Transcripts For CSPAN3 Violent Domestic Extremism And International Terrorism Discussion 20240714

This is two hours and ten minutes. Thank you for coming. My name is seth jones, the harold brown chair and director of trance National Threats project for the center of international studies. We have a fantastic two sets of panels on what is an important subject and i think increasingly important subject and part of the motivation i think from Suzanne Spaulding and i in looking at this and i have to give you u credit, suzanne, for being the brain child behind this, was to look at some of the recent attacks including el paso and the synagogue attacks and note that there has been a dialogue debate within the u. S. About how to respond to it. The degree of threat and how serious it is then how to respond to it. So what we like to do is move in the following sense. Were going to begin with a discussion about the evolution of the threat. And how domestic terrorism, i know some of the terminology for these groups is the racially motivated violent groups. I cannot promise the panelists are going to use that term, but just be a little aware that were talk about roughly the same subject. Then well move into a second panel which well debate and discuss some implications and ways forward and some of the issues that i think we have to grapple with. I wont read through the bios, but we have tried to include a combination of people on the fist panel with experience and looking both at the violent extremists, ones that have been motivated or worked with alqaeda and the Islamic State so we have nick, senior director for National Security and kournt terrorism programs at the Mccain Institute and many of you will know him based on his government work including most recently, as now former director of the National Counterterrorism center. We then have to nicks right is rebecca winer, assistant commissioner for intelligence analysis at nypd. There was an oped published last week from an nypd standpoint that looks at this issue and then george selen. Senior Vice President of programs at the Antidefamation League and former drek r tor of the office for Community Partnerships at the department of Homeland Security. So youll have a range of different views on this subject. Couple of points of order before we begin. One were going to have f a discussion for about 40 minutes or so then we will open it up to questions. From you and please remember this is about questions. If you start giving a monologue, cut you off and ask where that question is. So just speak into the microphone so raise your hand. Well call on you. You can identify yourself and then ask your question into the microphone, that would be great. Second, if theres emergency, we dont expect there to be one, the csis policy is to move over National Geographic museum which has a fantastic cafeteria and is located next door. That was not an indication to go there before or after, although you can always do that if you want. So with that, we will start and i will sit down. Thank you again for coming. What would be helpful is to get a sense, particularly after 9 11, u. S. Government focuses a lot on the threat from alqaeda then the Islamic State, but weve now added other kinds of extremist threats into the u. S. Attacks from far right, left and others. But how do you see this issue e violaing ov i involving over time . I will use the broadest of brushes on how the threat picture has evolved over time and ill do that mindful of the fact theres quite a number of people sit ng this audience who have f had their hands on various National Intelligence estimates or other key documents that have frame d this problem for our policy community. So with apologies to some of those folks who might end up shaking their heads as i generalize about the nature of the threat. In the period since 9 11. In the period right after 9 11, certainly for the first several year, we were very alqaeda focused. Thats not surprising. That was the terrorism threat that was most proximate to the United States. Certainly in terms of the homeland, what we were the most concerned about. Still very much in our mind in those early days, had a model in mind of an organization that was trying to penetrate the United States. That was trying to, to in a sense, infiltrate operatives, think sleeper cells. Think clandestine covert op r e operations to get individual inside the United States in order to carry out terrorist attacks and we developed quite a strong capability to detect and mitigate against that kind of threat using our Law Enforcement tools. Of course over time, as alqaeda me tas sized to use a word that often gets used and as alqaeda became not just an organization that we were dealing with in south aig, but became a Global Organization with a series of potent and lethal affiliate groups, the challenge and pressure placed on the Homeland Security apparatus to succeed in that endeavor got quite intense at times and then i would argue the threat began to shift to one that actually became much more of a in some ways, more challenging threat dynamic. That of the socalled home grown violent extreme iss. The idea that we were not as threatened daytoday by that sheep sleep rer cell insurgent from abroad, but instead, it was most likely the individual who would be inspired, motivated, who would be encouraged, propelled into action by an ideology or in some cases, but actual individuals overseas connecting with them. That became a much more difficult and challenging problems in some ways for Law Enforcement because of course identifying those individuals in the absence of the kind of usual Communications Patterns you see when groups are operating was not going to be easy. That was already a problem. At the time isis kind of came on to the scene and in a sense, i would argue at least for a period, supplanted alqaeda as our principle terrorism concern overseas. The isis phenomenon i would argue only accelerated those trends that were already in motion in terms of the home grown violent extremist problem becoming our principle homeland terrorism problem. I wont go into why. This is a sfophisticated audience. You know how capable Islamic State was and is in its ability to use modern tools of communication to motivate individuals. But that hve model is one that i would argue translated very well to this new kind of threat were talking about today. These are again most likely to be individuals operating outside o the group structure, a formal group structure. They are not drawing their direction or capability in most cases from some kind of playbook that a group publishes. They are not carrying a lanyard necessarily around their neck that says i belong to this group and it follows this structure. So it will be interesting to hear rebeccas comments on this as she looks at the case load inside new york city, but at least in terms of volume, if you go by what the fbi is saying publicly and director wray has been up front on this, the case load theyre managing on this set of terrorism concerns has come to be at par with the International Terrorism set of concerns. Thats something ill close by saying this. And particularly when im in the overseas environment where people are saying arent you americans all spun up over domestic terrorism right now. I say yes, we are, we should be. But dont forget you almost cant go a day or two or week or two without reading in the United States press somewhere in the arrest, prosecution or disruption involving what we would call International Terrorism. Propagated by isis or al qaeda. So its not as if one went up and the other went down. Seems we are dealing with a problem of rough parody right now. Ill stop there. Rebecca, turning from nicks overview, historical overview to new york city and the area that you take a look at. Two questions. One is how are you see iing thi play out, this international and domestic terrorism play out of new york and the second is on the domestic side including domestic groups far right extremists for example, how do you do you i mean, what how are they structured . How informal is it . How do you characterize it . Thank you so much, first of all, seth. Thanks, everyone, for having me here. Its great to reflect a little on this threat collectively. Nypd has a slightly different but relevant view on the matter. If we understand this threat, if we call it motivated violent extremism, we have the tool Kit Available to understand it. What were seeing in new york looks in many ways very similar to the homegrown extremist landscape. Youre dealing with a similar set of actors who are aggrieved, angry, often disenfranchised in some way or another, who are seeking an ideology that justifies their violent intentions rather than driven in a formal way like we saw years ago with al qaeda driven by that ideology. Counterintuitive counterintuitively, graphically more diverse. So our textbook examples are slightly broader spectrum than we might think. The radicalization process is somewhat similar to what were seeing among hves, online, subcultures that are spanning from open to closed forums to twitter and instagram to forums like wired and discord and telegram where individuals are consuming and disseminating propaganda that loo,s liks like propaganda similar to isis. In terms of defining ideological pillars of these groups, there are texts that drive whether its the lone actor or the formal groups, similar to what we were seeing for years in the isis, al qaeda and hve world. Its different books, its the turner diary, not milestones or the management of savagery. There are more similarities, i think, than differences. The mobilization to violence also bears similarities. Tactically youre seeing the lowtech, do it yourself tactics we see in hve. Unite the ramming, straight out of isis playbook, the Mass Shootings we saw in el paso and christchurch and in pittsburgh. So, i would say that what this means for local Law Enforcement is that we need to rely upon the tools that we have developed starting from 9 11, but i think in the 20092010 time frame where things shifted radically to the hve, the lone actor from within. And this is a conventional suite of Law Enforcement tools. If we cite some new york city numbers, just to give us context, and i think this goes back to your point, nick, about numbers. There have been 32 disrupted plots against new york city since 9 11. Weve seen a couple of shifts since that time frame. If you frad it into two phases, the first nine years and the second nine years, you see 12 incidents in the first nine years after 9 11, 20 in the second nine years since 9 11. So, thats a pretty dramatic uptick. And the actor has changed quite dramatically of the 12 that happened in the first nine years since 9 11, two would be adriptadrip atranscript tributed to homegrown. Since 2019 there are 15 in the homegrown context of which two we consider white supremacist extreme. In terms if youre trying to way international, hve and domestic, were seeing more international hve. That said weve begun looking a lot harder and we go back to 2017 when James Harris Jackson traveled from baltimore into new york city to fatally stab an africanamerican man. Obviously, he did this because new york he thought of as a Media Capital where his attack would have a force multiplication effort amplified by the media which is in certain ways which helped drive cesar s sayock. This is a spectrum of activity. I think impiven the similarities in the hve and white supremacist context, we shouldnt be terribly surprised to see what weve begun to see in terms of individuals who you wouldnt characterize as one or the other. If you look at den arthurs in 2017 who killed two roommates in florida, fascinating example of somebody who switched allegiance from the division of Violent White Supremacist Group we look at to isis. This case decided for a lot of different points. Among them we ought to remember people looking for ideology to justify violent intentions will often look for multiple at times conflicting ideologies. Well continue to see this blending and blurring and keep us busy. Can you talk for a second, to what degree are you seeing, at least in the new york area, threats, so intent and capabilities from antifa or the anarchists as well, and part of the reason i ask the question is because these groups or networks or individuals feed off each other. We do see that in new york. New york has been a center of gravity for the Anarchist Movement for quite some time. What we tend to see among formal groups, i would say the concern that were most focused on is the idiosyncratic low and opportunistic threat. That said, were often interested in formal groups and we see this reciprocal violence. If you look at the proud boys antifa brawl that happened