Today's reading on the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was insightful. The presentation on Tuesday noted that NATO was created during the cold war to deal with the Soviet Union, so seeing that Russia made this group as a response years later is interesting. Article 23 was a bit disturbing to me. "Privileges and immunities of the Organization shall be defined by the relevant international treaty." I know this is to be used in accordance with other international treaties. However, I was wondering what would happen if their goal of making the CSTO on par with NATO would impact this clause.

Today's article on Right-wing terrorism is disturbing. In comparison to Jihadist terrorism, it seems as if right-wing terrorists can have more interactions with one another. I simply couldn't fathom a Jihadist group in Europe being allowed to do paramilitary training in public spaces without law enforcement getting involved. In addition to this, I find it interesting that other right-wing attacks aren't considered terrorism under national legislation. If this was the case, these statistics would be doubled. I understand that there is a racial bias in terrorism, yet I fail to understand why right-wing terrorism fails to have the same counterterrorism efforts as other forms of terrorism. If anything, it's more harmful than international terrorism as the perpetrators actively seek to blend into all forms of society and successfully do as they're white. Governments across the EU have far-right groups/members in their parliaments and are gaining more traction as immigration to the EU increases. Xenophobia, racism, and populism are also gaining traction as a result. While the article doesn't specifically relate to Latin American immigration, I argue that these current counterterrorism policies will impact immigration in the future should far-right members gain enough traction to influence foreign policy.

@Alex Gintz I’m specifically referring to hegemonic masculinity. Take a look at gender order theory when you have the chance. Essentially, I’m examining the preconceived/culturally dominant traits of masculinity.

@Alex Gintz Thank you! For starters, I would define the two terms. Then, list the components of masculinity that: prevent men from getting mental health treatment, and cause the "Greater purpose" mindset. From there, a literature review that includes research on men from European and Middle Eastern backgrounds on their views of gender roles, their views on masculinity, and their views on men seeking mental health support from friends, family, and practitioners. In addition to this, I would research current data on the mental health of arrested jihadist terrorists in this demographic. After finding that gap in the literature. I would probably have to do a quantitative methods study where I run a Pearson's r to see if there is a correlation between mental health and masculinity views after running a survey on the group of former terrorists on their views. I hypothesize a trend where increased views in support of masculinity causes decreased mental health support. A strong negative correlation. After looking at the results, I would see if that hypothesis is upheld or if it's null.

Today's article on Jihadist terrorism was informative. While the term is frequently mentioned, this is the first document I've come across that defined the term and provided clear examples. Seeing the general trend decrease from 2016-19 reveals that counterterrorism efforts are working in the EU. I wonder how much of this is due to mental health work on this demographic? The statistics on mental health provided useful information on discerning mental illness from extremism. If more research can be done in this area, I think the spread of radicalization in the EU might decrease extensively. While this isn't comparable to my specialty, the cases detailed reveal a general pattern of gender and age. Potential research should be done on masculinity and extremism. I recall the UK statistic on men having untreated mental health issues that they fail to seek help for as a result of their gender. With the EU being generally individualistic in some aspects, a man's feelings of having a "Greater purpose" in life in conjunction with mental illness might lead to extremism. The last thought I have on this article is on the rise in Xenophobia. Despite the data revealing a decreasing trend in individuals arrested, coverage on the topic is increasing in Western media. I wonder if this information will add to the growing dissent on immigrants in the EU.

In your third body, I wonder how cultural views will impact the exchange of information. For democratic, collectivist societies, I think that there will be more eagerness to share this information with other states. For individualistic societies, I don't think there will be an equal amount of data shared with other societies to combat terrorism.

This is a very good point Nadeen. Information exchange is valuable in combatting counterterrorism for all parties involved. However, I wonder if the EU will branch out of the region and do Information exchanges with at-risk countries, or whether it will stick with Western nations.

Pages 10-24 left me with questions today. 1.) Information Technology is a field that currently lacks diversity. There have been cases where facial recognition, AI, and other tech tools have shown a bias to people with darker skin tones. How does the technology created to combat terrorism remove this bias? 2.) How will these policies directed towards third countries impact travel and immigration? 3.) Will the development of IT improve the infrastructure of important cities combatting terrorism? 4.) Will these policies impact domestic terrorists as well? While I understand the importance of increased surveillance in counterterrorism, I'm seeing a pattern of privacy concerns. The article notes that EU citizens will have safeguards to ensure privacy, but what about non-citizens/migrants? I like how this article section is similar to the US strategy on counterterrorism. Their views on re-integration for extremists are insightful, as both the US and the EU are now wanting to create effective reintegration programs. With Latin American immigration, facial recognition could potentially be used to mitigate the migrant crisis. With individuals disappearing along migrant routes, this technology would reveal when/where they were last seen.

