Federal Law Enforcement

Joint Report from DOJ and DHS on Foreign Interference Targeting 2020 Federal Elections

I remember back in 2020 when there would be rumors about countries like Russia that had interfered with the elections in the United States. It was interesting to me because I always wondered how a country/people could even do something like that? Shouldn't our elections system be fair and free from outside interventions? However, following the election, the Department of Justice, including the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, including CISA, investigated the public claims and determined that they are not credible, thus it was mere rumors.

One of the most fundamental components of any democracy is ensuring free and fair elections. This article was very informative since there have been rumors of foreign election interference within the United States. Election interference is a threat to the United States, so it is significant that the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are using physical security and cybersecurity to defend against this interference. The US Government needs to keep addressing election interference issues so that the political system can be protected.

In one of my other posts I just mentioned joint agencies and working together. I mentioned that I didn't think the different departments worked together as well as they could, and then as soon as I said that, this article was given to us. It shows the departments working together and sharing information about recent cases. It says specifically, "We the Department of Justice, including the FBI, and Department of Homeland Security, including CISA... Looks like I was wrong and the agencies do have good relations and are able to at least write a report together.

I liked that it talked about cybersecurity. It is very relevant to the topic at hand. Especially in 2018, there was a lot that happened which resulted in having a lot to talk about. 2020 was also a big year for things to happen, especially cyber attacks. The world was shut down and some people didn't do anything other than stay home and learn new exploits and hack different things. Computer usage saw a big increase and so did the attacks that come with it. Some people even started working together. At least agencies did and is how they found so many of the attacks because they worked together finding them. Good job joint task force. It's cool that they teamed up and wrote this report. I really enjoyed reading it.

This was an interesting report to read. I have heard the stories about the rigged elections to read up on how the Intelligence Community reacted to this and tried to find something tangible was interesting to say the least. What is puzzling to me is that the Intelligence Community or the IC of the United States is in the top tier of the Intelligence echelon, and they went on based rumors alone. There were no solid leads. The recommendations that the report provided were excellent. I think that each of them can be built upon in their own way, its tough to pick just one or two that would be satisfactory to use. Each of the recommendations help defend against outside interference in some way. If I had to single out one of the recommendations that need more attention, I would pick the physical security and cyber hygiene. Because we are in a modern era of technology that is expanding week by week, this area needs to be ahead of the trend.

I found this article quite interesting because foreign interference in elections has become a large issue for the country even before this past election. It is great that the Department of Justice and Homeland Security understand the real threat that events like this can pose to democracy and the security of it. However, it is critical for both the government and the citizens to remain vigilant about what is posted and seen online around election time.

Foreign interference is an inevitable concept with the government and election systems veering g to a digital platform. Even North Korea, a nation politically isolated where its citizens cannot access digital technology for the most part, has trained individuals working for the regime that attack websites and government databases. The CIA and FBI indicate that North Korean hackers were responsible for the infamous WannaCry attacks that dismantled hundreds of information technology websites. I am sure that other nations with ideological differences and are political foes to the United States have tried to access our election systems and access government files. Yet simultaneously our nation's CIA has interfered with other countries elections and political systems as well, therefore foreign interference goes both ways. It is good to hear that foreign interference in the 2020 election did not impact the election to the extent that it did in 2016 with the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

This article was very interesting, but I think it was needed long before this past election in 2020. I am glad that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are worried about foreign interference targeting the election. Although in the report they said that they didn't find anything relating to foreign interference, it is good that they are looking at least. I do think that they should focus domestically as well. Citizens of the United States attempt to manipulate voting. I think that they can help with this problem with the many recommendations they made at the bottom of the article. I hope that the U.S. government looks at these vulnerabilities that we have within our election process, that way we can prevent these things from happening, instead of election security being a huge problem every election we have. We need to fix things not let them keep happening.

This is a very important document for Americans to read because it confirms that there are attempts by foreign powers to manipulate our democracy, but our democracy has remained strong! However, it concerns me that the issue of election manipulation has become a baton for political opponents to try and hit each other with. To resolve that part of the problem, our security and intelligence communities should keep Americans as up-to-date as possible with election security information during an election cycle.

Foreign Interference Targeting Election Infrastructure Report:

I think there can often be claims of election fraud when the outcome isn't what was desired by the opposing side. Of course looking into these types of fraud, especially in such important elections is needed, but claims made can often be baseless. Myanmar also had an election in 2020 where the military alleged voter fraud when they didn't agree with the outcome and went so far as to use it as a reason for justifying the coup a few months later. Independent reports found there was no evidence of voter fraud in the Myanmar elections and so it really just came down to disagreeing with Aung Sang Suu Kyi winning the election. While Myanmar's situation is far more extreme than events in the U.S. following the election, I found the parallels to be interesting.