outside the Republican Club a year and a half ago, thats the kind of threat we have to take note of. Our local Law Enforcement need to make sure the streets are safe. We view that as reciprocal, we view that as important, with he view that as less likely to result in the same kind of mass shooting, copycat, subculture of more profound ideological hate that many son of these other actors ive talked about. Theyre important but in terms of threats that were weighing our resources against, thats a much more familiar fact pattern. George, from your perspective, both where you are now and where you came from at the department of Homeland Security, how do you see they have compiled a lot of figures and data on the domestic threat front, so how do you see that . Second, picking up on what everybody up here said, how do you compare and contrast it with the threat we saw the first decade and a half after 9 11. Thank you, seth, and suzanne, for convening this important set of conversations today. Its great to be on the panel with esteemed colleagues ive worked with for a long time. In terms of laying down the data, three particular points i want to make sure that we understand in the context of this conversation. The first is that calendar year 2017, according to adls data, we saw a 57 increase in antisemitic incidents across the country. Now, you might be wondering, why is that relevant . That same year, according to fbi and dojs own data, there was a 17 increase in hate crimes and bias motivated crimes across the country. The reason that i lead with the statistic on antiseat mettic incidents is because we often know across the country, and weve seen this in case and case again, incidents of antisemitism are often the canary in the coal mine if you have an incidence of an antisemitism, theres xenophobe yeah that happens in that same zip code. Weve seen a marked increase in bias and hate motivated violence and crime across the country. In calendar year 2018, over 90 of murders and homicides that are attributed to ideologically motivated violence, were at the hands of white supremacist, white ideology. Thats in the context of the past decade of data that shows that us 73 of violent extremist related murders and homicides, death, actual killing of people and was at the hands of right wing, white supremacist ideology, not islamist inspired jihad terror here in the homeland. As we look at the indicators of growing indicators of hate and bigotry, coupled in context with what were seeing overall with murders and homicides in this country, we know weve got a combustible mix. To the point that that nick started to allude to what weve seen in the post9 11 era coupled with what recollerebeccw york, the tools and instra frur of the federal government that had been building from the bush to obama. Administration, the ecosystem, the infrastructure for prevention, for tools, for state and local governments, for communities to prevent and intervene in the process of radicalization, in the Current Administration have been decimated in the past twoplus years. When we look at the staffing, when we look at the programs, when we look at the authorities, theres been a marked cut in those. And so when you look at the data of the threat and when you look at the resources applied to potentially prevent or intervene, those two things arent adding up. So, nick, you spent your last job in government looking at this the terrorism threat from a global perspective. I mean, whats striking, if you look at the last couple years, particularly from the far right threat is that weve seen attacks in christchurch, in uk the fins burg mosque attack, the mp joe cox. To what degree do you asee this as becoming or maybe it already was a much more serious global issue or at least wush oone thas across europe and australia and new zealand. I want to be cautious about that because theres a lot to learn about this. What i can confidently say is theres an international or a transnational dimension to this problem. And so, again, some of my arguments since leading government is, we need to do more to understand that. Does that mean it is going to look like isis . It is going to look like al qaeda . Of course not. But there may be a transnational dimension to this, an International Dimension to this. Clearly what we learned in the aftermath of christchurch suggested that that individual had international contacts. He traveled internationally. He engaged internationally. He found himself among likeminded travelers, fellow travelers in this movement. And so, to me, that argues simply to understand the nature, that transnational nature. That means opening a conversation with partners that would perhaps be broader than it has been in the past. And, again, i sea this not with any sense of pride but for all of the years i spent sitting across from other countries senior terrorism, counterterrorism officials, not once did those conversations include a conversation about this dimension. What we call domestic terrorism. That was because, in part, because of the way our system is architected and what fell within my area and other departments responsibilities. The idea we would not be trying to maximize the kind of intelligence and Information Exchange we could get by talking openly about our set of challenges and wanting to learn about the set of challenges our partners feel around the world, to me that seems like an obvious step we should be taking. I imagine we are taking that. There are certainly fora for having that kind of conversation in intelligence channels now. Im glad and i hope those exp d expand. But i want to be careful. I dont want to just assume because the problem is pressing and at the top of our agenda now that it looks the same way as our post9 11 set of terrorism concerns. So lets dig into it. Lets find out if those individuals who are connecting with likeminded individuals overseas, are they going beyond that . Are they engaging in the kind of sharing of tactics and technology and other forms of toolmaking that allow them to be more effective in their homegrown violent extremist activity . Are they just kind of dabbling with others overseas and sharing common frustrations or is there any merging network . I dont think we know the answer. One question, nick. A followup. To what degree is a challenge or is it a challenge when we deal with a subject of domestic terrorism in sharing information across Government Agencies because were talking about u. S. Citizens here potentially operating in the u. S. Now, we know with individuals, say, from the rise above movement, that a number of them before their arrest traveled to ukraine, traveled to italy, traveled to celebrate adolf hitl hitlers birthday in germany so i suspect when people leave the country, there are tools available to monitor their activity, but how does it how is this different from an International Terrorist organization in terms of coordinating or sharing across are Government Agencies . It ends up being a complicating factor. To be honest, that would have been true even if you were talking about sharing of information on u. S. Nationals in the context of International Terrorism. For example, i used to point to this as a little bit of a Silver Lining of the isis experience. There werent many Silver Linings in the isis experience. One Silver Linings is it caused u. S. Agencies and departments to be more willing to be sharing with our foreign partners overseas about our own population of foreign fighters. We certainly needed that reciprocal cooperation from them. When we had cases involving u. S. Nationals traveling to fight for isis or travel to the conflict zone in iraq or syria, that was information we were now prepared which we werent previously ready to share with foreign partners. Im not sure yet that the same phenomenon or dynamic applies in this space because it is a challenging set of circumstances. In many cases what youre talking about is an individuals perceived political activity and political views and how much of that should we at an early stage be willing to share or in a position to share with foreign partners overseas . I certainly recognize the dilemma that may pose for Law Enforcement, principally fbi, in terms of what is fair to share in that overseas context. Rebecca, i wonder if you can unpack a little bit what the potential threat looks like . It terms of the plots that have been disrupted or even attacks that have been successful the last couple of years, what are you seeing some trend lines in terms of the types of tactics that individuals are using or how theyre attempting to recruit individuals . For an audience like this, what should people be concerned about in the direction of this in terms of the nature and the degree of the threat . Its interesting. Hearing nick talk about the transnational threat of it, while we do see quite a lot of similarities, again, tactically, structurally, ideologically even in certain ways between the white supremacist extremists and the hves, the transnational picture is quite can different. When we think about transnational, that is not what weve seen in landscape to this point, but we do see transnational links. They tend to be more fluid. The Group Structures themselves tend to be more fluid. I think that one of the perils of the resistance mode of structuring yourself organizationally the lewis b. Model. Exactly. Is that you open yourself up to factualism which is something we see quite frequently in this Landscape Group that fight within themselves, divide, reconstitute. The traveling, the training, the idea, generation, all of that. Again, i would go back to on the sort of manual do it yourself tactics andtic neeks, the Mass Shootings, et cetera. We do see a preoccupation among this group of individuals with making explosives, with sharing bombmaking instructions. Again, this is not fundamentally different than the threat weve been looking at from hves since 2009 time frame. But thats been something, i think, thats dominated. I think the trend line is going up. I think all of us know this. Thats why were all here today. Part of it is the attention were all giving to these threats begets more of the threat, unfortunately. So, part of it is the more you look, the more you find. But we are increasingly seeing these drivers. I think some factionalism you see within the groups is playing out within contests. Groups that are vying for attention, vying for relevance in an increasingly noisy echo chamber online and in the real world. Its a familiar problem set in many ways. It requires similar tools. We, as you mentioned earlier, wrote an oped last week about the stature framework. I know theres going to be a fantastic Panel Following us that deals with some of the legal issues. New york has a terrorism statute that is ideologically ago nostic. Weve use it in homegrown extremists. I think well increasingly be looking at tools, familiar tools that are a little out of the box in figuring out how much we need to resource this threat. George, from your perspective, rebecca just noted a rise in activity. Whats your sense about some of the factors that are causing that rise . And how important, for example, based on your background, how important have been the social media and other aspects in contributing to radicalization . What have been the main factors . One of the most significant factors weve seen in the isis case study of online radicalization and mobilization is we see what many counterterrorism experts refer to as the flash to bang period shortened. In the white supremacist context, this term of accelerationism has really been something that weve seen be a key motivating factor here in the past 24 to 36 months. Thats in the context of if you are an individual who believes that the white race is under attack that black, brown, muslim or other minority people, nonwhite people are coming into this country and will soon become the majority, that i need to do something now. I cannot wait a month, a year, two years. I need to take actions today. And we see this concept of accelerationism at play in the pittsburgh tree of life synagogue attack, in poway, in el paso. The notion that if you adhere to this ideology, youre not going to wait around to see how the demographic game plays out. Youll take action more immediately. To the extent we see some of the utilization of social media platforms at play here, is absolutely a key factor. One of the key differences is the connection with gaming and other platforms. The four chan, eight chan gab and other folks who have followed this issue with any level of detail have seen how this issue played out and the connection and the sharing of ideas and really the proliferation of these types of hateful ideologies. And the sentiments of accelerationism and the need