CIA-Domestic Terrorism-Nick Mendez-Fourth Round …harvardmodelcongress.org/.../10/CIA-Domestic-Terrorism-Nick-Mende… · groups with origins in the Civil War to radical eco-terrorist

HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS SAN FRANCISCO 2015

DOMESTIC TERRORISM By Nicholas Mendez and Jimmy Biblarz

INTRODUCTION In post-9/11 America, the threat of terrorist attacks originating from

outside of the United States has dominated the concerns of US counterterrorism officials. Anti-American rhetoric, the volatile situation in the Middle East, ongoing clashes in Ukraine, as well as in Asia, represent significant threats to US policymakers. However, since the turn of the millennium, domestic terrorist attacks pose a threat just as severe to the safety and livelihood of American citizens as international attacks.

While US officials have been largely successful with thwarting international terrorist attacks since 9/11, their efforts within the US at preventing domestic attacks have been less fruitful. Domestic terrorists, defined as “people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from US-based extremist ideologies and movements,” have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as terrorists abroad. While foreign extremist plots and attacks garner significantly more media attention than domestic ones, the efficacy of domestic attacks is undisputed. The April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh claimed 168 lives, and injured more than 500 others, representing the second deadliest attack on US soil. More recently, the April 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings struck deadly chaos in a city not normally a prime target for terror attacks.

And behind these “lone wolf” actors (a term which will be explained later in this briefing), larger and more dangerous organizations exist on the periphery of American society. Ranging from right-wing white supremacist groups with origins in the Civil War to radical eco-terrorist groups and animal rights activists, these domestic terror organizations represent just as dangerous of a threat to national security as those abroad. Therefore, proper legislation must be implemented to ensure the continued safety of American citizens.

HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS

SAN FRANCISCO 2015 DOMESTIC TERRORISM 2

EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM

Historical Background Since the inception of the United States of America, domestic terrorism

has been a constant threat. One could even argue that the Revolutionary War was an act of terrorism. A rogue group of political extremists employing irregular units and tactics, including the destruction of private property, in their fight against an occupying force could easily have committed what we might now label as terrorist attacks. Through the eyes of the British occupiers, the Patriots could be considered the first domestic American terrorists.

During the Civil War, guerrilla warfare was commonplace in both the North and the South, as irregular militias and fighting groups formed and terrorized the countryside, mostly in the Border States of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. These groups, loosely affiliated with the Union or the Confederacy, would wreak havoc on civilian populations to settle grudges and exert control. Additionally, the strategy of scorched earth practiced by military generals such as William T. Sherman in his March to the Sea could be considered an act of terrorism for its wanton destruction of civilian property and infrastructure.

Yet not all types of domestic terrorism occurring in the United States have been perpetrated by quasi-military actors. The 1920 Wall Street Bombing in New York City killed 38, wounded 143, and caused over $2 million in property damage (approx. $23 million when adjusting for inflation). Italian Anarchists, who had previously conducted a series of bombings targeting prominent politicians and businessmen across the United States, are believed to be responsible for the attack.

Domestic Terrorism in the 20th Century

Following the events of World War II, domestic terrorism carried out by groups, gangs, and movements gained a higher profile in the American public. The rise of religious evangelism, the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the resulting increasingly polarized political landscape created a fertile ground for extremist groups to operate. In fact, for most of the post-World War II era, most Americans considered “terrorism” as only domestic terrorism, associating terrorist organizations with those fighting against the Vietnam War. The most prominent of these organizations was a radical faction of the Students for a Democratic Society, known as the Weather Underground, which conducted a string of bombings, arson attacks, and robberies throughout the 1970s.

In addition to the rise of extremist groups, the latter half of the 20th century also saw the rise of individuals, or small groups of people that plot and carry out terrorist attacks independent of larger organizations, known as “Lone Wolf” actors. Fueled by prejudice and radical beliefs, lone wolf



actors pose a significant threat to the thwarting of terrorist attacks as they are difficult to identify prior to their actions. Between 1978 and 1995, Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, carried out a mail bombing campaign in support of his radical anti-industrial beliefs. Between 1996 and 1998, Eric Robert Rudolph bombed a series of abortion clinics, gay nightclubs, and even the 1996 Atlanta Olympics in furtherance of his radical religious beliefs. The most visible of all lone wolf actors in the 20th century was Timothy McVeigh, discussed above, who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in response to the federal government’s actions in Waco, as well as their handling of the Branch Davidian siege. Though eclipsed in more recent memory by the events of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombings are regarded as one of the most significant terrorist events occurring in the 20th century.