China Case Example:

Out of the entire document I thought the mitigation efforts listed were the most interesting. Most of what was recommended seemed like it should be commonplace for a company that has important information to protect. Especially for a company that is dealing with important information for the government that's worth a lot of money. Protocols like "ensuring proprietary information is carefully protected", conducting "in-depth" background checks are performed, and making sure that retiring or separated employees return company property all seem like they should have already been in place. It just seems odd to me that it would have been so easy for this information to be taken in the first place.

It is unfortunate to see that foreign forces attempted to interfere in the 2020 elections. What's especially disturbing is that actors like Russia and Iran attempted to directly hack election systems, and would have likely tried to alter the physical vote count if they had ben able do. Thankfully the report concluded that there was no actual alteration of voting data. And while it's difficult to determine the impact that less tangible forms of interference like disinformation campaigns had, I doubt that these substantially altered the results. However, these are still vulnerabilities we need to be aware of. I hope that the US government implements the solutions outened in this report including improving physical and supply chain security, engaging in more interagency cooperation, and educating the public about disinformation campaigns.

Leading up to the 2020 election, there was a great deal of concern about potential Chinese interference in the election. However, aside from their usual political maneuvering on social media, most intelligence has found that they did not make a concerted attempt to influence the results. There was some indication that China wanted Biden to win, as they had hoped he would be more predicable then Trump. However, they eventually decided that it was not worth interfering as they both had more negative views of China. This was largely an accurate assessment, as the Biden administration has generally continued his predecessor's policy of being tough on China.

Elections can shape an outcome of a country. With both the US and South Korea being democracies, their leaders have support from their nation. To find if that support is falsified can lead to huge retaliation from the people. The report presented does conclude that outside actors are interested in tampering with elections. While the integrity of the votes was kept intact, it becomes scarier when that interference makes an actual difference. In 2006, Mexico underwent one of the most controversial elections to date. With such a close election, it became difficult to account who had won—the official votes tallied up labeled Felipe Calderon as the winner by 0.58% of votes. There were immediate rechallenges, and riots burst out for the possibility of falsified votes. Many have provided facts about the fraudulent nature of the voting, with irregularities forming at over 60 different polling places. Who would have won is still uncertain, but Mexico provides an important lesson. When voting becomes neck and neck, there will be outrage no matter the victor. For an outside country to possibly tamper with election results, they would need to make a close victory of their preferred candidate. That is how dissidence is formed. The report presented does clear up normal misinformation, but election integrity is still a rising concern.

This Report concludes that outside forces are trying to influence the election. I feel that the efforts to counter this were due to the Russian interference in the 2016 election. By having the intelligence community being on guard during presidential elections, the agencies can assure Americans that the democratic system is not being jeopardized and that elections are being conducted fairly and legally.

But As we see with the capital insurrection, even questioning the legality of an election by powerful political leaders could make Americans question the American democratic system. By having a report showing and disproving such rumors Americans can feel confident of the election system and not have any doubts about the results of the 2020 election.

I would be more interested to see this same report for the 2016 election. Although there were many rumors about the 2020 election being messed with, I feel like they were primarily spread by President Trump. However, in 2016, the rumors seemed to be more serious and coming from both sides. I am sure an investigation was done and if anything serious was found, they would have dealt with it. In 2020, it doesn't even look like there was a serious attempt to rig the election. The good thing is that the government is on top of these investigations and knows how to prevent them. The bad thing is that people are so desperate to alter the results of our election that they would try to hack it every four years.

FBI Case Example: Research Partnerships

From all situations, even bad ones, one must be able to look back on it and be able to grow from that situation. After the dilemma with the Chinese citizen expressing to others his desire to return to China to advance his career and work on research projects related to his work at the U.S. company, the lessons the United States learned are crucial to improving career, economic and political agendas.

One of the things I found interesting is that the Chinese citizen had access to such a large amount of important documents, data, and hard drives. Sure, he was working for an important American brand, but should not there be better regulations within the company to keep important data from leaving the building or being easily accessed by personnel?

Democracy requires a fair election to take place. If not, then a country's democratic values become blurred. As we know, there has been foreign interference during the 2020 elections, and this was probably also the case with the 2016 election. The United States is a very influential country, making foreign actors target our elections. However, it's good to know the background of the situation. We shouldn't blame one country as it may be multiple at fault. It's also good to consider the scope of this attack. It could have affected one city, or it could have affected many states. No problem is too small, though. For example, even if climate change changes the temperature by one degree, it could devastate the ecosystem as a whole.

DOJ and DHS are working together to solve this problem, but the first point that they must consider is who they are getting their information from. These governmental organizations could be provided misinformation. Yet, we can take away something from what we have found so far. First, we know that both the Iranian and Russian governments were involved. Furthermore, we know that other countries were involved too, but they were probably not as influential as the two countries listed before. There are two recommendations that the DOJ and DHS are suggesting for the next election. People need to be educated—especially those who work in the government. Individuals need to collaborate too. This is because working together will make solving issues a lot easier. For instance, if more countries try to address climate change, it will be easier to mitigate it.

