Revised counterterrorism framework for United States national security agencies

Counterterrorism

Counter-Terrorism

Counter-Terrorism Framework

The author of this report is asked to answer to a number of questions relating to counter-terrorism frameworks. First, the author is asked to provide a revised framework for the national terrorism prevention and response agencies in the United States. Per the parameters of the assignment, there are to be at least three agencies involved in the revised framework. Subsequent to that, the author is asked to answer to how and when the agencies will interact and why. The author is asked what tools can be used to help the agencies function and do their jobs and that will be included in the framework summary. The author is asked to wrap up the paper by enumerating at least three policy and/or procedural recommendations that should be implemented to make the existing framework gel and function more effectively.

Recommendations

The first recommendation that should be implemented immediately is a complete re-write of laws relating to modern/current technology so that the laws being used to prosecute and regulate behavior matches up with the technology of today including social media, works/speech online and so forth. There is a gaping disconnect between some of the laws being used right now to do all this and it makes the applicability and legitimacy of said convictions questionable. Getting the laws rewritten would fix this problem and it would be something that would need to be maintained over the years or another massive fix and update would need to happen later on. This would require some cooperation with politicians and agencies, and this relates to the other two recommendations.

The second recommendation stems from the end of the first and that is for politicians to forget the partisan and ideological vitriol, at least as it pertains to just getting into spats rather than fixing problems, and get things done to protect the American people. There are some politicians that raise valid concerns and controversies such as the ostensibly illegal activities of the NSA as well as the intelligence surrounding pending action in Syria or prior action in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, offering ideological qualms that are simply ridiculous or created out of thin area is just silly. If someone is acting suspicious, they are acting suspicious. It is true that some people over-react and are bigoted but it is also true that there are tell-tale signs that something is going on and it is also true that some realms of crimes are committed by and large by certain groups. For example, poorer people are much more likely to commit crimes than more affluent people. As another example, the vast majority of foreign terrorists attacking the west are Muslim men 18-34 years of age. However, there are a large number of examples that defy both of those but trends are what they are and it's not silly or racist to point that out. It is silly, though, to assume things just due to gender and race and one should always be on guard.

A third example, and it's related to the second, is for people not to worry about who's going to get credit and share/collaborate on any relevant information that can get the job done. President Bush, as an example, had sky-high ratings after 9/11 and President Obama got a noticeable bump when Bin Laden was found and killed. However, the approval rate spikes from both of those major terrorism events/victories faded over time and there were a plethora of Democrats and Republicans involved in both events and processes. The American public coalesced behind President Bush and the country when 9/11 happened and Democrats followed suit even though it is no mystery that most Democrats did not like Bush one bit. Similarly, President Obama's victory in green-lighting the successful Bin Laden capture/death was started long before he took office and both parties were involved including elected office, appointments and regular workers.

The fourth suggestion is that terrorism suspects should never, and the author would stress the world "never," try terrorism suspects in standard criminal courts. Military tribunals should be the norm for terrorism suspects and this would include American citizens as well unless it is a lone wolf situation or something of that nature. The fact that Eric Holder ever suggested or attempted to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City was ludicrous for a number of reasons. First, KSM was not a common criminal but was instead an international terrorism leader, Al Qaeda no less. Second, trying the man in the city that was the prime target of the associated attacks created a security nightmare for the city. The same would have been true if the trial site was in Washington DC given that one of the plans hit the Pentagon. Even if those two sites were avoided, trying KSM in a standard criminal court would afford him due process rights to which he is not entitled and said rights would give him a platform to make the trial farcical and pointless because his guilt is really not in doubt given his prior statements and evidence at hand. Even so, he should not get Miranda rights and treating what he did the same way as a common stabbing or robbery or even an isolated murder is preposterous.

The next suggestion was touched upon earlier but will be fleshed out there. At no point should there be any rules that unnecessarily inhibit or hold up the free flow of information between agencies. The only broad exception to this rule should be giving information to people with no security clearance and/or that had their clearance revoked. Also, and as made clear by the Edward Snowden/NSA debacle, security clearances should be handed out carefully and involving contractors (at least to excess in terms of access and such) should be avoided at all costs (Poulson, 2013). People should have the access they need to do their jobs and not a bit more beyond that. A corollary recommendation is to make sure that people do have the access and resources to do their job.