Homegrown Terrorism

It is important, when considering the topic of domestic terrorism to understand the nature of homegrown terrorism, and how it differs from domestic terrorism. The difference between homegrown and domestic terrorism is not clearly defined, and thus part of the role of this committee might be to establish more specific definitions or procedures for distinguishing between the two.

In general, domestic terrorist acts are those committed by American citizens on American soil to protest specific actions of the US government. The reasons or motivations for domestic terrorism are varied, as mentioned above, and the actors carrying out the attacks are not limited to a certain demographic, and range in age, race, socioeconomic class, national origin, gender, etc. Alternatively, homegrown terrorists is not constrained to American soil unlike domestic terrorists, who operate either as lone wolves in furtherance of their own agenda, or as members of a larger domestic terrorist organization, such as the Weather Underground. Homegrown terrorists typically work in collusion with external terrorist organizations operating overseas. These types of organizations have ranged from al Qaeda to the Irish Republican Army. Typically, homegrown terrorists spend considerable time in the US, many their entire lives, and operate as domestic cells of these external organizations. These individuals may be US citizens, or may have immigrated from overseas.

In more recent years, classifying these homegrown terrorists usually falls along religious lines, and has more specifically pertained to the operations of radical Islamic extremists. This classification scheme is highly controversial, as is the unclear divide between the two types of terrorism. Organizations such as the FBI, the CIA, and local antiterrorism authorities, use varying definitions of the separation between these two branches of terrorism, and thus their operations often overlap, creating inefficiencies and sometimes criminal breaches of justice. The most important and relevant reason for establishing a distinction is in terms of law enforcement



procedures following apprehension of citizens. As it stands, domestic terrorists are US citizens, and therefore entitled to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution and the US legal code, including the right to counsel and due process by law. The right to counsel (a lawyer) is guaranteed to all American citizens, even if they cannot afford one, by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, while due process refers to the idea that all Americans, regardless of the crime for which they are charged, have the right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and that all involved with the proceedings have followed the law. This relates, especially to police processes in gathering evidence, the attainment of proper warrants, and other protected rights.

Homegrown terrorists, on the other hand, while sometimes US citizens, are usually acting as proxy operators of larger, international organizations, and thus their status is sometimes blurred in the eyes of the law. If they are not US citizens, or sometimes even if they are, the American public and political leaders are more likely to forgive violations of due process, suspension of habeas corpus rights, and other extra-legal actions when dealing with the aftermath of homegrown terrorism. The writ of habeas corpus refers to the rights individuals have in the judicial system to hear the reasons for why they are being charged.

While this distinction might seem arbitrary in the larger context of terrorism, the separation between the two is necessary for US law enforcement and the federal government in crafting response practices and strategies. Additionally, the distinction is helpful for the American public, and the media, to differentiate between the more recent “War on Terror,” and the longer-term threats posed by domestic terrorism, which has had presence in American history since the birth of the nation. As it stands, there is one section of the United States legal code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, ß 2331, which provides a definition of the term “domestic terrorism” as referring to activities that:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal

laws of the US or of any State; • Appear to be intended—to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; • To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

appear to be intended—to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; • To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,

or kidnapping; and • Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the US. However with the changing threat landscape of the 21st century, it is highly likely that these definitions are in need of updating to remain relevant and useful.



Radicalization

While differences emerge between domestic terrorists and homegrown terrorists, the common theme amongst all cases is their radical beliefs surrounding certain issues. Often, in the hunt to identify domestic and homegrown terrorists, law enforcement officers start their investigations with radical groups across the United States. Often these groups, such as Greenpeace, the Students for a Democratic Society, or the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang, have legitimate, nonviolent functions that comprise the majority of their operations. However, many are closely monitored by law enforcement, such as the FBI, as they might represent possible incubators for more violent actors. While there are no hard and fast rules for determining the reasons an individual might become radicalized, law enforcement uses a system of profiling based on certain general characteristics including: gender, ethnicity, age, level of Education, socioeconomic status, and political beliefs.