National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism Part 2 (p. 15 - 30)

"Domestic terrorism can take many forms, inspired by a wide range of violent ideologies whose common, dangerous feature is the resort to violence rather than the peaceful expression of views and resolution of differences."

It is interesting to see how we, as humans, can react to differing opinions. Many groups of people, use violence, which in turn becomes terrorism, as a way to express their beliefs and act upon them. But why do humans do this? Why do we go from one extreme to another trying to explain what we believe? Instead, so many of our issues could be resolved if we voiced our concerns, and peacefully expressed our views. This means tackling racism, mental health, cultural stereotypes and so many other social issues that prevent humans from empathizing with one another and learn how to communicate and understand one another.

This article is both concerning and interesting because on one hand, individuals will go to great lengths to get information into the hands of foreign hands. While on the other hand it is good to see that the FBI is taking action against people who are taking sensitive US information and sharing it with the wrong people. The need for comprehensive background checks is critical in ensuring this kind of information does not get to the wrong hands.

The article is insightful and I enjoyed reading it. The article mentioned one of the indicators being making short, unexplained trips to foreign places or communicating with foreign nationals. I actually just did a video on security clearances as well as a paper on getting a security clearance with foreign families. These foreign interactions were one of the main things talked about and were indicators of terrorism or at least crimes against their country. I as well as the article talked about recommendations to curb these issues. It mentioned starting programs to deter these acts from future generations and ensure other locations and companies are safe from noncitizens. This is an unfortunate circumstance and case study but was an interesting read.

I am glad to hear that the FBI is catching people like this, it take a lot of expert intelligence to figure out stuff like this. I also really liked that the case example included ways that they can learn from their mistakes that were made. The biggest one for me was the back ground check. The background check absolutely needed to be more in depth. From the looks of what was in the case example, the individual must have had a pretty high security clearance, and this means that he is presented very secret and important issues and facts about the United States. If he is going to have access to this type of information, a better background check is needed, I am surprised the FBI did not catch this when doing his background check to begin with. I do however think it is good that the FBI is realizing their mistakes, sometimes as a large agency it is hard to do that, people worry that I will give the FBI a bad name.

Fascinating document on the uncomfortable topic of foreign intelligence gathering through non-US citizens living in the United States. I learned a lot from this case study, such as the red flags that might be raised, such as split loyalty or random trips, and a motive such as ego. The biggest lesson I learned from this case study is the importance of adequate background screening for non-citizens seeking high-level study or work opportunities in the United States.

National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism Part 2

I enjoyed this about as much as the first half! It is a great source with good suggestions in it. One suggestion specifically said, that people needed to "improve information sharing across all levels within, as well as outside the federal government."

This is good in theory, but I feel a lot of agencies don't follow this. Instead they think that their agency should take credit and they shouldn't tell others about details, or aren't allowed to tell them because of security clearance levels, or think it isn't important to the case. More information can be found about this topic at https://www.police1.com/police-products/communications/articles/technology-isnt-the-biggest-problem-for-information-sharing-in-law-enforcement-x5XzuiFPyCwl8gUC/. Federal agencies have started to create joint task forces which helps with the problem. However, I feel like more could still be done, not only in this aspect, but with all the suggestions.

Whatever the situation may be, issues will always arrive. It doesn't matter how many suggestions are made, at the end of the day it's what actually gets done. If nothing changes then a lot of people's time and energy was wasted. I think there are some great suggestions in the passage, and I hope that some or most of them can come into fruition soon enough.

The FBI's document case study is really relevant to today's concern of US competitiveness, especially in relation to China. With the recent Innovation Bill, it is evident the the US is hoping to out-compete China in R&D and make sure to protect discoveries made in the tech and military industries. Recent acts, such as NSF for the Future Act, are also concerned about knowledge-sharing happening in universities, where Chinese students on visas have access to valuable research. The act calls for monitoring and restricting these students as alliance or pressure from China might cause them to share this research. This attitude goes against the nature of the scientific community, which has always viewed partnerships and cooperation as a positive attribute. Do you think these security measures are necessary, or is the case study provided one of many instances of data exploitation happening in the US?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. For today’s article, it delved into China and a United States citizen looking to further his career there. He joined the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) and as part of his initiation, his superiors asked him to provide them U.S. documents as his way in. The structure of this case study is a good example to keep for later. You have a quick summary of the person in question and the problem that was cause and then the lessons learned from the incident.

