i can tell you, i did, which obama gave me t the nickname dr. Doom because i was ime i saw him bringing him bad news. But structure matters, right . Nd how you spend your time matters. I met with him every morning in office and briefed him on terrorism threats, cyberthreats, you name it. Errorism was always at the top of the list. So i think it matters. It means there is focus in the the top, at t leadership level. It means you have somebody in convene house who can cabinet which i was able to do. Operating at my level. Our response to terrorism events in this country policy,oad to coordinate have that responsibility resonate in one person. Community and Grassroots Efforts to kind of intervene when people are going path. A dark gun reform, you name it. Lets go back to the statutory side first. Have any of you in the last couple of years read or heard the need for a domestic terrorism statute at the federal level, it was attached to her name. This drum beating beat for a while. Tell us, what specifically do in mind what would a terrorism statute have . Were an acting, we thinking a lot about domestic terrorism and whether there was to be filled ded but i left the government in may 12, 2017, most of you probably recall the unite right rally in charlottesville, georgia, who ran his car into a crowd of counterprotestors, seriously wounding dozens. And i saw ed that what happened and i thought this is the same kind of terrorism eve been seeing across europe and in other places on behalf of Foreign Terrorist Organizations isis for the last couple of years. Frankly the vehicle had become choice in a on of in the uk, ttacks france, germany and elsewhere. We have a gap in our statutes person, james s charlottesville just like if the shooter in el paso right before he committed his attack i can guarantee you, either both of charged with crimes of terrorism. International terrorism or attacking to commit that on behalf of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Standard anddouble as we crimes in our country of expressing ay their condemnation for activity. Whats beyond permissible in a society of laws. And of the rule of law. And so, there is that moral equivalency that we need to have approach that we terrorism but beyond that, because people will say to me, it just semantics or moral equivalency, but a lot comes important. Hats one thing is that people right now, i think, oftentimes in the terrorism the word and they immediately think islamic extremist. Think jihad. They think 9 11 and people need to know what a threat is because decisions in ke your daily life an im not suggesting that we all go around for d to go out in public fear of terrorism that would be the worst thing to do but you is to know what the threat so you can appreciate and understand even if you dont appreciate the efforts of law intelligencend our community and our government, ut forth to combat that threat and more importantly, the ways that you and Community Members an be aware of the threat and looking out for things you might see in your own community. Of now in the area International Terrorism, that in as many as 70 of the cases, was somebody, a bystander, friend, coach, religion eader, mentor, that saw something going wrong in that persons life. When me thing holds true we talk about ideologically motivated attacks that is not ased on a Foreign Terrorist Organization but on ideologies, ideologies, we know right now, extremism is the most when it comes to terrorist attacks and deaths in the u. S. And its been that way or whether its Animal Rights extremist or extremism. When you commit an act of violence in order to coerce or terrorism. Thats the gap is twofold. Right now, you will hear this a 51 crimes here are that would apply to domestic terrorism but they are very specific. Involving use of explosives or attack on u. S. Government property or u. S. Government officials. Crime that applies to use of a weapon to commit a shooting, to intimidate or coerce if its not tied to a Foreign Terrorist Organization the same with a vehicle. There is also no crime that would apply to stockpiling weapons. Intending them to be used in for tting a mass shooting ideological purposes in order to intimidate and coerce. Conceived of a statute, and ive talked to a capitol hill, n with civil rights and civil liberty groups, oversight board, ive been trying to talk to as many people as i can to try and a proposal nt have that satisfies all the concerns. The basic outline of this would that youre criminalizing already existing crimes of iolence, things that could be prosecuted in state courts, murder, kidnapping, assault with aggravated weapon, with assault but when done with he intent to intimidate or coerce, this would be and when done in the United States this u. S. Territories, would be terrorism within the territorial jurisdiction of the u. S. Instead of at domestic terrorism because it would also apply to a terrorist isis or al half of qaeda. The whole point would be its in the u. S. To intimidate or coerce. What would would do is also form a predicate for Law Enforcement to aggressively use tools they have used to combat International Terrorism, we can talk about this, thats like online, undercover personas, sting operation, things that some eople criticize as being too aggressive and i understand that but those are things that are imed at prevention so it gives Law Enforcement more of a predicate. They can do some of that now. Dont want to suggest that when they know this is the statute, it gives route as opposed to using other tools. For the also allow criminalization of the stockpiling of weapons, knowing and intending that those are to used in committing a crime of terrorism within the u. S. Jurisdiction. And, you know, thats probably more complicated than we want to here. Nto what it would involve amending to do that but essentially you coast guard e u. S. Lieutenant was recently arrested arsenal of ing an assault rifles and other weapons nd had written extensively about his fouryear plan where he was going to be accumulating weapons, accumulating targets ultimately commit a series of Mass Shootings intent on ethno state. Hiteth he was charged with protection of a silencer, possession of drugs because he happened to have drugs also in his home and a firearmossession of by a drug addict because he had drugs in his home. All fiveyear sentences, we would call them fairly minor offenses. Of us who have been secutors, and they are not the magistrate judge ruling on hether to detain mr. Hassan prior to trial said i cant detain him. You havent charged him with a crime of violence. He u. S. Government appealed that to the vict court judge who overruled that decision and him, but will detain its a serious concern when you have somebody so intent to mass attack causing Mass Violence, that really, you know, there was very little to with. Him the last thing and i know we need to move on. People say what about hate crimes . Its true there are federal hate crimes and, in fact, government has been more aggressively