to take action that have infected the minds of people that have committed these domestic terror attacks. Thats been a key motivating factor. Theres a Senate Hearing this week. This is where the parallels to traditional hve problem end up being so striking. It ends up being a case where individuals have a particular view of history, a particular read on Current Events through that history that drives them to feel there is no choice. They are compelled to take action. I think what george put his finger on, that is not something that is stewing and pamarinatin over years and years now. That is happening in a much more accelerated fashion. That may be a factor that differentiates this particular part of the problem from our i think in some cases our hves did have a very quick flash to bang. In other cases it played out over much longer periods of time. If we are entering a face where that kind of mobilization happens in a much more compressed timeline, that is going to put more pressure on Law Enforcement, more pressure on Law Enforcement to indicate indicators that could serve as Warning Signals and even more of a requirement to kind of engage in the prevention agenda that george alluded to in his previous set of remarks. I know were the problem panel and the next group is the solution panel, but lets play solution here a little bit. You certainly you certainly have to argue that that investment in the prevention set of initiatives that was going on in prior administrations, reinvestment in those initiatives would make sense given the size and scope of the problem were facing. Can i have one more second . In terms of the best practices and lessons learned, we know, and its been documented, that White Supremacists and White Nationalists in this country have absolutely looked up to Foreign Terrorist Organizations to look for operational best practices, if you will. So, filesharing, encrypted apps, the use of social media, the marking and dissemination of their messages. Thats a page out of the playbook of foreign dig natured organizations. Those same measures have been applied here at home on u. S. Soil for the past number of years. So individuals who adhere to an ideology that subscribes to act of violence or terrorism to achieve political gain or political motivation is something that irrespective of what the ideology is, theyre watching and learning from one another. So, our tool set to the point rebecca made earlier has to be absolutely to move forward. To nick and george, can you decide who wants to take this one, but there is a Law Enforcement and intelligence challenge. This is not new. If you look back at the post civil war period, you grant had multiple fronts on clan activity, particularly in the south of the United States. There have been a range of groups in the 1900s, the arm of the lord, the order, that have conducted attacks. Obviously timothy mcveigh. Theres an effort of gathering intelligence on individuals prepared to conduct terrorism and violent acts in the United States. And to arrest those people and charge them and if theres evidence to convict them. What we are seeing thats new is the technological means they have to use the social media dimension, which also brings in the private sector and having seen some private sector, including facebook officials last week, i know this has been a challenge for what they do on their platforms. To what degree is this also a private sector issue . Any thoughts before we get to the Solutions Panel on how to deal with hate is free speech, so how do we think about this threat on these Online Platforms . I know george, adl had a pretty active set of engagements with the private sector. Ill let you go first and ill chime in after. Very quickly, the solution set here is not government should do this, private sector should do that. Platforms are at risk for exposing other innocent users to b bigotry, hatred, xenophobe yeah on their platforms. The American Public in countries across the country, el paso, dayton, poway, the list goes on, have lost sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, et cetera. The solution set here cannot be government nidz to do this and the private Sector Technology company, social Media Companies need to do that. The solution set here moving forward is partnership in an integrated model where government, Law Enforcement at the state and local and also local Community Based actors, we need to supply a comprehensive set of solutions to this set today. When it comes to National Security issues, thats a new way of thinking that makes a lot of people both on congress and in the executive branch uncomfortable. From i sit, its the only way we can move forward. So, rebecca, last question and then well open it up, which is there are people who have expressed concern at the absence of a domestic terrorism statute. Id be curious from your perspective, and part of that, there are folks who have complained, understandably, that, you know, even individuals plotting what looked like their probably tax, one has to arrest them for weapons charges or steroids across state boundaries or, you know, drug trafficking. So, how serious are some of these issues, at least in the new york area . This gets to a comment you made earlier, how much do you feel like you have enough of the tools in place right now to deal with this . So, that and obviously were going to delve deeply into this in a few moments with the second panel. I mentioned the new york state statute. It has served us quite well because its ideologically agnostic. It places this sort of moral ethical primacy on it has a crime and one we need to think about carefully without applying International Domestic to it. I think while we have a suite of federal laws, a suite of other laws at our disposal, when you charge someone with steroids across state lines or Something Like that isnt necessarily the jail time, although that can be a factor, but its all the other authorities and resources and the importance thats placed on the threat issue in general. I think its important that we look at this threat holistically across an ideological spectrum instead of in these very specific buckets. One point i wanted to make, which leads back to the conversation between nick and george earlier, is that mobilization to violence, yes, is happening faster than ever. You have added an important element across this threat, which is the contagion factor. We see this in Mass Shootings and you see it in the manifestos manifestos referencing each other. I think while you dont have the formal structure of an isis and al qaeda in many of these examples, you have some of the same kind of drivers that are creating these sort of legions people are sanctified, christchurch, et cetera. Thats why you need to get in quickly with some of these Public Private tools and deep platforming, given the role that the online environment is playing in this context becomes incredibly important. Its taken a little time for the private sector to catch up to the white supremacist environment started very heavily and aggressively in the International Terrorism context. But these kind of efforts to make sure people arent evil to engage online become very crucial. Great. Were going to turn it over to you weve got microphones in the back. If you can raise your hand. Please identify yourself and keep it to a question. Real start right here. Good morning. Im with catalyst omnimedia. My question is about connecting the dots. And i think whats missing is the religious political connection. I think its undeniable theres some religious ideology, what do you call that, ethical morals thats missing. We keep looking at symptoms, symptoms, symptoms, but we dont look far enough to see the connections that whats your question . My point is, what do they think about that . Why do you think youre missing some of the point of connecting the dots . Its very difficult to offer a datadriven set of observations about the kind of question you just described. But i think its probably inarguable. How is that for a qualification . Probably inarguable that the Political Climate were living in contributes to the kind of apocalyptic view of the kind george described earlier. The sense that we are at this moment in history where something must happen or else, or where my particular subculture, my particular subcommunity is at risk because of x or y does not happen or if i dont take steps against it. Well, obviously the kind of preliminary environment we are in at the moment is producing the kind of rhetoric that contributes to that. Rather than saying is something the president or another political said responsible for an attack . I think thats pointless and doesnt contribute much to the debate. I would instead flip it around and say lets put the responsibility on all of our politicians to play a more productive contributory role in terms of bringing down the temperature and not trying to speak in ways that will be, you know, serve as, in a sense, dog whistle kinds of comments to the kinds of individuals that george was alluding to. But its pretty hard to have that to make that case in a datadriven way. Its more of an impression that i have. Next question right here. Wait for the microphone, please. George washington university. People who engage with radicals in online spaces like jesse morton, who has spoken here before, say theres not only parallels between how White Nationalists and jihadists, homegrown or others, radical otherwise but they radicalize each other. I wonder what youre thinking about, first, about Online Engagement in those spaces during the radicalization process and the similar buy oasis about the two sides going after each other and how to break that symbiosis. You might add an issue i might follow up on which is immigration appears to be an issue thats come up, too. Ill start and im curious for rebecca to weigh in on this in terms of what shes seeing in new york. To answer your question very directly, yes, there is a connectivi connectivity. There is one playing off another to some degree. Theres been a lot of cases where weve seen that documentation. Its been thoroughly noted by jess sxi countless other folks who i think are mostly right on this issue. What im not sure is how much we can extrapolate that to. Can we draw that on every case . I dont know how we cull that down to a percentage. Ive seen it. Its true. Its been noted by good scholarship and research, but i dont know how broadly to extrapolate that. I would agree. I think, yes, that is something were seeing. I think that it makes sense. These are tactics that work in this context so theyre not revolutionary, theyre not complex. Their simplicity is what gives them power. If you go back to abu al sab so these are contexts that have had a lot of play in these worlds. It absolutely makes sense if you are entities operating in low actor or small cell context, you would use some of these tools available to you. You would be active online. I dont see direct partnership between jihadists and White Nationalists in a specific forum. Its a more generalized impression that these are the tools that are best suited to todays violence environment. [ inaudible question ] that is absolutely true, yeah. One followup question. To what degree i mean, this is a complex phenomena. To what degree has the immigration issue been a facilitator in the radicalization process . Its certainly a theme in some of the other attacks. It was a theme in the new zealand attack with immigration in places like france. To what degree are you seeing immigration as an issue . Obviously were talking about extremism here. So, how important do you see that as an element of this . As an issue thats cited as a grievance or a driving factor, its foundational. I dont know if its more or less important than other contributing factors. But its a key kind of pillar when you look at the elements of accelerationism, when you look at what White Supremacists perceive to be a threat against a white anglo majority in this country, refugees, Asylum Seekers and the quota the u. S. Allows in and as those numbers continue to fluctuate is a foundational element of their argument. Do you want thats what i was alluding to earlier. George just chose to use better words. Great. Right here in the back with the glasses on. Hello. Im an Exchange Student from berlin. I have a bit more of a european view on this. And we see in europe theres a problem with, for example, foreign fighters in the ukraine coming back to their home countries. We see mixed martial arts fighting clubs radicalizing their members and training fighting skills. Do you have the same problem regarding the states . And how much of a problem is that . Thank you. I think so, i think our problem here in the states is smaller so far as thats