With this case study it offers the indicators in a very blunt way. It shows that United States citizens that have key information about the state, their job, or livelihood, anything that could be used as leverage. Being on the fence of loyalty to one country over the other is another point of focus. What I like about this report is that they do offer up recommendations on how to counteract this or deter this. Most of what I saw what they are recommending are programs that can be started to deter future civilians from turning on their U.S. employers.

This example of a counterintelligence case highlights the key indicators in how to identify an intelligence vulnerability. The biggest driving force for such a leak was a personal feeling of loyalty to another nation. If there was no sense of loyalty there could have still been a leak of information but this leak would not potentially jeopardize the nation's security. So to identify where a person's loyalty lies there needs to be a deep background investigation. That not just investigates a person’s background but also whom they are associated with. By having such a check an agency could be notified if a potential candidate who is applying for a security clearance has any relation or communication with foreign actors. If a person does there could then be a deeper investigation to see if the person has posted or stated anything sympathetic to a foreign nation. Which can determine what nation a person's loyalty lays. this could prevent a person whose loyalty lies with a foreign nation from receiving a security clearance in the first place. Preventing an intelligence leak from happening.

With the current ways to indicate an intelligence vulnerability, agencies can identify what went wrong and how the intelligence was leaked. I feel that this approach is more reactive rather than proactive

It is the FBI's initiative to investigate and apprehend suspects who steal valuable information from our government within the confines of our territory. The FBI was successful in finding and apprehending a Chinese national relaying sensitive information to the Chinese government. This is what the FBI is supposed to do and should monitor nationals staying in the United States temporarily that are citizens of other autocratic goers to the United States. Reading the vulnerabilities and indicators of the article mentioned was interesting from a international business perspective. Specializing in international development and foreign trade, the goal of multinational companies is to expand their operations to as many countries as possible in order to grow their business. Yet a key vulnerability mentioned is a company's loyalty to a country besides the United States. Many companies affiliate with other nations based on their tariff or quota regulations which is appealing, yet that state's government might have darker political ambitions which is a notion to be wary of.

The article does not specify what year tis happened, but considering they mention working on the F-35, I'm going to say it was somewhat recent. That plays into my point that the government and these agencies should have learned from their mistake with Edward Snowden. However, this "Chinese citizen" looks like they should have been watched more carefully due to their dual allegiance to China and the United States. Snowden was an American citizen who served in the military and had no red flags. This Chinese Citizen was raising red flags before he was caught trying to leave the states with precious documents.

The article also does not mention what type of clearance this person held. Did he have alligancances to this CAS affiliate that was missed in his background check? Should he have ever gotten the position he had? And if they knew about these alliagances when they hired him, why was he not put on a watch list for exactly what he ended up doing? If he did have a high security clearance, like Snowden, that makes them more dangerous because of the information they now know. When given these security clearance, the personnel are thouroghly investigated to make sure they can be trusted with this information. But, there is no guarantee theyare not a flight risk and a threat to national security. These people still need to bewatched, especially if they have pre-existing red flags.

It is concerning to see this sort of mistake take place. This would have not only involved a $3.6 million monetary loss, but also could have had grave national security implications. Giving China access to US fighter jet technology would further erode our technological and military edge over them. However, I am glad that he was ultimately caught. It also seems that the FBI learned valuable lessons from this even such as the need for more in-depth background checks and the importance of continuing to monitor behavior. Hopefully the government takes action to help organizations be aware of these sorts of risks.

Chinese espionage has long been a concern, as they have often attempted to steal trade secrets and other confidential US technology to advance their own interests. For instance, on May 19, 2014 five People's Liberation Army officers were charged for engaging in cyber-hacking to steal information from US companies. Governmental organizations such as the FBI, CIA, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have worked to fight against these sorts of crimes. This has become an especially significant concern in higher education with cases like Charles Lieber's, in which he failed to disclose his work with the Wuhan University of Technology and million he received from the Chinese government while at Harvard. This threat lead to the US canceling the visas of 1,000 students with Chinese military connections, an action which has been criticized by members of academia. However, there is broad agreement on the need to properly screen and monitor foreign students to ensure that their governments do not get ahold of our research data.

It is quick to assume that terrorism exists through force and extortion. However, as shown in this case, terrorism can exceed the sharing of knowledge. With such high technical expertise in South Korea and the US, it is imperative to guard some of it at hand. While getting the information out to the rest of the world can benefit, certain secrets should remain that way. National security and plans of building it are vital to a nation's wellbeing. As shown in the case, if those documents were given to China, there would have been $3.6 million in losses.

While education trade is prevalent in East Asia, it also provides vulnerability to a nation's security. Many South Korean students travel to the US to get their majors and PhDs. Joint education has helped improve life around the globe. If this continues, there may be restrictions and security checks for incoming students and long-time visa workers.

Like with anyone, people will learn lessons and improve over time. This also happened to the United States government. They trusted the wrong individuals and eventually lost sensitive data. Now, they have come up with mitigation strategies such as educating current and future employees about the matter. Education is usually key when solving an issue, especially when people are misinformed about the topic such as climate change.

