Homeland Security and Terrorism

Global Terrorism

Right and left wing extremism, which are both forms of domestic or home-grown terrorism, have a rather long history in the U.S. Generally motivated by Marxist and communist ideologies, left wing extremism emerged as early as the late 19th century (White, 2016). Nonetheless, left wing extremism in the U.S. became more prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, with Weather Underground, Black Panthers, and Students for Democratic Society being the most dominant factions. Other groups such as the May 19th Communist Organisation (M19CO) emerged in the 1990s. The groups collapsed in the early 1990s following the culmination of the Cold War, which marked the end of communism. With the decline of left wing extremism, rightwing extremism started emerging, largely motivated by ideologies such as anti-communism, neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism, and racism (White, 2016). Gaining popularity in the 1990s, right wing extremism has increasingly become one of the major terrorist threats facing the U.S. Indeed, right wing extremism has been termed as a bigger threat to the U.S. than ISIS and other radicalised Islamic groups. In the last one and a half decades alone, the number of right wing extremist attacks has far outweighed that of jihadist attacks, with mass shootings ever more becoming common news item.

Question 2

Whereas it is generally believed that it disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990, in large part due to the end of communism, left wing extremism is much alive. Left wing extremists have all along sustained their terrorist activities, albeit in a different version. Instead of disappearing completely, left wing extremist groups became concerned about not only political issues, but also certain causes (White, 2016). They transformed into single-issue groups, focused on issues such as the environment, animal rights, genetic engineering, and abortion. A notable single-issue group is the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which was formed in 1992. The group advocates for ecological protection as well as animal rights, and uses tactics such as sabotage, intimidation, arson, and property damage. This has resulted in a new form of terrorism known as eco-terrorism. Eco-terrorism has caused damage worth hundreds of millions of dollars since its emergence. Indeed, single-issue terrorism is increasingly becoming a major terrorist threat to the U.S., underscoring the need for greater attention to the issue.

Question 3

The rise of single-issue terrorism, coupled with the increased prominence of right wing extremism, is evidence that domestic terrorism is now a serious national issue more than ever before. The threat is now closer home, and not necessarily from Islamic Jihadists as often thought. Unfortunately, it is only recently that domestic terrorism started being viewed as terrorism. Early studies on domestic terrorism largely classified political violence as criminal activity as opposed to terrorism. Some of the few exceptional scholars that shifted the view of political violence were H. H. Cooper, J. B. Bell, and T. R. Gurr (White, 2016). The three initiated scholarly work in the area of domestic terrorism. In 1976, for instance, Cooper alongside other authors provided a report to the president explaining the political background of domestic terrorism. The report specifically highlighted the importance of preparing law enforcement agencies for domestic terrorism. On their part, Bell and Gurr in their 1979 work provided the historical context of domestic terrorism, offering a clearer understanding of the notion of terrorism. They demonstrated how the history of the U.S. is packed with terrorism aimed at achieving political and economic objectives. On the whole, the work of Cooper, Bell, and Gurr has broadened the understanding of domestic terrorism and provided a strong foundation for policy response.

Part II

Question 1

Similar to the U.S., Europe faces the threat of Islamist terrorism. Recent events such as the Paris and Brussels attacks attest to this. The threat has increased with the emergence and rise to prominence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), arguably the deadliest terror group in present times. The threat has further been compounded by increased migration from war-torn Middle East countries to Europe. The strength of ISIS emanates from its ability to establish small groups of radicalised supporters in Western countries, who execute terrorist attacks without even travelling to Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and other terrorist havens (White, 2016). Regrettably, though most European nations are increasingly tightening their immigration policies in the wake of increased ISIS-fuelled immigration, their counterterrorism approach remains quite inadequate, especially in terms of domestic intelligence sharing, homeland security funding, as well as law and order. Europe's terrorism issues are shared by Turkey and Russia. Turkey has particularly recorded a number of terrorist attacks in the recent past. The country has also absorbed a substantial number of refugees from Syria and Iraq, perhaps more than any other European country, further exacerbating the threat of Islamist terrorism. Russia, a recent Turkey ally, has increasingly initiated activities in Syria, keen on countering ISIS, a clear indication of the common threat the two countries face.