concerned, especially from the new york standpoint, which is where i would be best positioned to offer the opinion. But there are elements of that. I think the question we all have is how important are those elements and how linked are they to whats been going on in europe. And that is, for us, it is a bit of a gap. Were seeing these sort of traces and not understanding the full effect of whether theres an actual footprint there. There are some fundamental, psychological connections here. You see the coast guard officer arrested on weapons charges also interstate steroid play at play, the alleged perpetrator of pulse club, body building, mixed martial arts association. There are some psychological traits there but nothing that connects these issues writ large yet in the u. S. One other thing that strikes me, and i think this has been true in the european context, this came up in a panel i was at in the middle east last week with a number of european officials, is also how much some of this movement in the United States and in some areas of europe have also started to change their profiles so that visually theyre not the same old skinhead, you know, steeltoed boots that they may encourage each other to wear, you know, to cut militarystyle haircut as opposed to completely shaved head or to wear khaki shirts. As weve seen with some of the rise above movement they were in gymstyle clothes, including sweatsuits. So also changing their appearance in ways, much like we actually saw with the islamic extremist groups and individuals preparing for attack, trying to limit their visual on this. So, i do think going back to nicks comment earlier, theres a lot of avenues for cooperation across countries, including what theyre seeing and sharing information, best practices tactics theyve seen. Lets go back out to the audience for a question. We have one right here. Okay. If there is a federal statue that defines domestic terrorism but carries no penalties, what would it take my question is what would it take to start charging american citizens with domestic charges without them having affiliation with foreign terrorist groups. Thank you. You may want to reask your question to the next panel. Of a preview of what youll hear far more expert on this than i, there are some on the hill who are at least exploring the idea of what value a domestic terrorism statute, which would criminalize activity of the sort that is defined, as you say, but not necessarily criminalized in statute, there is some effort under way to try to determine what actually would that do in the way of giving Law Enforcement more tools than they currently have and how do you balance that against any concerns that might exist about the way that might constrain free speech or be viewed as a tool that could somehow be used against other forms of political expression over time. So, i suspect when you see legislation introduced on this, it will generate healthy debate, as it should. Those of us on the outside who have been advocating this be considered, havent said you must do this because this will sofl the problem. Instead the argument is, this should be looked at because this is a tool we havent been using that might have some value. I think thats the way to think about it. Great. Okay. Other questions . Why dont we go to this side of the room here. Your microphone is coming. Thank you. My name is peter. Im the counselor of Russian Embassy here in washington. Just considering the name of the event, can you please specify what is the difference between violence and terrorism, if any . Just the second question, if you mention the international, then mention of White Supremacists, dont you think that probably is high time for those who wanted the Second World War is just to say allow them here, that revisionism is not allowed so i consider in some European Countries right now we can see the collaborators of nazis just marching in the streets and theyre cheered by the others. Thanks. So, just to your question is . First one, its the difference between Domestic Violence and terrorism, if any . The second, just to give the world a quite understandable signal that naziism is not allowed right now and we shouldnt come back to the naziism that brought to the biggest tragedy of the 20th century. George, can you ill start, but my colleagues can weigh in. In the fall of 2011, the u. S. Government in a strategy defined violent extremism as ideologically motivated violence to further a political goal. The textual difference of websters definition is ideological inspiration as opposed to political ends or something else. Its the role of the ideological motivating factors whether it be a religion or some other view. Thats the key difference. I think as weve seen the evolution of radicalization and recruitment by Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and i think as we see that phenomena evolve over time, its driven the National Security community to not just label things as terrorism alone, but understand the full spectrum of violent extremism that has ideologically motivated factors, mobilization elements, et cetera, and just kind of that more fully depicts the picture of radicalization and mobilization as well. Nick and rebecca may want to correct me. And to your other question about remembering the legacy of the nazi era, absolutely. It has been not long enough that we need to be we should not have to be reminded of where we have come and where we need not to go back. Good. Okay. Right here . Thank you. City leader in the british embassy. In terms of the internationalization question, i understand the rule at the beginning of our understanding of quite what that looks like but what is your understanding in terms of who are the major exporters of this extreme rightwing terrorism . Are we seeing this as morphs into International Unit or other places, including the u. S. , that could be considered exporters of this sort of terrorism . I dont know that i can point to a specific part of the world adds a key exporter. I think unique circumstances in lots of western countries right now give rise to the kind of phenomenon george described earlier where some group is defined as other, some group is defined as threatening and then that marries up with a similar or analogous sort of grievances in another country. Its not like they wholesale import the concern, but it leads to the head nod, yes, i have the same set of concerns about my society. One quick plug, on wednesday of this week adl will be releasing a paper that looks at White Supremacy across on the globe. We kind of methodically document across europe, north america, et cetera, where weve seen both the kind of import export of this ideology. There are significant ideological hubs of this within north america. We kind of track this across europe, western europe, et cetera. Look for a more detailed answer to that thats 30something pages on wednesday of this week. Digestible. Not 300 pages. 30. Ra rebecca, you get the last word, if you want it. I think as we have learned over the last hour and 15, to georges point, this is obviously a global problem. Were confronting it together. And i look forward to hearing the continuation of the conversation. Thanks again. Thank you, seth. If you could join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] we have tried to tee this up for suzanne and her panel to answer all the tough questions we have definitively answer all the tough questions we have raised. If you could stay seated, were going to transition over to suzannes panel. This should be an interesting, frank discussion of how to think through some of these issues. Thank you again. Thanks, guys. All right. Well, that was terrific. I want to thank seth and his panel for setting the stage so beautifully for this followon conversation. Seth has been such a tremendous colleague and is always game when i come to him and say, hey, i think weve got some complimentary issues here. Why dont we pull together some discussions. And i think be i thought that was a terrific introduction. Were going to move now to talking in greater depth on some of the things that were touched on in the first panel, which is sort of the, so how do we go about confronting this challenge of whether its racially motivated violent extremism or other ideologically motivated domestic terrorism. And one of the lessons we appropriately learned from International Terrorism in the traditional context of that International Terrorism that are appropriately applied and where are some of the things we need to be more thoughtful about. And i come to this, i started thinking about this, i was immediately taken back to 1985 when i was a relatively new lawyer working on capitol hill for senator Arlen Specter on the judiciary committee. And terrorist palestinian terrorists had seized a crews ship. And a pennsylvania resident, le leon klinghoffer, confined to a wheelchair was pushed off the deck of this cruise ship. We reached out to doj, fbi, we have to prosecute this crime, this was an awful crime against my constituent and was informed there was no good, legal jurisdiction over a criminal attack against an american overseas. Our criminal laws generally dont have extra toeerritorial jurisdiction. We set to work and wrote the terrorist attacks against americans abroad statute, 18 usc. Then i think it was 2331. To fill a true legal gap in our ability to bring all of the tools that we had at our disposal against this very serious threat. Over the years, quite a robust Legal Framework grew up to tackle International Terrorism and particularly after the attacks of 9 11. When there was a major effort, repeated effort to make sure the tools we had in our normal domestic criminal context could also be brought to bear in that National Security and intelligence context. And i testified quite a bit in those days that as we migrated those authorities over to this more secretive context that would not always result in a Public Prosecution, in fact often not, that we recognize that the safeguards that come from public scrutiny and a Public Prosecution and rules about the fruit of the forbidden tree, evidence not being able to be introduced, that meant we had to be thoughtful about what safeguards we put in place in their stead. So, now today here we are, you know, looking at this rising concern about a domestic threat. You know, usually, wholly contained within the United States without the that is from a different ideological premise in many instances, as we heard, from that weve grown to see in the International Terrorism context where a lot of the authorities that built up after 9 11 were based on the seriousness serious challenge of a Global International threat. Now were talking about importing those authorities into the criminal context with a domestic threat. And it immediately brought to mind another memory of mine when i was a kid. My mother always wanted to i had bangs. She always wanted to trim my bangs. And she would trim them but they were a little uneven so she had to even them up. Trim the other side. Oh, a little uneven. Trim them up on the other side. I would end up with bangs up to here. As i listen to the conversation over the last several months, i thought about this sort of lurching back and forth, coming back to the criminal side, and the need to be thoughtful as we do that. Thats our goal today. Seth has gotten us off to a great start. We have a terrific panel today to help us be thoughtful and the discussion and debate that is happening today and will continue to happen on the hill. To help us do this today we have jim baker, director of National Security and cyber security. Former general counsel of the fbi and a number of years at the fbi as senior strategic adviser and other positions. Were really pleased to have him today. We have mary mccord, who serves now as senior litigator from practice for practice at the institute for constitutional advocacy and protection as well as a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University law center. She was acting assistant attorney general for National Security at doj and served as the Principal Deputy assistant attorney at nsd from 2014 to 2016. She worked 20 years at the u. S. Attorneys office in the district of columbia. We also have steve stransky. Steve is a former colleague from the department of Homeland Security where he was for ten years, including seven years as the senior counsel in the intelligence and law division. At dhs and oversaw a lot of these relevant issues. He was also deputy Legal Adviser at the National Security coun l counsel. And harsha panduranga, who is counsel to the Brennan Centers liberty association. Before that he was a Litigation Association at simpson, batcher and bartlett in new york city. Were pleased to have this