However, as demonstrated by terrorist attacks in the recent decades, this system is extremely imprecise, and impractical in its usage for identifying potential terrorists. As well, action undertaken by law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies employing this method of profiling often impinges on the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. As the US moves further into the post-9/11 era, it will be increasingly important to develop a new set of standards and best practices for addressing domestic terrorism that are independent of those formulated for addressing radical extremism from overseas.

Notable Individuals and Organizations Anwar Al-Awlaki

Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who became a major leader in al-Qaeda. He was involved in the planning of terrorist attacks against the United States. His official position was that of a talent recruiter for al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki moved to Yemen, and in 2010, President Obama put Al-Awlaki on the permission-to-kill list of enemies of the United States. Al-Awlaki was killed in 2010. His death was undoubtedly a blow to al-Qaeda, but still prompted important questions for American citizens to answer because al-Awlaki was an American citizen. One issue that the CIA will have to confront is deciding what the appropriate guidelines are to kill an American citizen without a trial, as in the case of al-Awlaki.

Animal Rights Groups

Animal Liberation Front



The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is a domestic, underground, leaderless resistance group that engages in illegal direct action in pursuit of animal liberation. Activists see themselves as part of a modern-day Underground Railroad, removing animals from laboratories and farms, destroying facilities, and arranging safe houses and veterinary care. Many critics have labeled them terrorists, though the organization has vehemently denied such a characterization. Active in over 40 states, ALF cells operate via small groups of friends, and sometimes just one person, which makes the movement difficult for authorities to monitor. Activists affirm that the ALF is non-violent. According to its code, any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions are taken not to harm human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action. There has been dissent within the animal rights movement itself about the ALF’s use of violence and increasing attention from the police and intelligence communities. In 2002, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors extremism in the US, noted that ALF’s involvement in the Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty campaign has caused property damage. On their official website, the North American wing of the ALF has publicized actions carried out by its affiliates ranging from the sabotage of mobile cattle slaughter units (which aid in the butchering of cattle for meat), to the creation of multiple “How To” guides instructing individuals wishing to raid fur farms. Their rhetoric is military in nature, advocating actions such as arson in furtherance of their agenda. The Stop Hunting and Cruelty Campaign is an ongoing, coordinated international effort to prevent animal abuse and promote animal rights and welfare in the western world. In 2005, the ALF was included in a US Department of Homeland Security planning document listing a number of domestic terrorist threats on which the US government expected to focus resources.

Relig ious Groups

Army of God/Anti-abortion Violence

Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortions. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings. Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the US, where violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort in the last ten years. According to statistics since 1977, in the US and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. One of the leading groups in anti-abortion violence is



Army of God, a Christian terrorist anti-abortion organization that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion.

Racial Groups

Aryan Nations

Aryan Nations is a white supremacist religious organization originally based in Hayden Lake, Idaho. Richard Girt Butler founded the group in the 1970s as an arm of the Christian identity organization called the Church of Jesus Christ. The origin of Aryan Nations is in the teachings of Wesley Swift, a significant figure in the early Christian Identity movement. The Christian identity movement was a sub-group of churches in the American Christian community that espoused a white supremacist ideological theology. Most mainstream Christian groups thought the religious merits of this program highly suspect. Swift combined extreme anti-Semitism and political militancy in his ideology.

He founded his own church in California in the mid-1940s, and he had a daily radio broadcast in California during the 1950s and 1960s. In 1957, the name of his church was changed to the Church of Jesus Christ, which is used today by Aryan Nations churches. The group became notorious in September of 2000, when the Southern Poverty Law Center won a $6.3 million judgment against Aryan Nations. The courts awarded punitive and compensatory damages to a woman and her son who were beaten with rifles by drunken Aryan Nations security guards in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho in July 1998. The woman and her son were driving near the Aryan Nations compound when their car backfired, which the guards claimed to misinterpret as gunfire. The guards fired at the car, striking it several times, leading the car to crash, after which one of the Aryan Nations guards held the family at gunpoint. In the summer of 2004 the Aryan Nations moved to Sebring, Florida.