Question 2

Left wing terrorism in Western Europe gained prominence in the 1960s, largely in response to industrialisation and modernisation. The prominence, however, declined in the late 1980s. One of the reasons for the decline was lack of strength and resources (White, 2016). Leftist terrorist groups attempted to form a coalition in 1985 in an effort to pool resources together, but the impact did not last long. Another reason for the demise of leftist terrorist cells in Western Europe was the collapse of Soviet power. Left wing extremism was largely fuelled by communism, which started weakening in the late 1980s. In the absence of the Soviet Union, it could not exist as they no longer had the appeal and support (logistically and financially) to continue operating.

Question 3

Historically, relations between Chechnya and its regional power Russia have been characterised by turmoil. The turmoil increased even further following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After the collapse, Chechen separatists sought independence from Russia, ushering in two bloody conflicts between the two forces throughout much of the decade (White, 2016). Though Russia withdrew its forces from Chechnya after two years of the first conflict, it regained control over the region during the second conflict, which ended in 2000. Since then, clashes between Russian forces and Chechen separatists have been ongoing, though at a much lower level. Russia's desire to retain control of the region can be attributed to the region's wealth of natural resources. The region is endowed with significant oil deposits, natural gas, sulphur, limestone, and gypsum, among other natural minerals. Additionally, Russia has since the disintegration of the union been objected to secession. Accordingly, retaining the control of Chechnya was seen as an ideal strategy for discouraging other republics under Russia's control from seceding. The ongoing conflict continues to deepen political violence in Chechnya.

Question 4

Pakistan has become synonymous with terrorism since the 1950s. The predominantly Muslim country has provided an ideal environment for the existence of powerful terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, which have executed deadly terrorist attacks domestically and elsewhere. Terrorism in Pakistan has a lot to do with the underlying political environment (White, 2016). Indeed, as terrorists tend to be rich and educated, lack of certain political freedom tends to be a more significant cause of terrorism. The introduction of martial law in Pakistan in 1958 led to a sudden change in the country's political environment. The law resulted in extensive authoritarianism in public service and the military, subsequently denying citizens fundamental political rights. Terrorism emerged largely as a rebellion against the oppressive regimes of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, and Musharraf from the late 1950s through to the first decade of the 21st century. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the ensuing civil war provided more impetus for terrorism. With the adoption of a democratic regime in 2013, Pakistan may be a terrorism-free country in the near future.

Question 5

Al-Qaeda is one of the most powerful terrorist organisations today. Its most notable attack is the 9/11 attack on the U.S. The organisation emerged during the last stages of the Afghan War of 1979 to 1989 (White, 2016). Following the end of the war, Al-Qaeda and other mujahedeen groups were dissatisfied with the status quo in Muslim countries. In addition to ending the interference of Western nations with Muslim countries, the groups desired a united Muslim world under a single, new caliphate. Efforts to form the new caliphate were spearheaded by Abdullah Azzam alongside Osma bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and other leaders, who believed the U.S. was supporting the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to take control over the country. The efforts, however, resulted in disagreements between Azzam and bin Laden and Zawahiri. Bin Laden and Zawahiri consequently designed a new structure for Al-Qaeda, forming an umbrella organisation with several autonomous groups. Azzam was then killed, giving bin Laden and Zawahiri full control over A-Qaeda. The organisation quickly became powerful, clearly identifying the U.S. and its allies as well as Muslim countries in position of its jihadist ideology as enemies. Bin Laden established networks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa, Sudan, and Somalia. Al-Qaeda's enmity towards the U.S. heightened during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when the U.S. colluded with Saudi Arabia and other allies to oppose the invasion.

Part III

Question 1

In an effort to counter and prevent terrorism, the U.S. government has put together a string of criminal and national security intelligence organisations, which work together in addressing the largest threat to national security. These include the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defence (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), among others. Nonetheless, bureaucracies within and amongst these organisations continue to present a major challenge for the fight against terrorism. Major bureaucratic issues affecting the agencies include inter-agency rivalry, distrust amongst agencies, and legal difficulties (White, 2016). Rivalry and distrust hinder counterterrorism efforts by hampering information sharing, which is one of the major pillars of the inter-agency response to terrorism. Instances of CIA showing little cooperation or reluctance to share information with the FBI are not uncommon. Bad blood between the FBI and local law enforcement organisations is also a frequent occurrence. The challenge of inter-agency collaboration is further compounded by the independence of the various entities of the criminal justice system, particularly the police, courts, and correctional institutions. If the U.S. is to more successfully address terrorism, these bureaucracies ought to be eliminated.