Great quote! I think that the vetting process needs to be more strenuous for these agencies. In addition to this, active education on combatting white supremacist group recruitment is necessary with diverse recruitment.

Despite this document being published in 2006, this information is still crucial in understanding the insurrection at the Capitol. People actively apart of twitter, specifically "Black Twitter" made jokes about why this was allowed to occur, and on the whereabouts of law enforcement. Two viral responses to this were that "The protesters had to change into their work (police) uniforms later" and that you never see "Clark Kent and Superman in the same room." This document reflects this sentiment. I think their sentiment of white supremacists being a large threat is understandable. Because of their infiltration of government agencies, ability to hinder state capacity, and ability to blend in at all levels of American society, this demographic has the potential to do serious harm. While I'm not shocked at the findings, I'm surprised to see how this is still an ongoing issue in the government sector. It's important to comprehend the effect that this has on the workforce. If many government agencies have white supremacists in them, the vetting process will definitely be saturated with racial bias. I would even make the argument that this is a reason as to why many agencies lack diversity in higher positions.

I love the fact that you highlighted that quote. I couldn't help but think of FDR remarking that "(Somoza) was a S.O.B but he's our S.O.B" when I read it. I understand that no partner will be perfect, but I wonder what the exchange will be for working with certain nations known for human rights abuses. In the case of Roosevelt's quote, Latin America is still impacted by the dictators supported by the U.S. As a result of this history, immigration, corruption, and brain drain are problems that probably wouldn't exist if these alliances weren't formed.

Today's reading left me with a few questions."Enhance reach into denied areas overseas." How will this impact state sovereignty? I understand the importance of counterterrorism, but relations with other states will deteriorate if we breach this. I wonder if the plan to "effectively use law of armed conflict detention as a counterterrorism tool" will be continued under the Biden administration. The discussion on Guantanamo Bay has been ongoing. While this section doesn't directly connect to Latin American Immigration, the disruption of terrorists traveling was demonstrated in the travel ban implemented by the Trump administration is related. In a previous post, I discussed Biden's transition into office, and the effect that it had on immigration at the border. I wonder how the new administration will implement counterterrorism efforts while maintaining relations with other nations.

I'm glad that you noted Russia and the implication of governments acting in self-interest. I wonder what future problems will occur for Russia as a result of "playing for both sides?" Seeing this occur in countries would make it difficult to collaborate on counterterrorism efforts if each party knows whats truly guiding the other.

Pages 13-18 of the document seeks to define/describe the current adversaries of the United States. The most captivating part of this piece was on page 18. The description of "racially motivated extremism, animal rights extremism, environmental extremism, sovereign citizen extremism, and militia extremism" was insightful. In connection to Latin American immigration, it's important to note that the proxy wars during the Cold War have had lasting impacts on this region. Trump's declaration that Iran is doing the same makes me wonder about the future of this region. In Latin America, immigration is only a byproduct of governments not meeting the needs of the people in them. Two results that come from this is extremism or an exodus. Either way, examining the reasons why people are doing the things that they do are imperative, and this document highlighting the different extremist groups is interesting.

Even with domestic terrorism, international actors need to be included as there are global support networks for domestic terrorists. Having some level of international collaboration is necessary. I’m not exactly sure how lasting these repercussions will be. While I can’t speak on terrorism, immigration advocacy groups were already planning courses of action based on Biden’s election promises. As a result, they’re currently swamped with migrants and low on aid/support due to “jumping the gun” so to speak. With this level of swiftness in mind, I would guess that these next 4 years will be spent attempting to mitigate this issue.

Interesting connection Reid, I like how you connected your topic to this article and last week's topic. I think that the collaboration component is missing in the Chinese approach to addressing "terrorism." While an international definition of terrorism exists, China has chosen to use/interpret it differently in order to make it fit their aims.

@Eric Bruckenstein I think your commentary is noteworthy Eric. While focusing on the United States first is beneficial, I wonder if the Trump administration properly collaborated with other actors to mitigate terrorism efforts.

Pages 1-11 of the document are insightful. While the Trump administration adopted an America First policy, I can't help but notice that they shoulder a large portion of the burden on other international players (pg 10 last para). In regards to what forms of collaboration will be implemented amongst allies in order to combat terrorism, it's vague. I do commend his honest approach of stating that he will place the United States' self-interests first, which is a turn from previous leadership acting as the "police of the world." This is also shown as there isn't mention of increased spending for other countries to combat terrorism. Instead, the money will be going towards domestic counterterrorism efforts. The America First policy enacted by Trump can also be seen in connection to Latin American immigration. Under this administration, southern border security was prioritized over providing aid to Latin American countries that failed to "stem the outflow of northbound migrants.(McDonnel, NPR)" In both cases, the Trump administration adopted a hard approach that has lasting repercussions for the Biden administration.