Ku Klux Klan

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of three distinct past and present

far right organizations in the US that have advocated extremist reactionary ideologies such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti immigration, historically expressed through terrorism. The KKK is and has been arguably the most active domestic terrorist organization in US history. Since the mid-20th century, the KKK has also been anti-Communist. It is classified as a hate group and is estimated to have between 3,000 and 5,000 members as of 2012. A hate group is differentiated from a terrorist group is that while a hate group may espouse hateful words or ideologies, they do not have a history of engaging in violent, anti-government actions. Some groups, like the Westboro Baptist Church, an extremely right-wing Christian sect, is considered a terrorist group by some and a hate group by others, evidence that the lines



between these two terms is often unclear. The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small, independent chapters across the US. The formation of independent chapters has made KKK groups more difficult to infiltrate, and researchers find it difficult to gauge their numbers. Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the Southern US, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest. Klan splinter divisions grew substantially after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. The Klan has expanded its recruitment effort to white supremacists at the international level. However, overall, the Klan's numbers are steadily dropping. This decline has been attributed to the Klan's lack of competence in the use of the Internet, their history of violence, a proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of young, racist activists who are willing to join groups at all. Recent membership campaigns have been based on issues such as people’s anxieties about illegal immigration, urban crime and same-sex marriage. Many KKK groups have formed strong alliances with other white supremacist groups, such as neo-Nazis. Some KKK groups have become increasingly “Nazified,” adopting the look and emblems of white power skinheads.

Black Liberation Army

The Black Liberation Army (BLA) is an underground, black nationalist-

Marxist militant organization that operated from 1970 to1981 and gained strength from its members largely made up of former Black Panthers. This organization followed the Black Power movement whose mission was for “liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States” (MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base). Their goals stemmed from Marx’s theory that people are economically and socially tied to the hierarchical class system to which they are born and the BLA sought to abolish this system and seek freedom for workers, minorities, women, and therefore all people. The Black Liberation Army fought for freedom through both violent and nonviolent means; however they are most known for their militant actions and performed over 60 violent acts from 1970 to 1976. These acts ranged from bombings to shootings and even plane hijackings.

Environmental Organizat ions

Earth Liberation Front

Also known as “the Elves,” the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) engages in both individual and small covert cell operations. Their mission, according to the ELF Press Office, is to use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.” ELF achieves these goals through destroying the property of companies involved in polluting or destroying of the earth. Sympathizers would suggest that the aim of these destructive acts is to economically disencourage the corporate disrespect of the



earth by damaging corporation property. The Earth Liberation Front is believed to have started in the United Kingdom in 1992, and in 2001 it was designated one of the top domestic terrorism threats in the US by the FBI. However, the group consists of a decentralized terrorist organization that has self- funded supporters and cells spreading through at least 17 countries.

Recent Developments Looking at the future security landscape of the United States in the

coming decades, the threat of domestic terrorist attacks within the United States is real and urgent. Events such as the Boston Marathon bombings, the mass shootings in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and Tucson, and the continued uncovering of international plots employing US nationals as actors remind us that more action must be done to prevent not only another incident such as 9/11, but to address the hole in our strategy to prevent further domestic terrorist attacks. While much action has been made since the events of 9/11, it has been aimed at addressing a specific type of terrorist threat posed by Islamic jihad movements overseas, and, as has been shown above, has proven to be ineffective, imprecise, and sometimes even criminal when applied to broader strategies of fighting terrorism.

Congressional Action The revelations prompted by Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified

intelligence related to our counterterrorism and espionage efforts around the globe has prompted heavy debate in Congress about the further nature of our strategy of combatting terrorism whilst at the same time upholding the values and rights laid forth in the Constitution. Perhaps the most notable anti-terror act in the 21st century, the Uniting and Strengthening Americay Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, or USA PATRIOT Act, has dramatically changed the nature of domestic intelligence gathering within the United States, and has proved to be highly controversial in the debate surrounding terrorism.