Question 2

In the wake of the 9/11 attack, the DHS was formed in what was one of the largest reorganisations of the federal government in the history of the U.S. While homeland security has improved since 9/11, challenges abound. Stephen Flynn, one of the most authoritative homeland security scholars, provides important recommendations for improving homeland security. He advocates for the integration of homeland security with the national security strategy, greater attention to port security, and increased involvement of the private sector in combating terrorism (White, 2016). Flynn further urges the DHS to follow the example of the aviation industry. In spite of experiencing terrible disasters from time to time, players in the industry have persistently worked together to increase aviation safety and public confidence in the air transportation system. The importance of collaboration brings the JTTF arrangement into focus. Indeed, the JTTF approach provides a valuable model for partnerships between law enforcement organisations. The JTTF brings together federal, state, and local police organisations, as well as courts and correctional institutions, offering an ideal foundation for law enforcement partnerships. Through the JTTF, local and state law enforcement officers gain federal power. Equally, the presence of local and state officers in the JTTF enables federal officers to act within local jurisdictions.

Question 3

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was also enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The legislation was primarily aimed at strengthening security controls so as to obstruct terrorism. The act specifically focuses on redefining domestic terrorism, improving domestic security against terrorism, surveillance procedures, border security, and preventing terrorism through anti-money laundering. It also focuses on removing hindrances to terrorism investigations, information sharing to enhance critical infrastructure protection, compensation for victims and families of terrorism, as well as improving intelligence sharing (White, 2016). Notably, the law permits the indefinite detention of immigrants, authorises law enforcement personnel to search homes or businesses in the absence of the owner's knowledge or consent, and allows the FBI to access email, telephone, and financial records in the absence of a court order. Whereas the legislation has made significant contributions to counterterrorism efforts, it has been the subject of intense criticism. The legislation was reauthorized in 2006. The reauthorisation provided new provisions relating to aspects such as death sentence for terrorists, seaport security, terrorism funding, and Secret Service powers.

Question 4

In addition to the establishment of the DHS and the enactment of the USA Patriot Act, a commission was formed to look into the cause of the 9/11 attack and offer recommendations for improvement. Three major recommendations of the commission in its 9/11 Commission Report include: introduction of more stringent screening procedures to improve border and transportation security; strengthening efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); and more vigorous monitoring of terrorist funds (White, 2016). These recommendations have considerably changed policy and procedures at both the state and federal level. Notable changes that have occurred include the introduction of stricter guidelines for passenger and luggage screening at airports, tighter restrictions on the issuance of visas to the citizens of Pakistan and other Muslim nations perceived as threats, creation of the Office of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), as well as adjustments in the allocation of funds to homeland security activities.

Part IV

Question 1

Increasing executive power has been termed as crucial for combating domestic and international terrorism (White, 2016). In the wake of increased terrorism threat, the president needs more powers to do whatever it takes to thwart or respond to a terrorist attack. Depending on the circumstances at hand, involving Congress and the judiciary may sometimes be detrimental to counterterrorism efforts. Due to the inherent bureaucracy in government, doing so may work to the advantage of terrorists. The executive may at times need to authorise eavesdropping without a court order, detain suspects without lawyers and courts, or act without involving Congress, for instance. While greater executive power may have important advantages, the downside cannot be ignored. Excessive executive power may violate fundamental individual rights protected by the constitution, legitimise actions defined as illegal by the constitution, and create tyrannical tendencies on the part of the executive. It may also injure the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the world, thereby injuring counterterrorism campaigns.

Question 2

Whether or not it is right to restrict freedom in the name of security remains a notoriously controversial topic. The topic gained even greater attention following the enactment of the USA Patriot Act after the 9/11 act. The legislation gave law enforcement organisations and institutions charged with combating terrorism the power to bypass certain rights provided by the constitution in their efforts against terrorism (White, 2016). Though restricting freedom may be for the good of national security, there could be significant dangers. Before highlighting these dangers, however, it is first important to understand the difference between human rights and civil liberties. The former refers to fundamental (or universal) rights necessary for human existence (such as the right to life and free expression), while the latter denotes rights enjoyed by individuals by virtue of their citizenship to a given country or state (such as protection from discrimination). Human rights and civil liberties guarantee citizens vital freedoms. Limiting these freedoms could result in abuse of power, violation of privacy, increased citizen distrust in the government, as well as citizen oppression. These outcomes can fuel social unrest and political violence.