Another lesson that the United States learned is that anyone can share sensitive data due to self-interest. There is also a lot of money involved in trade secrets, which raises even more individuals' interest. Furthermore, everyone is against the American government, such as other governmental entities and even large corporations. It is easier than ever to share information with the rest of the world too. You could trade information across the globe with a click of a button thanks to the internet. This, of course, takes a long time to track down by foreign authorities, though. Something like this happened on Facebook, people were spreading misinformation about issues such as the vaccine and climate change, but it was finally taken down recently.

The second half of this strategy offers some great information about what the US needs to focus on when fighting against violent extremism within out borders. The threat of online terrorist activity and recruitment is a major problem today due to the fact that everyone has a presence online in one way or another and it makes it easier for terrorist organizations to spread their influence. While this is not the only factor in domestic terrorism it is certainly one of great concern. The Covid-19 pandemic has also shown that terrorist groups are able to foster and maintain a presence online and that there needs to be more security measures in place to protect citizens online.

The second part of this strategy was just as interesting as the first. The domestic terrorism threat is evolving, especially with the Covid-19 pandemic, everything is going virtual, this includes terrorism. With the four pillars, the thing that I thought in my head being a law enforcement specialist is that law enforcement is at the front lines of this domestic terrorism, so these agencies need to work together. This goes along with pillar one: understand and share domestic terrorism-related information. The federal government needs to share information among all federal agencies but this should also include state and local law enforcement agencies. That way we can all work together to combat this. This can also increase awareness and new tactics to help combat domestic terrorism.

I liked what Patrick said about the fact that these radical groups are feeding off their public image. Social media platforms need to stop giving these groups this satisfaction. This made me think of the fact that serial killers feed off of their publicity, they want their horrible actions to be heard. This is also how we get copy cat killers. We should think of these radical groups like that. If we give them this publicity and satisfaction they will just grow their organization and other groups might follow alongside.

In the new defense plan understanding Domestic terrorism, is the top priority, and being proactive rather than reactive is the number one goal for this new plan. The priority of the new administration is to have law enforcement agencies from all levels of government collaborate and share information to counter and track domestic terrorist activity. By providing such an outline we could potentially see a network for law enforcement intelligence regarding domestic terrorism being established. which in turn could allow agencies to work seamlessly and more collaboratively.

Also in pillar one of the plan, we could see a priority to investigate and understand outside influence. By having government resources look at the internal and external causes for domestic terrorism, law enforcement agencies would be able to have a clear picture as to the reasoning behind domestic terrorism. which could allow the agencies to implement plans to properly counter the spread of extremist ideology and the growth of domestic terror groups

The pillars discussed in this strategy are worthy goals in the fight against domestic terrorism. Information sharing continues to be vitally important in this area, as government entities will have different pieces of the puzzle depending on their area of focus. Stemming online recruiting efforts is also essential to reducing the spread of violent ideologies. It seems like this approach might be especially effective against foreign groups, as branches like the Department of treasury have a greater ability to prevent American from getting involved with them. It is important to monitor the global exchanges between terrorist networks, as we have seen groups like ISIS and various white supremacists use propaganda to inspire Americans to commit "lone wolf" terrorist attacks.

I think one of the most important aspects of this strategy is to create a population that is resilient against terrorist recruiting, as the government will not be able to stop all instances of this happening. Certainly an aspect of this is based in digital literacy and ability to spot propaganda, and I'm glad that the government is pursuing innovative strategies to teach people these skills. However, it also involves addressing the reasons people turn to terrorism in the first place. Extremism most often takes place when people no longer feel confidence in their government, so it is important that we ensure our democracy is functioning and addressing issues people care about. It is also important to reduce political polarization and support more bipartisan unity, as negative perceptions of the other side can often lead people to feel that violence against them is justified. Finally, it is important to reduce racism and other forms of hatred that allow individuals to dehumanize others.

I enjoy reading this piece on national security. The book provides a deeper understanding of the context and reasons of domestic terrorism threats, as well as viable solutions. The book emphasizes two important points: the necessity to invest in educational resources and the government's limited role in resolving the problem.

One, education is absolutely necessary. Some people become engaged with terrorist organizations without having a good understanding of what they are getting themselves into, therefore improving awareness of the methods of recruiting, how to identify them, and how to defend ourselves is critical.

Two, the task of addressing the domestic terrorist threat is beyond the government's capabilities; therefore, collaborating with individuals from various sectors and at all levels allows for a systematic approach to the problem and the development of applicable solutions to lessen domestic threats.

In the first part of this strategy, the report covered the threats, motives, methodology, as well as the groups involved in Domestic Terrorism. For the second part of this report, it dives into the goals that the government wants to achieve.

