Domestic Terrorism: What You Need to Know

Facts 

Domestic terrorism refers to a form of terror in which the perpetrator targets her or his country. In this form of terrorisms, both the perpetrator, venue, and targets are from the same country (Gaibulloev & Sandler, 2011). For instance, acts by American terrorists targeting other American nationals and interests both within and outside the country constitute domestic terrorism. Such kind of terrorism does typically not have outside support from transnational networks, always organized within the home country, and in most cases targets fellow nationals. In the case of the United States, such an act may involve plots or actual terrorist activities committed within the country or abroad by the citizens of the US, and visitors radicalized within the country’s borders. Furthermore, it may encompass acts of terrorism perpetrated against the state by permanent legal residents.  

Contrary to popular belief, domestic terrorism is not a new concept. Domestic terrorism is a crime that has existed for a formidable period with the Cold War-era, having presented some of the most notable cases in recent history. Asymmetric warfare carried out by violent non-sate player constitutes some acts of homegrown terror (Piazza, 2017). Homegrown terror operates within the internet, where the known terrorist group target young people to carry out their bidding. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently estimated that close to 15,000 sites operated by terror groups around the world perpetrate domestic terrorism. Close to 80 percent of websites used by domestic terrorist groups are within the American-based servers.  

The problem of homegrown terror is on the rise, with mostly the youth being the targets by international terror groups to commit such acts within the country (Wright, 2011). For instance, between 2008 and 2010, various agencies of law enforcement made 27 arrests that were related to homegrown terror. Most of the individuals arrested were American citizens or legal residents that were radicalized online by jihadists. The arrests represent a notable increase from the previous seven years, where the total numbers never went beyond 20 plots by Americans or legal residents. In the last years, only two plots resulted in actual attacks. Nevertheless, in the period between 2008 and 2010, two attacks occurred that led to 14 deaths. The increase of domestic terror, particularly past 2009, proves that some fraction of Americans is vulnerable to ideologies that either support or sympathize with terrorist groups.  

            Approximately 25% of the foiled acts of domestic terrorism have a link to major international terror groups. It is worth noting that a growing number of Americans currently hold positions of power and influence in international groups associated with the planning and execution of terrorist activities around the globe (Berkebile, 2012). Al-Qaeda is currently the most notorious terror group believed to be behind the radicalization of Americans and legal citizens within the US using various online platforms and tactics. Homegrown terrorism ranks the highest in the list of the most serious threats faced by western countries in the contemporary setting. The most targeted groups for radicalization are college, and university students are mostly adolescents.  

As mentioned, the number of domestic terrorists and terror plots has been on the increase due to the extensive use of online platforms for training and recruitment by international terror groups. In a Senate Committee hearing held in 2018, it was revealed that the FBI had foiled or made close to 120 arrests of cases suspected to be of domestic terrorism. Most cases of domestic terror are founded on radical ideology and violence, which are the signs that the FBI uses for its arrests and the subsequent prosecution of the suspects. 

  The criminal justice system has been at the center of detecting, preventing, and deterring homegrown terrorism. In the wake of September 11, when the acts of homegrown terror increased significantly, the federal courts have worked with law enforcement o put more than 100 homegrown terrorists behind bars. Such events and occurrences emphasize the growing influence of the courts in combating terror. For instance, in 2009, 14 people were charged in a Minnesota district court for traveling from the US to Somali to join a terror group called the Al-Shabaab, which is affiliated to al-Qaeda. In the same year, Daniel Patrick Boyd and his accomplices were charged with an attempt to attack US military personnel at the Quantico Marine Bases and the recruitment of young Americans to travel abroad for training by international terror groups.  