distinguished group here. Mary, were going to start with you. You recently penned an oped in which you proposed several changes, both to law and to the jurisdiction of existing institutions that you thought might help us to get our arms around and address this growing challenge of domestic violent extremism. May be used like to kick us off by talking about some of the changes you think we ought to be thinking about. Sure. Thank you to hosting this. This is actually the third event of the day ive been talking about these issues which shows how important they are to so many different constituencies. We start off with the muslim jewish alignment and Carnegie Endowment for peace and now here. Im happy were giving it attention so we can give it serious thought and take the pulse and temperature of everyone in this country about how we should approach this problem. Baseline stuff, suzanne used terms like domestic and international. Those really come from our legal regimes. We consider we meaning the government. I was there for so long, i cant stop from saying we. The government thinks of International Terrorism, even if it occurs here domestically in the u. S. , if its done in furtherance of the goals of an International Terrorism group like isis or al qaeda. The government considers it domestic terrorism if it occurs here in the u. S. But based on other ideologieideologies, its an intent to intim da date, coerce policy of government not related to a foreign terroristist organization. Its really confusing since it all is occurring domestically, right . Thats the sort of ruberic well use for this discussion to keep it straight. I started writing about this after the unite the right rally when james fields used his vehicle to plow into a group of count counterprotesters and he killed heather and seriously injured scores of other people. And he was ultimately pros kecud under the state law of virginia and convicted of murder and he was ultimately prosecuted by the federal government for hate crimes and was convicted and given a life sentence. So, clearly, youre saying, why do we need a terrorism statute that applies to domestic acts of terrorism that are not based on Foreign Terrorist Organization ideologies when we have statutes that already cover these crimes . Theres a few reasons i started writing about shut we be thinking about a terrorism statute that applies to this . One is the double standard. Because take, for example, the el paso shooting. If the el pass show shooter had declared al baghdadi before he committed his mass shooting, he would be called a terrorist, International Terrorist and charged with multiple crimes of terrorism. But because he did his crime, his mass shooting based on his desire to create a white ethno state and eradicate this country of others, particularly latinos, there is no terrorism statute that applies. Now, there are terrorism statutes that apply in very specific situations. There are over 50, but they apply in specific situations such as when there is a bomb used, a weapon of mass destruction, when a radiological dispersional device, nuclear dispersal device is used. When youre shooting down an airplane or attacking mass transit or attacking a u. S. Government official or government property. But when you commit a mass shooting or you use your vehicle to kill somebody and you do so based on an intent to intimidate or coerce that is not related to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, there is no crime of terrorism that applies. So, im going to wrap this up. I know time is limited. Trying to engage in dialogue, should we change this double standard, not to put them on the same moral equivalency, which is important in itself. It also i thought, i think, could build trust with communities. And also educate the populous that terrorism does not equal islam iic extremist terror. Terrorism can occur on extremism of any sort, left, right or middle. Middle, and if it is intended to intimidate, that is violence and terrorism, and so part of it is the equivalency, and another reason that i have written about this and written about a number of groups and civil Rights Groups to get my head around this is to, to actually bring the resources into it, because what the u. S. Counter terrorism is about is about prevention, and so people will think about why we dont normally rigorously prosecute hate crime, and that is a good idea, but our system is set up differently, because hate crimes is coming out of the u. S. Civil Rights Division of the doj and terrorism is investigated out of the counterterrorism section of the bureau and within the terrorism division, and that is within the doj and why does that matter . It is the way they think about it and the way they approach it. Could it change . It could, but they use some aggressive techniques that some may criticism such as going undercover, and committing acts of violent jihad, and people talk about acts of violence on behalf of, you know, white supremist organizations and the kkk and these are tools used by the fbi and jim can talk about these as well, and go online and run the sting operation, and this is how we prosecute Child Exploitation cases, and undercover sting operations, so part of the discussions they have had going place to place to talk about this and ways on capitol hill is the ways to integrate the prosecution of domestic terrorism into the nations Counter Terrorism prevention and not simply seeking justice after the fact. And i know that i have talked too long, but i want to throw one more thing out there, and i know that on of the biggest concerns about this is based on the distrust of Law Enforcement in the country and rightfully so. We dont have a history, and i have worked with Law Enforcement my whole life, but we dont always have a Good Relationship between Law Enforcement and marginalized communities, and what we have been seeking to do and talking about it today is what ways the government could bake into any type of domestic terrorism protocol some satisfactory oversight that would assure marginalized and vulnerable communities and civil Rights Groups that any new investigations are not going to be abused. In other words, the fbi is going to go after the pry iorities, a we know that there are more deaths from this than islamist terrorism, and so what types of levers are there to ensure that. Thank you, mary. Jim, mary has made interesting points about the new Legal Authority and being important from the messaging standpoint and not just from, you know, messaging for messaging sake, but Building Trust with community, and maybe bringing resources and attention, but i know that you have, you know, 1078 personal experience some legal and practical issues that come up when you are talking about the wholly domestic threat and can you talk about how you see those two elements the legal and the practical. Sure, sure. With respect to investigating these types of matters, there are, there are a number of different aspects of, legal, operational, policy that present challenges. I mean, they are challenges. They are not insurmountable, but they are challenges. So let me back up to the role of the fbi which is to protect the american people, and to uphold the constitution, and that really mat force the people at the fbi. And they try to do it every single day. And the government as mary was saying that the federal government has certain powers that it can utilize depending upon the International Terrorism arena under the constitutional laws of the United States, and the government has certain powers to deal with those kinds of threats and certain limitations on the powers that are different than what applies in the constitutional setting. So it means a different thing in the United States as a practical matter inside of the United States. The fbi as i said a second ago, the mission, what it is, the way to think about how the fbi operates is that when it confronts any situation, it comes with all of its powers and authorities and oversight and regulations. And so it is less important what particular box you put something in, because the fbi has the powers and when it is figuring out what it is dealing with, it can implement the powers accordingly. So, dealing with the domestic terrorism type of investigation, some of the most difficult challenges are legal, and operational and on the legal side, yes, i think that the domestic terrorism statute would help, and it is another tool that would clarify the intent of congress with respect to what the fbi should be doing in dealing with these problems. It would simplify in certain circumstances the lenses or the framework that the fbi would apply in dealing with these particular situation, and yet there is going to be a requirement to assess that the facts supported the notion that this is a domestic terrorism event as opposed to something else. However, in my experience the main issue that the fbi has to deal with, and it tries to deal with it every time, and my experience dealing with the folks throughout the organization is the First Amendment, because it is not unlawful to have extremist views in the United States. And what is unlawful is to commit crime, and the crimes that are articulated in the federal context by congress, and the statutes set forth there as well as the state, and the crimes that the fbi supports in the state and local partners in investigating, and so that the fbi is very, in my experience the folks at the fbi and the field office at headquarters are very conscious of the limitation on the fbi not to investigate people solely based on their First Amendment activities, and they really dont want to do that, and so it is going toic ma it a challenge to try to figure out in certain circumstances, a lawful activity protected by the First Amendment, and moving over to some unlawful reality, and this is the hard case to talk about it more, and that is the hard legal question at the core. And operation 58 aloperationall these are hard cases to investigate, and they fall into three buckets, an established organization with the structure and the hierarchy with a lot of the members and that type of the group and then in the middle some type of ad hoc people who have coalesced around a grievance or the issue or the philosophical perspective extremist in nature, and then the lone actor. All of those present challenges in terms of the investigating, and the First Amendment issue runs throughout all of them, and figuring out how you can appropriately investigate an organized group who has First Amendment rights, and how do you do that . Do you have undercover agents to go in there to investigate or other issues that people worry about there. With the smaller groups or individuals, it is a smaller problem with detection, and how do you figure out that these people are up to something that is not only extremist with the views they are stating, but the criminal. Those are the practical realities that still exist, and will exist even if we change the law in some way to fa icilitate these investigations. That is interesting, jim. How important do you think it. I often talk about the need to disaggregate the terms that we use and the term cybersecurity, and it is going to encompass two very Different Things to be useful. How important do you think it is for us to disaggregate this, whether we are calling it domestic terrorism or racially mow motivated extremism or the catch phrase into the categories as we are talking about the authority or the policies or the process changes, and do you think that is an important thing for us to think about Going Forward in terms of the different types of the tool, and bring to bear the different level of sensitiviti s sensitivities. For us, the biggest difference legally is international and domestic rules. The problem of it there as to the complication of it, it is sometimes hard to figure out what is going on, and especially in the original context. Do you have somebody who is work agent the behest of isis or in the context of isis, because if they have been, it is a different set of investigative rules that apply, and you dont always know or usually know what they are up to when you First Encounter them, and so it is, and it is the ascertaining of enough facts so you can figure out what sort of box to put it in to help with the clarity of the investigators and think of the tools they can use. Right. So we may hamstring ourselves if we think about the authorities for example. To stovepipe it. Yeah. On the ground, the fbi is going to show up with all of its, somebody alleged to be unlawful or a threat to the National Security which the fbi investigates, and it is trying to figure out exactly what they are up to, and then you can use the authorities that seem appropriate at the time based on the facts that support it. Steve, a big part of that is obviously intelligence and an area of your expertise, but also, i wanted you to touch on that a little bit. But also, we have been heavily focused here on the Law Enforcement approach to this problem, and touch upon from the Previous Panel, and as we know on the years of work with International Terrorism, it is going to require a whole of nation response which is going beyond Law Enforcement approach, and you have familiarity with the dhss efforts or the cde efforts, the community partnership, and maybe you can touch on those and some of the challenges, if you would, and if you are comfortable talking about them, and i will press you a little bit that dhs had in trying to bring attention to purely domestic, and particularly, you know raciallymotivated violent extremism. All right. Thank you. I will start piggybacking on something that jim said and ed said as well. Most of the Intelligence Community is not the fbi. They cannot show up at your door with the executive orders. Most of them are the u. S. Intelligence activities that focus or puts the priority on the foreign threats and the precurser to the 12333 were created in surveillance activities that came to light at the pike and Church Hearings commission as well. So you have priorities in line since 1981, and regulates the Intelligence Community and it ha has been around for 40 years. The crux of the executive order is to have the committee focus on foreign threats. So part 1 is talk about the authorities and what the Intelligence Community can and cannot do and the goals of the intelligence and generally focused on the intelligence and transinternational crime, and counter narcotics and the proliferation of wmds and not on domestic terrorism. So if you peel that back on section 1. 