To summarize the goals of the government:

1. Enhance domestic terrorism–related research and analysis. This will come in the form of multiple agencies working together and sharing information. Withholding information can prove fatal due to conflicts between agencies.

2. Bring to light the fact that domestic terrorism is not in one place anymore. Its stretches across the board and over boundaries that we can’t see such as the internet. Especially in a time of COVID-19, as much as we want to go back to a life of normalcy, we can’t. Everything is online now and so are these groups. I think that intercommunication between agencies as well as our community is the key to preventing any threats coming to fruition from domestic terror groups.

Something that I have learned from my classes at FIU this semester is the difference between Domestic terrorism and HVE’s or Homegrown Violent Extremists. There was a misconception that they were one in the same, but they are not. Homegrown Violent Extremists are civilians born or belonging to one country but pledging their allegiance to an outside party that has extremist beliefs. Domestic Terrorism is defined as groups within a country that use extremist views to change their country to their belief systems. Because America is so diversified now, its causing tension amongst these white supremacist groups looking to have their ideologies projected onto American society. The purpose of this strategy is to address the factors that lead to violence and the result of the violence that violates human rights such as public safety and expressions of opinion and ideas.

To summarize the aspects of domestic terrorism threats

1. from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them toward violence, as well as those whom they encourage to take violent action.

2. Violence is focused targeted towards people of color, specifically the African American community as well as immigrants, Jews, Muslims, and LGBTQ members.

3. Anti-government or anti authority violent extremist groups, self-proclaimed militias

During my research on counterterrorism, one thing that I have come across is the notion of how we understand the groups. Yes it is important to identify them, the big players and what their goals are. But it is even more crucial to understand as to why they’re doing what they’re doing. Why are United States civilians somehow finding this avenue as the only way for their voice to be heard by the government. Why are they endangering not just themselves, but their families and loved ones as well as the public when they’re just trying to get their own agendas heard by the government.

As stated in the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, the threat of terrorism has a multitude of sources it comes from and ways of manifesting with there being "no single action or single part of the U.S. Government that can address the entirety of that threat". It would only make sense to create different strategies like these four pillars to work simultaneously on these differing facets of domestic terrorism. It's more important than ever to look at domestic terrorism in the United States because of the levels of disunity, especially in the past 4 to 6 years. As I said in my previous post I still think that it's important for the U.S. to start learning from the international community and other states that have diverse populations. It's an issue that while being a domestic issue, is also being seen around the world and could see more cooperative solutions. It might be too optimistic but I'd think that increasing the positive relations the U.S. has globally could have mutual benefits for those involved.

Radical group activity is a concern for the globe. In South Korea, these problems are left to the rest of the world. As the US has outlined in its main pillars of dissuading terrorist activity, the rest of the world has no concern for the US policies. In terms of trade, the main concern becomes whether the military can still protect US corporations in international territories. Marriott ran into terrorism problems with their expansion into different regions. It was not because of the company itself, but the image of the US tied to Marriott. What helped dissuade further aggression was the hiring of locals and promoting domestic wellbeing for the country. The US's strategies deal with their territory, which is key to expansion. However, International protection is essential when dealing with the rest of the world.

This article brings up a good point that many people do not understand when it comes to terrorist groups within our country. When an attack happens and a terrorist group that is based overseas, people are confused as to how these people got into our country. What they do not realize is the recruiting power of these radical groups. The article mentions how they are utilizing the internet and social media to recruit people into their terrorist groups. That means that the people committing these acts of terror in the our country could never have had physical contact with other members of this terrorist group. However, because they have connection with them through the internet and they were encouraged to commit this act by their ideologies, that terrorist group can now claim responsibility for the attack.

Putting a stop to radical group recruitment would make a big difference in our domestic terrorism levels, as well as our issue of terrorism overseas. Terrorist groups being able to claim credit for an attack in a country like the U.S. when they did not have to do any of the ground work is a huge win for them. They gain attention in the media which builds their reputation and spreads their message as a terrorist group. Taking away recognition from these terrorist groups would slowly suffocate and defeat them, because attention is what they want. They want people to pay attention to them so they listen to what they have to say and to spread their ideologies among other people. Ultimatley, if we can keep terrorist recruitment levels low, then that will result in a lower domestic terrorism rate. If people are not given the opportunity to radicalize, it is less likeley they will go out of there way to join a terrorist group.

The United States government has come up with strategies to mitigate domestic terrorism. First, government officials must understand and share information related to the matter. Thus, they have to be educated about domestic terrorism, but they should also distribute the information to the public if they find anything. Also, the U.S. government will strive to prevent recruitment and mobilization by any means. You could apply this to global warming deniers too. If they cannot find new members, they will be deterred from sharing harmful information.