The number of domestic terrorism investigations is on the rise, meaning that the cases of homegrown terror are on the rise. The number was 90 in 2018 and 115 in 2019. While the number of cases may be low compared to the past years, the velocity of the activity has been on the rise. Domestic terrorism is a leading cause of death in the United States that international terrorism in recent years. Racially motivated attacks are the leading cause of deaths in the homegrown terror category. There are 850 cases of domestic terrorism currently open in the US. About half of the mentioned cases fall under the category of anti-authority or anti-government. Close to 40% of the cases are racially motivated and are committed by individuals who subscribe to the ideology that the white race is superior. The fact that most terrorists operate as lone wolves make domestic terrorism had to stop.  

Discussion 

Domestic terrorism has always existed in the United States to influence the social and political structure of the country. In the social and political paradigm, the term domestic terrorism refers to the acts of violence or force committed by groups or individuals against other people or property to coerce or intimidate a civilian population or the government for political or social objectives. In the past few years, especially in the wake of 9/11, domestic terrorism has been on the rise and remained relatively high. The law enforcement agencies face serious challenges in identifying and disrupting domestic terrorist activities. It is worth noting that domestic terrorism exists in four primary categories, namely anti-government extremism, racially motivated violent extremism, animal rights or environmental extremism, and abortion extremism. The drivers of homegrown terror are people that have a negative perception of socio-political conditions, the government or law enforcement, and reactions to different legislative actions. The proactive, reactive, and primary targets for domestic terrorists are law enforcement agencies. Notably, racially-motivated violent extremists are responsible for some of the worst forms of violence in the US in the recent past. 

Radicalization to the violence currently taking place online, where international terror groups and violent extremists use social media platforms to spread propaganda, is on the rise. The same platforms are used for target selection, recruitment, and the subsequent incitement to violence. The internet provides the extremist with unfettered access to various local communities where they target, recruit, and spread messages of propaganda on a global scale. Domestic terrorists use social media platforms to communicate with people who harbor and share in their ideology (Gries et al., 2011). The change in tactics and the modus operandi have ensured that the extremists recruit individuals who may not be part of any terror groups. The global nature of the threat makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect, deter, or disrupt terror activities. The most effective method of deterrence is the FBI’s inclusion of foreign agencies to detect and arrest extremists in other countries that may target Americans and legal residents for recruitment for purposes of violence and extremism.  

In most cases, domestic terrorism often happens in a fashion or mode of operation called the lone wolf. Interactional terror groups and jihadists find it easy to isolate and radicalize single individuals as opposed to trying and radicalizing people en mass. Lone wolf terrorism refers to acts committed by an individual and not a group of people. The individual may be acting out of his conviction, meaning that they do not necessarily have a connection with any terrorist groups (Piazza, 2011). Most of the lone wolf terrorism stems from individuals who harbor anti-social ideologies, anti-government sentiments, white supremacy, and Islamic fundamentalist convictions. Most lone wolfs are people who seek acceptance and compassion from certain groups but are always met with rejection.  

In the pursuit of terrorists and terror groups, the FBI and other investigating officers must respect the provisions of the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s provisions stipulate that no one should be under investigation or face arrest merely based on association or movements (Enders et al., 2011). The law only permits the FBI to step in and commence investigations when reasonable grounds exist that the person in question is perpetuating criminal, violent actions aimed at furthering extremist ideologies. The evolution and the subsequent mutation of terror imply that the concerned authorities should adapt accordingly to confront the challenges by relying on the capabilities of international, territorial, federal, local, tribal, and state partnerships. The concerned agencies must collect and analyze intelligence (Sandler, 2015). One positive step is the creation of the Joint Terrorism Forces that brings together various agencies to ensure comprehensive coverage of the routes that the extremist may use for recruitment and the actualization of their heinous acts of extremism.   

The designation of domestic groups as terrorists is difficult mainly because of the challenges posed by the First Amendment. It is worth noting that the US designates groups operating overseas, such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, as foreign terrorist groups or terrorist organizations. It means that any individual that offers such groups any help is deemed to have committed a crime (Berkebile, 2017). Nevertheless, it is impossible to designate groups that operate within America as terrorist organizations because the First Amendment provides for the freedom of speech, association, and assembly. Therefore, designating groups based in the country as terrorists is not possible based on association or assembly with terror groups. Designating individuals as terrorists in the domestic circle is difficult because of the constitutional hurdles.  