Additionally, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies, or SAFETY, Act of 2002, and the REAL ID Act of 2005 have all been passed into law and seek to impose stricter penalties on perpetrators of terrorism, in addition to authorizing better resources for its prevention.



FOCUS OF THE DEBATE

Conservative View While the homegrown terrorism issue doesn’t immediately signal

ideological partisanship, the conservatives and Republican Party tend to be more “hawkish,” or pro-war, pro-military/police than the liberals. Conservatives are more likely to use whatever means necessary to apprehend those suspected of crimes, as well as to engage in extra-legal (torture, enhanced interrogation) mechanisms. They are less willing to cut plea deals with criminals and are more likely to push for longer, more punitive punishments. The conservatives are more likely to be sympathetic with religious organizations and pro-life organizations than with progressive ones; however, by no means do conservatives advocate terrorism in the name of political views.

Liberal View While neither side in the policy debate around terrorism advocates for

no action, in the United States, the Democratic Party is often perceived as being “softer on terror.” While this may not be true, the accusations stem from their historic wariness around engaging in pre-emptive military strikes and their advocacy for military budget cuts. President Obama has faced criticisms of this nature throughout his tenure as President, given his decision to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and budget proposal calling for reduced military spending. However, he has also adopted a “kill-list” approach to counter-terrorism, attempting to isolate individual terrorists to target with the hope of minimizing civilian casualties, something he has received criticism from the left for.

In the case of homegrown terrorism, liberals are more likely to be cautious in pursuing suspected criminals and are historically more inclined to protected defendants’ rights than the conservatives. That said, in many of these cases, local law enforcement and the FBI take jurisdiction, making the issues relatively non-partisan. The liberal perspective also depends on which group is engaging in the terrorist acts. While liberals may be more inclined to be sympathetic with environmental and animal rights groups, they will likely be more aggressive with nativist or homophobic organizations.

Interest Group Perspectives The American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union is an advocacy organization that operates with the mission to “preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” As such, they have been greatly concerned by the increased

75%of Americans said in the wake of the Boston bombings that occasional acts of terrorism will be part of US life in the future. - www.pewresearch.org



amount of domestic surveillance taking place in the United States, authorized by Executive Orders, and legislation such as the PATRIOT Act.

They advocate for reigning in the current domestic intelligence-gathering apparatus for one, which is more respectful of the privacy and rights of American citizens. They worry that the powerful, secret surveillance tools possessed by intelligence officials will almost certainly be abused for political ends.

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is a think tank that advocates, “Conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” They believe that more action must be taken to support intelligence and law enforcement officials, and that Congress and the Administration must increase information sharing and collective security efforts with the goal of identifying and preventing future terrorist attacks. They argue that the security provided by American legislation helps to safeguard American liberty against foes abroad.

The RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that “helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.” Their research with regards to domestic terrorism and surveillance has concluded that there is a definite need for more action to be taken by the government to develop new and better technology for intelligence gathering, whilst at the same time ensuring that there are proper oversight and accountability systems put into place in order to make sure they operate effectively.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

When is it Appropriate to Kill an American

Without a Trial? Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American citizen when he was killed by the

American government. President Obama authorized the killing without giving Al-Awlaki a proper trial. Whether or not the American government has the authority to kill citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial is an important issue that must be resolved.

One thing that the CIA might do is set up a rubric to evaluate situation. The rubric might address the following: Whether the suspect is confirmed to be collaborating with a known, violent terrorist organization; whether the suspect is of a certain age; whether the suspect’s actions are sufficiently worrying to merit the killing of the suspect instead of the issuance of an

Anwar Al-Awlaki

nnbd.com



arrest warrant or some other course of action. This is a particularly sensitive topic given the recent rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has drawn several American citizens and British citizens. It is very possible that America will face a similar situation to Anwar Al-Awlaki in the near future.

Classifying Terrorist Organizations to Determine Actions Just as the US has a hit list of worrisome terrorist individuals, the US

might also consider developing an official, congressional-approved list of organizations that it considers worth policing more intensely. Things that might go into this are the track record of the different organizations, the location, the number of members and the mission of the organization.