7 of the 12333, it talks about the specific elements. If you are looking at the cia, their job is to collect and disseminate intelligence and counter intelligence. And nsa is to disseminate the community. And it cannot bring to bear foreign communities that the fbi has when they are starting a communication. The outlier is dhs, and they have two offices, and one is the office of intelligence and the difference is that they have a statutory regime showing what type of information they can collect and who they can share that information with. And the definition of terrorism within title 6 which is the section of the i in, a title so there is also the iae which is not limited to foreign intelligence. And then if you move to section 6, the mission is to collect information for threats to the Homeland Security as well as terrorism, and this is where the definition of terrorism is different than title 18. In title 6, terrorism is in short defined as motivated by physical violence, and similar to title 18, but there is no distinction as to where the acts take place or the violence. No difference of the jurisdicti jurisdiction. The homeland act passed in 1992 is through the lenses of being agnostic of what the threat is left wing or right wing or where it takes place. It vests the department with the Intelligence Authority to collect and analyze that information, but we are talking about one department and one agency out of the whole Intelligence Community besides the fbi that has the authority to engage in these activities. We all know they do. The last panel talked about flagging the right wing extremist report in the beginning of the obama administration. People know that the department of Homeland Security has been engaged in the analytical activities for a long time. If i recall the pushback on that report wasnt that dhs was doing intelligence analysis on domestic terrorism, and that is well understood they have the authorities and the rules to collect the information on the u. S. Citizens, and if it is listed purely in the context of domestic terrorism, and the pushback of the substance is the rigor that went into it, and you can see the wave that follows of whether or not it should be the priority, and should the resources that exist in this space be dedicated to domestic terrorism or follow up on the abdullah bombing over detroit and if the shift should go back to isis. And so in a sense we have the authorities to the Intelligence Community to bring a whole holistic issue, and fortunately or not to be limited. And so it is two limited elements that should be expanded, and something that mary has written about in expanding the mission and whether or not we want to bring the resources of the Intelligence Community at a greater length to this issue. So, i want to come back to that issue, and mary, i know that it is something that you have thought about and nick, and steve that you have also addressed, so i want to come back to the issue. But i want to turn to you as you have heard, of course sh, that e of the panelists have suggested that there is a legal need or authorities gap here that needs to be addressed by a new statute of domestic terrorism statute, and maybe other compelling reasons that go forward in that direction. And i wonder what your thoughts are in terms of the sort of the pros and cons and the risks that we need to be mindful of to think about this, you know, rising threat. Yes, certainly. It is important to note though as i think of the events in el paso and other bad incidents were happening, i think that in public discussion often it was framed as a gap of authority, and that is what certain members of congress have said in public statements, and so, as mary has pointed out, there are roughly over 50 statutes that are applicable to what we would call domestic terrorism or terrorism that takes place inside of the United States, and congress has additionally prohibited materially appointing those scribe, and in those particular statutes, they dont distinguish between international active, and so, also, as i appreciate jim mentioning the First Amendment issue, that is, obviously a very tricky dynamic in a lot of investigations, and so the fbi also has like the governing 2008 attorney general guidelines put out in the attorney general mukasey, a significant amount of authority to even without a factual predicate initiate investigations in a certain degree or scope, and i think that, you know, if you look at certain recent plots that have been disrupted, there are a couple of plots one, with conor climo out in nevada and another one with elizabeth lekron out in toledo, ohio, where they have been used effectively, and had the effect of preventing really bad things before they were to happen. So, yes, i think that i definitely agree of it not being a gap in authority of taking action to either prosecute or prevent some of the acts before they happen. Now, in terms of the risks, what some of the proposals in congress, and in particular representative schiffs proposal seeks to do is to add a number of predicate offenses to, what is attached a number of predicate offenses as to what is defined in statute as to domestic terrorism, and there are some, and i think that the elements that it potentially adds is that some are less damaging than other, and there is obviously murder. We would not have a huge objective to that, and there is also crimes that incorporate the things like property damage, and in light of recent, and i think that even historical impacts that Law Enforcement activity has had on protesters and dissenters and civil rights communities, and you know, a lot of people are skeptical about extending that kind of authority in a way to label folks a terrorist in the event that it would be essentially a poor decision to prosecute someone in that kind of way. So that is definitely something that i think that folks are going to be concerned about. One additional thing that i would point out with the distinction of the international and domestic terrorism is that while it is certainly true that some of the white supremists, and White Nationalists that have committed attacks or planned attacks around the globe have, you know, it is not the ideology that knows the boundary, and it something that cross pollinates. We most recently and most say saliently events across the United States and europe, and it is not something that just happened to emerge in 2018 and 2019. So in terms of psychologically associating and being less likely to look at the White Nationalists like conor climo who i told you, is that he is associated with a group that has known links to other white extremist views. So if someone does a query, they will be subjected to a broader and more aggressive array of statutes while that is not necessarily, and not that we would advocate for that, but there is an asymmetry there that mary has pointed out. Mary. Could i agree the gap issue . Yes. And so there is a gap in between a particular effective tool of a kind of preparation to commit a terrorist attack, and that is the effect of the stockpiling of weapons talking about firearms or the precursers for building a bomb for example. If it is precursors to build a bomb, the investigation is based on the wmd statute, but talking about the weapons, and take the example of Christopher Paul hassan who is the coast guard lieutenant who was found as a result of the fact that because he was a u. S. Government employee and he was using the u. S. Government computer to do some of these things. Luckily. Foolish for him, but lucky for us. And remember that banner that says that the government can watch everything that you do. And so he was stockpiling an arsenal of the rifles and weapons and the writings show a clear intent to commit an mass shooting to create an ethno state, and he had started to recruit for that mass violence, and because there is no terrorism statute to apply, what the u. S. Attorneys office was able to do so cobble together Unlawful Possession of a silencer which is fiveyear offense, and Unlawful Possession of drug, and this is sort of a lucky thing, and the Unlawful Possession of a firearm with a drug arm, because he had guns. So this guy was plotting, and no question about it. He had dates to be working about the attack, and four years, and plan by play attack, and acquiring weapons, and so by allts can somebody who is presenting a huge danger, but at the magistrate level when the u. S. Government went to detain him prior to trial, the magistrate judge said, look, i have to let him go, because you have not charged him with a violent crime, but possession offense, and under the law, i have to give him the benefit of the doubt here that there are conditions that would assure Public Safety. The court appealed that to the district court, and they have retained hassan, and so it is one of the vulnerabilities that dont match up to what he was really doing. And so as you point out, what could have been done to prevent terrorist attacks, and if there is a bomb that could be cobbled together like a state law to cobble together terrorist threats, and that is not new. The Law Enforcement will do that because if they dont have enough for to a terrorism crime, they will charge them with whatever they can to disable them and get them off of the streets. And so it is different than integrating into the Counter Terrorism regime, and so if you have a crime that reacts to terrorist violently and not talking about the intent to coercion, and the property crime that you mentioned in the schiff bill, it is going to substantially be tethered to that, but it is different than murder or something that causes something more significant injury like a crime assault. If you have that domestically with the intent to coercion, it can be one of the crimes mentioned and in the Material Support to terrorists, and not to be confused with the Material Support to terrorists which criminalizes the providing support or resources or disguising the resources of nature, and so think assault rifles. And knowing and intending that the resources, assault rifles are to be used in the commission of any of this long list of offenses. So if terrorism it can apply even if the person you are helping in yourself . I dont see why it wouldnt be, and based on the things that we have charged in the past. So that is one get. So there are other things that we can talk about when we are talking about the stockpilings, but that is an important one to create. Would you like to respond the that . Yes, i would like to say on the question of stockpiling, the terrorism frame is not the only way that we could potentially look at it like of course gun control legislation has been stall in congress for some time now, and media reports suggested that the el paso shooter had failed a background check and used a loophole to get a weapon and murder 22 people. So in the menu of the statutory gaps and options if we look at all of them, we should definitely look at the gun