Next is to not be wasteful and inefficient. The recent report that the IRS has lost track of a lot of its software and that the Health and Human Services is running rampant with work being done wrong or entirely too slowly is but two examples of government agencies that should be run more like businesses (Boehm, 2013)(Reilly, 2012). This is not to say that they should make a profit, which is the alpha goal of a business, but the other parts of running a business including training people timely and fully, spending money wisely, making upgrades to equipment and resources only when necessary but not in a way that is too over the top and commits resources that are not needed is just the tip of the iceberg.

Last on the docket for recommendations is to properly police and regulate the behavior of people that have extraordinary ability to do very bad or at least unethical things. The Snowden thing is an extreme example but the revelation that NSA operatives are using their powers to check up on love interests is ridiculous (Poulson, 2013). Even worse, they are abusing and over-using their powers in many other ways as well including engaging in searches that should require warrants or some other pre-approval but no (or not all) of the proper approvals were garnered and so on.

A related example is the apparent activity of the IRS whereby they were targeting people and groups that apparently did not mesh with their own. When groups associated with Tea Party and other anti-big government interests are being pervasively targeted or hindered while similar liberal groups are not facing the same scrutiny, it is clear that either one end of the spectrum is getting too much slack or the targeted groups are not getting enough, with the latter being the probable case with the current IRS debacle although it is still unfolding at this time (Cillizza, 2013).

On that note, any actual law enforcement actions borne of IRS accusations of criminal behavior should involve the FBI so as to provide a check and balance against improper behavior. Simple audit and regulatory corrections should be heavily watched and regulated by an inspector general or some similar role that is not appointed in any way by the President of the United States. Some of the alleged/verified actions going on in recent past seem to resemble those of the days of Nixon and that should never be happening whilst Congress and/or the Presidency is controlled by any given party or person.

Consideration

As an intermediate wrap-up and summary to the above, there has to be a streamlined structure that covers all the major functions but is not bloated with bureaucracy. At the same time, anyone and everyone that is going to wield their position and/or abilities in a political or vindictive way needs to be jettisoned in short order because they are only a hindrance to the efficacy of the work selected and completed. People are getting a little too cute with how they classify things and treat things.

For example, the government has apparently been reluctant to call the Nidal Hassan/Fort Hood shooting what it is…terrorism. Whether there was a clear link to Al Qaeda or known terrorists in general, it was terrorism. Also, the focus on domestic militia and tea party groups as terrorism or with impure motives is also equally obtuse. When elected officials are blaming the Tea Part folks for what happened to House member Gabrielle Giffords when it was clear that, first, Mr. Loughner was clinically insane and screwed in the head and, second, he was that way long before the Tea Part came to prominence and he clearly had a grudge against Giffords that resembles Hinckley's desire to appease Jodie Foster (who didn't know who Hinckley, was let alone whether she gave a damn about him) than what any lucid person would do.

In short, the government needs to make sure to target the groups that are actually threats and leave law-abiding people alone, whether their political stripe or motivations may be unless they are anarchist or something along those lines and criminal behavior is or might be occurring. Also, budgets and spending remaining level or going up just because that's the "norm" is silly. Spending should be allocated where it should be but people using vitriolic and/or stupid language for spending that is clearly out of control is puerile and exacerbates the problem.

Conclusion

In the end, there are entirely too many people that are self-entitled from a power or budget standpoint and/or have political axes to grind that are so grandiose that they refuse to do the right thing if anyone they oppose gets credit or an "attaboy." The sole burdens as to whether an action, procedure or what have you is right is whether it's the best for the country's future as well as its people's safety. There are entirely too many people that are intentionally (or at least ignorantly) ignoring the facts as they clearly exist to make points or decisions that are not relevant and/or accurate in the name of tar and feathering enemies and political opponents. Also, political correctness has risen to silly levels and advocacy groups with a screw loose and/or an absence of common sense are driving the debate even though they are generally a stark minority.