Developing More Intense Tracking Methods of Individuals Some of the most recent and heinous acts of terrorism have been

conducted by individuals who have psychiatric conditions, and who have gotten their hands on large assault rifles. Adam Lanza, for instance, killed over 15 school children in Newtown, Connecticut with a large assault rifle. The CIA could develop procedures to monitor individuals more intensely. It could do so by tagging suspected individuals and requesting congressional approval to track arms by geotagging the weapons. This would give the CIA a more complete sense of where weapons are located.

QUESTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS 1. What intelligence confirms the need to kill a terrorist? What if

that terrorist is an American citizen? How do issues of country sovereignty come into play if the citizen is in a different country?

2. What defines a terrorist organization? Are there different levels of terrorist organization, and how should the CIA recommend dealing with these different echelons of terrorist organization? Does the mission of the organization matter?

3. How can the CIA best utilize technological and legal actions in the 21st century to best track suspected terrorists?

CONCLUSION Issues of domestic terrorism will remain of tantamount importance to

American security. Remembering the long history of domestic terrorism should serve to remind Americans that anyone, if radicalized sufficiently, has the potential to engage in terrorist behaviors. As the House, you must pursue policies that will prevent terrorist activities from occurring in the future. However you must also recognize the unique circumstances in which



you must work during a domestic terror crisis. The participants will be American citizens, entitled to all rights guaranteed by the Constitution; intelligence may be less credible or more localized; the media will be willing and able to intensely scrutinize every decision made and every decision’s ramification - the groups in question may even encourage it. Political considerations must always be taken into account too - the terrorists are often women, minorities, and other vulnerable populations. Making sure this is taken into account in any policy pursued is essential to a successful operation. Having a thorough grasp of the different categories of historic domestic terrorist activity as well as the most marked domestic terror events in American history, including the OK City Bombing and the Holocaust Memorial Museum Shooting, should inform all decisions you make and will hopefully lead to a more comprehensive decision-making process. Recognizing the fine lines that exist in this discussion - the line between terrorist and radical, the line between homegrown terror and domestic terror (as is the case with the Fort Hood shooting) - remains essential. The CIA must be prepared to deal with a wide range of domestic terror crises; one occurring during your tenure is a likely possibility.

GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH In conducting further research, it is best to look at the rise of political

radicalization in the wake of recent congressional gridlock. Radical liberal and conservative rhetoric could be signaling the imminence of another domestic terrorist attack akin to the Oklahoma City Bombings, perpetrated by a member from either side of the aisle.

Important sources include mainstream media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, think tanks such as RAND or the Brookings Institution, and foreign media such as the Guardian, or al Jazeera, which provide an interesting perspective with regards to homegrown terrorism within the United States.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella. Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, 2006. Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella, (eds), Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?, Lantern Books: 2004, p. 8. Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party, 2001.

An ISIS entourage.

The Guardian



Brenner, Marie. "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell". Vanity Fair. (1997- 02). Retrieved 2012-07-10. Chase, Alston. "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic. (June 2000). <http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/c hase.htm.> Claiborne, William "FBI Gives Reward to Unabomber's Brother". The Washington Post. (August 21, 1998). <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/longterm/unabomber/trialstory.ht m.> Retrieved 2012-07-10. Cole, Leonard A. The Anthrax Letters: A Bioterrorism Expert Investigates the Attacks That Shocked America--Case Closed?. SkyhorsePublishing, 2009. Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. "Rebels with a Cause". Sdsrebels.com. 1965- 11-27. Retrieved 2012-07-10. Moore, John. "Beyond the Fragments - A reaction to Industrial Society and Its Future". Green Anarchist #51 (Spring 1998). <http://lemming.mahost.org/johnmoore/fragm ents.htm.> Peck, Abe, Uncovering the Sixties: The Life and Times of the Underground Press, Pantheon Books, 1985; p. 58. Rosebraugh, Craig (2004). Burning Rage of a Dying Planet: Speaking for the Earth Liberation Front. Lantern Books.

Documents

CIA-Domestic Terrorism-Nick Mendez-Fourth Round …harvardmodelcongress.org/.../10/CIA-Domestic-Terrorism-Nick-Mende… · groups with origins in the Civil War to radical eco-terrorist