control fixes as well. Here, here. I second that. So beyond the legal gaps or the tools that could assist in addressing the challenge, mary, you have thought about and so, as steve alluded to, some institutional changes that we might think about, and both in terms of the ntct, the national Counter Terrorism jurisdiction, which nick has pointed out and the Previous Panel has been focused on the foreign intelligence and terrorist activities and at least with some connection to the terrorist, and also, you have listed the entity, and you can put them on the table, and we will have at them. This is also drawing directly to what you mentioned of the organizations in europe and Southeast Asia and elsewhere that are terrorist organizations that i dont believe you used the word, but it is white supremist organizations. Right now, 68 organizations on the watch list, and not one of them is a white supremist or White Nationalist, and the criteria is viewpoint neutral. So the vast majority is islamic extremist, and others related to the farc in south africa, and the criteria is that they must be foreign, because they dont have rights, and engage in the acts of terrorism or intent to create an act of terrorism or background in security. So im not an expert on the group, but perusing the report, there are some that do meet the criteria and advocate for specifically to engage in kt as of violence to further ensure the whiteingi ethnicology. So i think that criteria is not met when they are looking to designate the groups. So to designate those groups is a poison pills so when businesses are forbidden to providing information or engaging inle attacks on their behalf, it would be like intervening in an attack by isis. So with this, i want to be clear that we are not using if, isa, the foreign intelligence collection authorities for terrorism. Interesting if you have a festo that is a white supremist, that would open it up, because one of the criteria for being an fto is being in that group. So, this has been a phenomenal clearinghouse for taking in, and analyzing and distributing foreign intelligence analysis. And nick, you can yell or put up your hand if e Say Something wrong, but they have established the governmenttogovernment relationships around the world, and they meet to better prepare the combative or terrorist threat around the world. So when i was in government, they did not do the governmenttogovernment sharing when it came to the white supremist threat, but as it is pointed out it is not unique to the u. S. , and it has been a problem worldwide. So to go ahead and release or ensure, and there is some reporting that it has already happened, but it has not been corroborated by itself, but to allow the mission to expand and not necessarily for new and intelligence authorities, but just government to government, and sharing the information and the way they share information between the fbi and the local police and other local police, and that type of information sharing, it seems that it is high time that we consider. And so i have participated in the five is in the ministerial level where there is a lot of talk about information sharing which is also a good vehicle for this kind of the information sharing. Did you see anything along those lines when you were there, and what are the thoughts on that . Well, i think that the primary issue, even though before, the dhs and ina have Broader Authority to collect domestic intelligence, and the tools available to them are much more limited. They are generally limited to collecting information covertly or from publicly available sources while other members of the community can use clandestine means, and electronic surveillance. So what that is going to leave you with is that information e that has been collected information overtly and participating in Fusion Centers with other state and low communal tis involve. So, again, this is something that has been eep to the congressional obvious sight for many years now, and when it is coming to information sharing and congressional oversight, the record is not great. And usually when congress is involved, it is because the record is not great. It comes down to when you can have other state and local resources, and this is going to be much more limited to the federal government, and another avenue for increasing that avenue is with the foreign governments and as mentioned on the last panel, one primary area that you can focus on is the tactics, practice and procedure, because it does not matter if you are left or right wing extremist, but trying to detect the new information out there. It is usually based on the rules and the limitations of the activity, but it is a natural place for the information sharing to involve. So, one of the things that i think that is interesting that came out in the Previous Panel, and certainly over the years of dhs and others have looked at the radicalization process and a Panel Last Week where our friend and colleague is talking about her new book in which she is reminding us that a lot of the radicalization that she has studied has grown out of a desire for a sense of identity, and sense of belonging, and from a sense of isolation, and not from belonging. And i couldnt help but be struck with the parallels that we have seen as we are looking at russian information operations. I had Michael Benet up here last week talking about his new book dividing america. He depicks graphically with lots of images of how russia is using information divisions to exacerbate divisions within the country, and takes a sense of grievance and works to build or infiltrate affinity groups around the grievance and build a sense of identity around the grievance that is stronger. They want to make stronger than your sense of national identity. And so it is seeming to me that there are parallels there, and lessons that we can learn from the years of looking at how we counter that, and how russia is also a player here. We can do plenty of damage ourself, and if russia went away tomorrow, this issue would not go away. But they are here stirring the pot in a significant way, including in the last panel it was mentioned of pitting groups against each other. So they take the raciallymotivated violent extremist affinity groups online, and take the islamic groups online and pit them and try to drive them against each other. We have seen it, because they will set up fake affinity groups on both sides and call for people to come out on the same side, and so my question, jim, is there or are there additional legal tools or authorities to bring to bear to the russian exacerbation of this problem. Or are there other gaps there that would perhaps fill that one aspect of the problem. So you are going to make me talk about russia again, right . I have been trying to escape from that. I try not to get off of this stage without bringing up the russian operatives. Yes, they are a chaos actor in the United States that just wants to create dissension and discord in the society or to amplify it and create their own National Objectives which are not in the Strategic Interests of the United States. They are a threat to the United States and a bad actor. So in a situation where they are involved, and if we, the fbi or another Investigative Agency can ascertain that they are involved, then that is going to bring to bear other investigative tool, but with respect to them and the agents, and right, so, the constitutional lous us to deal withal toos when dealing with a foreign actor. It does not mean that you can use an american, and other analysis, but it is opening up an avenue to try to thwart their activities. If i could amplify one part of what you were saying of the domestic discord and a pickup of the couple of threads that we are talking about here. What you are emphasizing with respect to what we are doing with ourselves is a critical point, and at the end of the day, when there is a horrific attack whether it is a mass shooting or some type of domestic terrorism activity, it represent represents and it represents a failure by the intelligence authorities, but thinking about it fundamentally, and it is a systemic failure in society to deal with these situation, and it is a failure of family and community and at schools, and in the Mental Health arena, and in the all of the other social Services Agencies that should be trying to steer people away from this type of activity, and the types of issues that allow or result in people lacking the identity, and so as we are thinking of how to solve these problem, it is not going to be effective to dump all of this in the lap of Law Enforcement or the intelligence agencies, and this is a much broader problem and we intuitively feel that, and it is actually true, and it is going to need emphasizing from time to time. And to followup on what george said, the government does not own the platform, and it is a social media problem as well. So it is how much tension there is between the government and the platforms is actually foreign terrorist threats, because we didnt know what would happen with the social media platforms in terms of taking down the content, and it is going to add to the complexity of the issue. Yes. And taking down inauthentic accounts is one thing, right . And maybe well thought of the social media of xauser baiting the potential divisiveness and leading to potential activity. And i think that taking into account what is more complicated than it seems. And so there is a sophisticated technical attribute, and that is going to involve the assessment of what computer does this come from, and who might be associated with that other factors, and so it is definitely any time that there is a broad effort to take down inauthentic activity, we need to be cognizant of the overbreadth of those efforts. So in the platform and some of it is connected to the russian inquiry, and some of it is, i think that it is just percolating as the issues in the society more broadly. A good step they could take rather than enacting broad rules or taking down certain speech is to be transparent about what they are doing. So it would be great to see, you know, how many pieces of content did you take down . What rule was it taken down pursuant to, and are there particular groups that are affected more than others . These would help kind of ohave us get a clearer picture of how content moderation process is working. And a second important principle is due process. For a lot of people social media is maybe how they communicate in the Public Square and on the internet, so if they are an activist or if they are just even talking with their friends about an issue that they want to talk about if something they have gets taken down, or banned from the platform, you want to know why and whether or not it is appropriate, and the second point that will make is that, you know, fundamentally, you know, there was russian activity on social media platforms. To some degree, it is insurmountable, but we dont know how it impacts the public discourse, but we know that in this country where political discussion is polarized and those are the exact topics as you point out are caught on the divisions. And interestingly, it is not unprecedented. So russia in the decolonization of africa, and so while there was a cold war going on with the United States, and the soviet union, one of the things that, and the themes they had kind of built up was how bad of an amicus briefing it was, and this separate but equal has to go, because we are getting killed by the russians in other parts of the world. So one thing that we should not lose sight of is the problems that are coming up, and the real ones that we should address and keep it in mind as we are talking about sort of, you know, projecting, you know, the blame or the responsibility on to a foreign power. Yeah. Well, is absolutely the case that russia exploits the vulnerabilities of our own making, and the other advantage to transparency is that i think that it is really important if the platform started to take down some of the hate speech that as you say tell us the nature of why it is is taken down, and that we dont let this level of hateness exist in the country, so is it is important to let us know that this appeared, and if you are going to go to the step of not just providing transparency, but actually taking things down, and tell us what you have done. So i want to open it up now for q a from you, and i know that some of you asked questions about the solution set to the first panel, but feel free to ask your question again of this panel, and we have another question right off of the bat here in the front. Im Angel Lee Ina and my que is about the political will among the branchs of government. For example, boston had a very good treatment of the al