The American Government came up with other strategies as well. They will try to disrupt current terrorist activity. Then most importantly, they will try to confront long-term contributors. It may be obvious that this should be their main goal, but sometimes you have to think outside the box if you want to eradicate domestic terrorism. Regarding climate change, oil companies have harmed the environment for decades, and thus, if we want to help ecosystems, we must address it at its source. Therefore, the U.S. strategy to deter domestic terrorism is as good as it gets.

National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism Part 1 (p. 1 - 14)

While reading the article, I found it very interesting when it said, "We must be clear-eyed about this challenge: the unlawful violence that constitutes domestic terrorism is the result of a complex, multi-layered set of societal dynamics." I agree with the article that violence/terrorism comes from a long complex line of societal dynamics. Racism, bigotry, gender violence, etc, and are types of social dynamics that can lead to higher levels of terrorism and violence. Understanding the dynamics and relationship between these societal roles is key to fighting back terrorism.

Although domestic terrorism has existed within the United States for centuries, it is an issue that is "both persistent and evolving". With increases in technology, domestic terrorism must now be addressed by looking at "its historical roots as well as challenges with new technological innovations". Law Enforcement specifically has a difficult job in deterring domestic terrorism since oftentimes, lone actors are rapidly mobilizing to violence. Lone actors can mobilize to violence due to environmental beliefs, which makes it important to protect against domestic terrorism to safeguard Americans and the environment.

This was a very interesting article since it is a little different than the area I'm currently specializing in. However, this strategy remains fairly consistent with other strategies I've read. Domestic terrorism has become a great threat for the US in recent years and this strategy offers a valuable overview of today's threat. While the US is fairly active in combating international terrorism it is great to see that same level of concern at home. This strategy gives the US additional resources and plans to ensure the safety and security of everyone from domestic terrorist threats.

While reading the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism I began to think about internal terrorism in the Asia-Pacific and noticed that Myanmar and the U.S. have some overlap I hadn't thought about before. Of course the two have a myriad of differences and are dealing with different levels of domestic terrorism right now I found the commonalities to be interesting. Currently in Myanmar there is a military junta which took over in a violent coup about 5 months ago and ousted the former leader and government. Outside of the coup d'état I noticed between what was pointed out about the U.S. were some of the characteristics of Myanmar. The states both have diverse populations with ethnicity based conflict, a history of internal conflict, and domestic terrorist attacks from those opposing the government and its institutions. Each of these similarities were brought up in the National Strategy report about the U.S. as reasons for elevated threats. I think looking at other countries with similar characteristics and issues and learning from either their successes or mistakes would be another key part in aiding the U.S. in avoiding further domestic conflict and terrorism.

Domestic terrorism in the United States is a very broad category ranging from lone actors with their own radical ideologies and ambitions such as Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber who argued that technology was destroying society and would not stop terrorizing Americans through mail bombs until his manifesto was published. I have family in Idaho and a group that has not always made headlines in the national news was the Aryan Nations based in Northern Idaho that terrorized minority groups for decades and had their own commune. The federal government disbanded the organization after the group shot a caucasian woman and her child. I would argue that the Proud Boys could be considered a terrorist organization after they were involved in the storming of the United States Capital, an attack on a pillar of modern democracy. Often times stopping domestic terrorism in the United States means reaching out to isolated groups that seclude themselves in rural communities. These groups without any outside information, continue to radicalize and be skeptical of the US government leading to radicalization and events such as as Ruby Ridge and the Waco siege. Seeking out lone wolf attackers can be increasingly challenging for the US government however.

Domestic terrorism is nothing new in this country, but now more than ever, it is being noticed. Technology has been advancing rapidly, and with these advancements comes challenges and more adversaries. Not only is this terrorism being documented and seen more by the public because we have immediate access to information in our pocket 24/7, but technology is also giving people more opportunities to terrorize. People are weaponizing technology and the internet. All these new innovations are so new that the government does not know how to govern them or even if they are allowed to due to our rights as Americans.

Federal law enforcements efforts to stop domestic terrorism is not new either. The threat is recognized and efforts are being made, but there are so many new ways to attack, it is hard to stop. To put an end to domestic terrorism, it is going to take everyone. That means State, local, tribal, and federal law enforcement all need to work together to stop these terrorist. Usage of all resources will be necessary and that includes new technological advances. Terrorists are not the only one who are benefiting from technology. The government and other law enforcement organizations have some of the greatest minds, power, education, and technology at their disposal. We are researching, paying attention, and learning from past events and the terrorists will be stopped.

Domestic violence and terrorism have been on the rise in the US. While the US has addressed its resurgent beliefs in combating, South Korea has not had to deal with terrorism. Terrorism in South Korea is basically obsolete. One of the major factors that have helped to combat terrorism has been a diligent security force. In South Korea, every male is conscripted to join military service. Their requirement and diligence provide a more patriotic look on the country. Many citizens have a positive outlook for their country. In the US, a lot has been lacking in patriotism. With terror attacks on the rise, many people have lost faith in the security that the US provides. With such a wide variety of people, it is hard to police it all. The US is taking the right steps in evolving its security measures. However, the US should consider how its internal national image affects its domestic violence.