Conclusion 

The solution to domestic terrorism is multi-faceted, meaning that it requires investment and input from various agencies and concerned groups, including the governments of different countries. The priority, which is arguably the ultimate solution, is giving priority to prevention mechanisms (Powell, 2011). It means that the intelligence communities and the law enforcement agencies should work together to prevent terror activities. The application of the CIA guidelines that were adopted in 1995 is essential in the prevention recruitment of young and vulnerable members of the society in the terror groups. Additionally, the Attorney General should accord the investigating authorities the power to use proven means such as electronic surveillance when dealing with individuals suspected of terror activities (Brockoff et al., 2016). The government led by Congress should give funding priorities to the concerned agencies such as the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA to ensure the continuation of significant operational activities aimed at preventing, identifying, arresting, and prosecuting suspected terrorists. Closely related to that is the fact that the FBI should establish a cadre of reports officers that distill and subsequently disseminate information related to terrorism.  

Nations that support terror and international terror activities should be under targeted surveillance and face sanctions. Certain countries such as Syria and Iran that support terrorism and terrorist activities through intelligence and finance should be placed on the list of states that sponsor terrorism until they stop such activities (Choi & Piazza, 2016). Such countries should be liable to all the sanctions that are applicable to state sponsors as a way of disrupting terror activities. It is worth noting that the sources of finance for terror groups include private individuals, meaning that they are not only states. All relevant agencies, therefore, should use the available means that include but not limited to civil, administrative, and criminal sanctions to disrupt and block non-governmental sources of finance for different terror groups. Towards this end, the US Congress should henceforth implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism for the enhancement of international cooperative efforts.  

Recommendation 

As stipulated, the internet provides the extremist with unfettered access to various local communities where they target, recruit, and spread messages of propaganda on a global scale. Domestic terrorists use social media platforms to communicate with people who harbor and share in their ideology. The most viable solution to domestic terror is to prevent acts of violence before they occur. In an attempt to prevent the radicalization of young people and individuals susceptible to radicalization, it is important to monitor the internet for any suspected terror activities to ensure prevention and disruption. Early detection of the radicalization process is essential in ensuring that the culprits be arrested and prosecuted. Timely arrests and prosecutions prevent culprits before they cause harm to the citizenry and the population in general.  

References 

Berkebile, R. E. (2012).  Causes of domestic terrorism: 1970-2010  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri--Columbia). 

Berkebile, R. E. (2017). What is domestic terrorism? A method for classifying events from the global terrorism database.  Terrorism and political violence ,  29 (1), 1-26. 

Choi, S. W., & Piazza, J. A. (2016). Ethnic groups, political exclusion and domestic terrorism.  Defence and Peace Economics ,  27 (1), 37-63. 

Enders, W., Sandler, T., & Gaibulloev, K. (2011). Domestic versus transnational terrorism: Data, decomposition, and dynamics.  Journal of Peace Research ,  48 (3), 319-337. 

Gaibulloev, K., & Sandler, T. (2011). The adverse effect of transnational and domestic terrorism on growth in Africa.  Journal of Peace Research ,  48 (3), 355-371. 

Gries, T., Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2011). Causal linkages between domestic terrorism and economic growth.  Defence and Peace Economics ,  22 (5), 493-508. 

Piazza, J. A. (2011). Poverty, minority economic discrimination, and domestic terrorism.  Journal of Peace Research ,  48 (3), 339-353. 

Piazza, J. A. (2017). Repression and terrorism: A cross-national empirical analysis of types of repression and domestic terrorism.  Terrorism and Political Violence ,  29 (1), 102-118. 

Powell, K. A. (2011). Framing Islam: An analysis of US media coverage of terrorism since 9/11.  Communication Studies ,  62 (1), 90-112. 

Wright, M. (2011). Domestic Terrorism, Cyber-Radicalization, US College Students.  Forensic Examiner ,  20 (3).