using those recently. Thats why you heard the u. S. Attorney after el paso say to credit were investigating this like domestic terrorism but his next breath was, so well be whether to charge him with a hate crime. You might think why that . Ecause he didnt have a terrorism offense to point to and hate crimes sometimes can fill that gap. Tree of life synagogue shooter in pittsburgh, has been charged with federal hate crimes hate crimes arent going to completely fill the gap and they slightly rve a different role within our criminal justice team and we can talk more about that if people interested but it is one option thats, you know, a fruitful option and a good used. N thats being it just doesnt completely fill that gap. There is that statutory side mechanics of government, which is how does the federal government, it might that se you all to know immense sieve amounts of money and resources are dedicated to terrorism in the federal overnment especially encountering it countering it here who have nick ran the National Council Terrorism Center for three years. Was deputy for 2 1 2 years that. And has said publicly, that absolutely none of that time was focused on domestic terrorism. Nick, how do we understand that . The public understand how the National Counterterrorism center wasnt this threat . Well, im the nonlawyer of here, and so, but i ould fully subscribe to this set of comments made before me that talk about we need a better framework but as a practical matter the way our government approaches the set of facetic challenges that we is different than the way we approach our set of International Terrorism concerns. In uple of things happened the last couple of years that brought that home to me. One is, when i would go abroad meet with my counterparts from other countries, i would think about international versus domestic terrorism, they would ook at me as if i was bringing some lexicon to the table that made no sense. They didnt create such divide. They simply talked about terrorism and the kinds of terrorism they were confronting. Why were you americans this was the sense i was taking away from them by thinking about it in two different ways. Secondly, when i thought about hings like the tree of life synagogue massacre, i thought, how am my friends and colleagues n the white house and administration responding when on event happened like that and i kind of knew from my long in the white house situation room sitting alongside mary and lisa, i know exactly we would have swung into action had it been an individual al was tied to isis or qaeda. We would have had the c. I. A. , defense department, state department, treasury every National Security agency that you can think of would have been around the table with us, out what piece of this can we help solve or address. Hand, as soon as that person is identified as being a domestic terrorist, and any way linked to and i was i was or al qaeda, all metaphoricals in a sense push ourselves back from the table and look to the right f. B. I. Over to you, and it becomes simply an f. B. I. Law r to treat as a enforcement set of challenges. I dont say that in any way as being critical. My friends and colleagues of the f. B. I. What im saying is we tend to eave then alone on the Playing Field when dealing with this set of issues and to their credit up are ending ramping their game against this set of issues. Weve seen f. B. I. Officials in testimony talking about that. But i think the rest of the government may need to catch up n terms of its ability to contribute to solutions on this domestic terrorism. Just to fill in that part, nick, why is it important to have a whole government approach in that area . Things weve learned in the entire period since 9 11 is that no one tool box is actually sufficient to deal with any of our National Security problems and certainly not terrorism. Bomb or fight our way out of our International Terrorism problems, nor can we way out with foreign aid. All of these needed to be pieces. Part of the was equation, so, of course, same is true with domestic terrorism. Pointed out the department of Homeland Security has stepped up its game at least hetorically with a document last week that acting secretary mcelhinney released that says department of Homeland Security will be approaching this set of domestic terrorism renewed urgency and prioritization. The question is will that follow with resources and programs and and dollars . Bureaucrats s that use as metrics to find out if youre serious. Own ught about my organization at the Terrorism Center, not to dodge your question, and i thought, all of that wentt and energy and creating it after 9 11 it was explicitly in the old days focused overseas, focused terrorism ernational problem and thats simply living where we live today makes no sense. You have your premier Counterterrorism Organization ith some of the best minds and access to the best information on terrorismrelated matters, nd wall them off from this set of terrorism concerns. I think we would all agree its probably at the top now. Around the American Communities right now including texas, sure, youre right to be orried about an individual inspired by isis or al qaeda that. Threat is still very much out far more pressing and proximate threat as mary suggested, that posed by ndividuals based on a white primaist ideology or hate ideology, antisemitism, like that. Its not a silver bullet. It doesnt mean the good guys fix the and will problem but it comes closer, david to what you said, which is government approach to these solutions. The last point, if youre alking about dealing with this set of challenges it also means the department of health and Human Services because its policy to Bring Mental Health resources to bear on these problems. T also means the department of education being part of the equation because clearly some of this stuff is happening in our middle schoolsng and high schools, so whole of government is what you ought to e demanding, whether its democrat or republican, and i think thats what some of us nstage have been talking about. Let me go beyond the government. Back to you, lisa. Youve written about the of getting cooperation and working with social Media Companies to talk environment that breeds domestic terrorism. How can we build on that model the rking together within government, sometimes well, sometimes not, but build on hose successes to improve that the private with sector . [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] im here, you can be right here. Congresswoman, hi. Okay. There we go. Technical difficulties. Everyone. Rnoon, thank you so much for being here this afternoon. My name is laura lopez. Im a National Political and im for politico, thrilled to be here at the texas festival. Were going to have a great discussion this afternoon on politics, immigration, and the 2020 president ial election. Would love to welcome our panelists. Right here next to me is garcia, a an sylvia freshman democrat from
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.