This was a very interesting article, definitely something that I know a little bit about. America has seen a lot of domestic terrorism, probably due to the fact that Americans do hold a very wide range of beliefs. Beliefs that are important to our countries values. I like that the strategy includes talking about the fact that domestic terrorism is "persistent and evolving". This tells me that law enforcement at all stages, whether its local, tribal, state or federal, need to work together to combat these issues. This includes staying up to date on all of the aspects of the evolving terrorism, including new technological advances, different groups of people, current events issues and especially efforts to try and combat these militia violent extremists. I also think that this includes learning and sharing new information about these different groups. Sometimes agencies do not share all of their information with each other, I think we need to change this. This article was very interesting to me, I look forward to reading more tomorrow, and hearing others opinions.

It is good to see the DHS taking the threat of far-right terror seriously. It is a problem that has always persisted in our country irrespective of civil rights trends and movements. The nature of far-right terrorism, however, has always been changing. Importantly, the report mentions that domestic terrorism in recent history is often carried out by lone wolves, small groups, and informal movement structures. It is important to note how domestic terrorism has evolved, so law enforcement can appropriately adjust its tactics to combat it. Social media offers a new challenge for law enforcement. Social media provides anyone with a device a pedestal to spread and promote their ideology and spread instructional information on conducting attacks, weapon manufacturing, and recruitment.

New steps can always be taken to mitigate terrorism. However, the most important goal should be to create a society where people do not feel they need terrorism to air their grievances. It is also vital to have programs to assist those in the deradicalization process re-adjust back into society without feeling the pressure to return to their previous worldview.

Overall, I found this to be an effective and sensible strategy to address the rise in domestic terrorism. I agree with the emphasis on solely going after violence and incitement, as otherwise this could lead to restrictions on free expression. I also think it found a good balance between being politically neutral and still identifying the groups that are playing the biggest role in this violence. In terms of specifics, interrupting terrorist recruiting networks online seems like an important way to stop these movements from gaining influence. Teaching better social media literacy can help, as this can allow people to identify misinformation and other terrorist recruiting activities. Information sharing between different branches of government is also essential, as this is the only way we can gain a complete picture of the threats our nation is facing. As a society, I think addressing the deeper issues like racism and mistrust of government can also go a long way towards stemming the influence of these groups.

One thing I found especially interesting was the point that terrorists often thrive on overreaction, as it garners sympathy for their cause and creators anger among their adherents. We have actually seen this concept play out in China. In February 1997, Chinese soldiers attacked peaceful Uyghur protesters in Yining as part of their "Strike Hard Campaign" against Uyghur terrorism. They also arrested many Uyghurs suspected of separatism and held them without trial. However, these crackdowns only lead to an increase in Uyghur violence and separatist terrorism. It also made these separatist groups more cohesive and sophisticated. I would not be surprised if we see a similar uptick in violence due to China's current 'People's War on Terror" against the Uyghurs.

I think that the steps that are outlined in the National Strategy for countering domestic terrorism are a great step forward from previous strategies. By focusing on information and how it can spread law enforcement agencies would be able to stop the spread of misinformation and radical ideals. while still being able to observe and learn more about domestic terrorist ideology. Which in turn can help agencies prevent people from becoming radicalized and joining such groups in the first place.

While prevention is key, I think that it is great that national strategy also outlines the plans to deter and disrupt domestic terrorism threats. I think that by having this point outlined agencies are now going to be proactive in countering domestic terrorist groups rather than being reactive. Which is a great shift from past strategies showing the priority for the new administration when it comes to countering such activity. But I think the most important point from this strategy that I think will be the most effective has to be the commitment to “ensure that this threat diminishes over generations to come.” by making such points a priority there is a real chance to prevent the growth of domestic terror in this nation

Combatting domestic terrorism has been a national priority for the U.S. ever since 9/11. The US government has focused its efforts at keeping Americans safe, at home. In combination with gun violence, federal enforcement has a tough job in tracking, monitoring, and stopping lone or group terrorists. They must apprehend illegal networks before they are able to recruit and incite more people into their organizations. With the rise of cybersecurity and international terrorism, the policing of these networks has become increasingly difficult, and it is almost impossible to keep track of every viable threat.

Racial and discriminatory violence is of special attention in the US because of its bicultural configuration. When many diverse people live in the same region, their cultures, religions, values and morals clash. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to create policies that appease all sides, and that's where anti-governmental sentiment comes from. The agencies working to stop domestic terrorism need to keep focusing on understanding where the hatred and bigotry is coming from in order to squash violent opposition.