qaeda and if you remember the Boston Marathon bombers and it took 25 days for them to get it, and during the charleston, virginia, white supremist rally, boston did that very effective. So my point is that there are best practices. I dont know if it is being shared, but the question is the political legislative in the government, and internationally, it is applying the same way, and the u. S. Is playing the Global Police except that there is russia who is kind of the villain and also getting to be a rival for interpol, and so there is a commission on the human rights, but who is the enforcement of the universal laws . I mean the philippines upheld for the south china seas territory that was overtaken by russia, but china ignored it pretty much, because they dont have a power to enforce the Court Decisions anyway. Thank you. So the question is about the unity of the effort both among, you know, the political will among the branches and internationally to deal with this challenge. Anybody want to take that . I would like to address the best practices question, because so my organization after the shall reunite the right demonstration, the selfprocessed militia was prevented from beginning, because after the unite the right rally, the supremist groups were saying that our civil rights were violated because our rally was shut down, and we are going to be coming back again and again and again and nobody wants to see the act of violence like we saw on that day, so we want to see state antimilitia and antiparamilitary statutes that exist around the country, an content neutral, and based on actually banding together like militias, and the armed use of force or the projection to build force, and so we ended up getting 23 court orders against all 23 defendants to prevent them from engaging in the activity. Why do i bring that up . Because we have used that now, and i have used the last two weeks consulting with the officials in georgia who had a White Nationalist rally two days the ago that had a big counter protest as well. And they could use your paramilitary in regulations that would apply to the rally which meant creating a restricted zone, and bringing in the weapons of the check points and the separate entrances for the protesters and it is selfdesignated. So most will selfselect, and using best practices of keeping a green zone in between, and under the First Amendment, they have to hear each other, because they are protesting and counter protesting, and so you cannot allow people go from one area to another unless they go through the checkpoints, and so it went off without there being any violence. There was a massive Law Enforcement presence and 500 Law Enforcement in a town of 7,000, and so people were talking about it being overwhil tmilitarized,t was without violence. So we have been in berkeley, and tennessee, and dayton and others who have used the tools. T so i mention this, because, you know, communities have got to be able to have tools that they can use to prevent what are billed as free speech events. But they are really a kind of the guise to engage in the open violence, and you have to have tools to protect the Public Safety while pursuing the First Amendment rights. Those who want to come to speak, can speak out against the point of view, and do that without the threat of the threat they are going to devolve into with violence violence. I would like to reask the questions from the Previous Panel, and if there is another answer, and one is when the federal government goings into the spaces where radicalization is going on, and first of all, what is the legal considerations when they are doing a preventative preaction move in the radicalization space, and then the second question is about nazism, and we are in agreement, but if nazism is in some special category, and is the law settled on that, because a long time, it is the Supreme Court decision of the free speech, and that it is or is there something that we should be thinking about in terms of the particular groups and surrounding the activities. The second question is interesting, because it is one of when i think of the speech implications, the first thing is who is the decisionmaker who is going to be deciding whether this speech should stay up or not, and whether this group should be banned. Another thing they think about is how broad is the regulation, right . So, how much latitude and how much other things that maybe should not fit in there is fitting in there based on how it is drafted and that is the language issue, and so, often what you will see is that well intentioned regulations end up impacting the people that they are supposed to be protecting from really bad things. And one potential work around is designating particular kinds of groups, and based on my understanding of where the constitutional law is right now, i dont believe it is a tenable solution, and there is a question of how, you know, just because you use the word nazism, and one kind of supremist group, and things are fluid and moving around quickly, socon ta constantly playing catchup. Whack a mole. And what are the implication of the well, i cannot speak so much of the legal consideration, but the research that has been done by my colleagues at the Brennan Center is that we have been skeptical of sort of the effectiveness of countering the violent extremist programs just because there are not well informed ed Empirical Data of whether this is going to be something that you can trust or whether or not the government is just spying on them. One of the ntoof the underly is that it is a partnership. And george and i talked about this before, but it is a partnership of the community and the government because it is not something that is happening within an isolated environment or within a community or within a church or whatever it is, and the pretense to go in for whether it is the department of Homeland Security or whether it is a joint task force is really a partnership between the government, between the community, and between the family and a voluntary partnership. To the extent that the issues start to be on the side of being coerced then we will run into constitutional issues. But like i said a high level again, it is a partnership of the government and the community at stake. Hence the name of the dhs Partnership Group task force. So we will wrap after with one more. Great discussion, and Clifton Jones from the cis, and concerning the domestic terrorism, i am wondering how concerned is some groups combatting terrorist groups, and some groups are like the kkk and i contract it to the government push in the mid20th century to take down groups that were deemed bad groups like the black panthers that were, it was under Public Safety that the government did try to dismantle the groups like this. So what are, what is happening now with the groups with white supremist groups and the kkk and is there a conservative effort to try to take down some of the groups . Well, so, with some of the mentioned specific group, but i mean, generally speaking, i would say that the fbi is a Law Enforcement and National Security organization that also collects the foreign intelligence information, and it is pursuant to the constitution and the laws in the United States, and applicable to the constitution of the United States, and in my experience of the people in the fbi today, they are very aware of what happened in the past, and are determined to not repeat those kinds of mistakes, right . So they are very sensitized to that, and that is why i was saying earlier that this issue of make g shing sure that in cog to First Amendment is the folks that are working in these kinds of cases they would not want to violate the First Amendment and it is becoming difficult sometimes in the middle of the investigation, and you are trying to figure out what the person is doing, and you are supposing that you have a lawful basis to conduct the investigation or to at least be involved in some intelligence activity and you are trying to figure out what is going on, and so it is a challenge with well meaning people to follow the law, and to protect the constitution, and enforce the constitution in real time when they are worried about the threat of violence, because that is what they are after. In my experience the folks at the fbi are not interested in getting involved in thwarting anybodys lawful free speech or anything of that nature. I know that is not what people think, but that is how i en vest gated with the lawyers and the analysts and those working in the manner, and they are aware of the past and they dont want to repeat it. So, i want to have jim take it as the Closing Remarks unless you want to add something additional, and steve and mary, with any last thoughts or Closing Remarks . I would echo what nick said about having the right intelligence and statistics and overseaing all of that is having a comprehensive strategy in place, and not only do we have the policies and procedures, but it is directed to the right policies and procedures of the domestic terrorism approach, and limited authorities and the resources available, and it would be great to have some of the change nos domestic law, but it is going to involve many acts of congress, and if not, you will have to deal with this iss through existing resources and how to leverage them is i think the only way to continue moving forward in this space. I would just reiterate what was mentioned briefly earlierier. I talk about the need for a statute and how it might unlock opportunities for prevention. I was in the National Security intention as later the acting agg when isis declared a caliphate and we saw a huge increase in terrorist activity here in the United States as well as, of course, abroad. Many more people here traveling to join isis in syria or to even go to provide, you know, other types of support for isis in syria. Terroristinspired attacks that were thwarted here in the u. S. And the recruitment that isis used was the same recruitment we are now seeing white supremacist groups use to try to get young people in particular, but people of all ages into their ideology, and its supported by russia. But weve done plenty on our own, and its like i just feel like ive seen this movie before, and it doesnt end really well. And so if we cant do something as a society to provide opportunities for people so that they feel that they are a part of something good and Something Better for themselves and they have jobs and education, they feel like theyre part of this community and its not just anti and they dont feel isolated, hopefully fewer i mean, im not a psychologist. I dont report to know what drives people to radicalize toward violence. I know the recruitment is there and theres a sense of feeling like they belong to something more important than whatever their own life is providing for them. We can put all kinds of bandaids on there. Until we get at that, were going to continue to see one ideology or the other whether its foreign rooted or domestically rooted drawing people in. You get the last word. Now i think all i would say is that obviously in the wake of september 11th we saw the emergence of a very powerful and thicket of National Security authorities and a giant apparatus. I think that to the extent that we are learning lessons from some of the overreaches of that, i think thats always a good thing to keep in mind moving forward. Great. Thank you very much. So i just want you to know were going to be sending the link to this to all the members of congress. Because i think both panels have done a great job of exactly what seth and i hoped which is to help bring some really thoughtful dialogue to this important subject. I want to thank you all. Please join me in thanking our panel. Thank you for coming. This evening a look at how campaign 2020 is shaping up with charlie cook, founder of the cook political report. Hell talk with liberal radio post bill press in a conference hosted by the hill center in washington d. C. Cspan will take you there live starting at 7 00 eastern. Also online at cspan. Org or you can listen in live with the free cspan radio app. Weeknights this week were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. American history tv was in the classroom as the university of arkansas professor elliot west gave a lecture on the Environmental Impact of the California Gold rush. You can see that tonight at 8 eastern here on cspan3 and enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. Ftc chair Joseph Simons went before a House Sub Committee to explain the settlement with facebook over the mishandling of personal customer information. He was asked information about how the ftc is handling robocall scams and pharmaceutical price fixing. Heres a look at the hearing