FBI Changes Mission Statement to Remove “Law Enforcement”

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)’s support for universal human rights, includes our support for Equality Under the Law, as a key part of meeting human equality.  Without equality under the law, we cannot defend any equality.

(Adobe Acrobat PDF format version of this article)

Introduction

Respect and equality under the law is not a modern concept for shared human rights and dignity. The wisdom of respecting shared rights and dignity through a common law has been respected through the centuries. From the earliest laws such as the Code of Hammurabi through the Magna Carta, humanity has seen repeatedly that respect and enforcement for a shared law is essential for a coherent society. “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”  Our shared commitment to equality and liberty for humanity cannot be based only in the “ends justify the means” for intelligence operations, but must be defended on a foundation of equality under the law for all people.  The nations of the world codified this international commitment in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 10, 1948, nearly 70 years ago.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 7 calls for such equality under the law, and UDHR Article 11 also calls for such equality in legal proceedings involving human beings everywhere in the world.

Signed by the United States of America and the nations of the world, UDHR Article 7 states: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7

Such Equality is a core human rights concept accepted by the United States of America and nations of the world in the UDHR. Equality is also a fundamental part of the defined values of the American people, as stated by U.S. founders since July 4, 1776, that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” In the United States of America, commitment to Justice is not merely a desirable goal; the priority of the U.S. government to “establish Justice” is one of foundational reasons for the establishment of its form of government, as stated in the introduction to the U.S. Constitution.

Constitution of the United States of America has a focus to “Establish Justice”

While the concept of “justice” may be subjective, the American and universal human rights commitment to “equality under the law” must be unchangeable and unwavering. Equality under the law is fundamental to universal human rights, and is essential to effective “law enforcement.” The concept of “enforcement” of “equality under the law” is a distinct and essential feature of democratic nations for all people.

So a commitment to “law enforcement” is very different than a commitment to “security” or a commitment to “combating crime.” The world has seen how totalitarian nations and those with contempt for equality under the law can offer abusive forms of “security” and rationalize unjust and unequal forms of persecution to rationalize “combating crime.” There is an essential need for equality in “law enforcement” as a priority for any nation with a commitment to equality, and with a goal to “establish Justice.” At the United States Supreme Court, the highest legal court body in the nation, the words chiseled into the marble above the entryway are: “Equal Justice Under Law.”  With every law enforcement organization, its most essential and powerful tool is the TRUST of the people that it represents, based on clearly documented and agreed upon law developed with the understanding and knowledge of the PEOPLE.

To those committed to equality under the law, trusted law enforcement must be equally addressed for all, with equal standards and processes of law for all. A commitment to equality under the law and law enforcement must also be free from political influence and bias. Equality means equality.  For a democracy to work, the people must trust that such equality under law and respect for the people’s voice is the priority for OUR law enforcement.

We commit to equality under the law – not just for those we like or those like us – but equality under the law for ALL.  This includes the unpopular, the minorities, the vulnerable, and those considered outcasts from powerful elements in society.

Unlike those who might rationalize their acts as merely “combating crime” or “security,” those who wear the badge of law enforcement, representing a democratic society and equal laws for all, must be TRUSTED to represent a standard of integrity in equally enforcing OUR law – not just their individual will and bias. Our law enforcement agencies and personnel must be trusted to represent ALL of us in a democracy, which is why we hold their actions to the highest standards of truth, honesty, and equality.

Therefore, it comes as a grave concern to see any United States justice organization distancing itself from an unequivocal commitment to “law enforcement” as the priority in their mission.  The American public must trust its representative justice organizations to be committed to law enforcement.

The mission of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) remains to “enforce the law,” as its first priority.

U.S. Department of Justice Mission Statement

However, the DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) continues to move away from that law enforcement priority.  The American people need to trust the FBI as a law enforcement organization; the FBI can never be successful without such trust and confidence. But as will be detailed and documented below, the FBI has removed the term “law enforcement” from its public mission statement as defining its organization.  This remains the case at the time of this article’s publication.  While it may appear “naive,” Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) literally stumbled upon this change in the FBI public mission statement.  R.E.A.L. checked and double-checked as it was assumed this discovery was an error of some sort.  Clearly, R.E.A.L. is still astounded by this change by the FBI with no reporting, no mention, and no discussion.   This decision is more than changing of words by the FBI on a mission statement; it is an attack on the public trust of the FBI’s law enforcement mission and credibility.

The goal here is not only to report on this fact, but also to provide context as to how this happened, and why this decision is so important to the American people and equality under the law.  This article will address:

It will provide representative, detailed examples of the impact on society of changing commitment to law enforcement, as an ever-increasing “intelligence driven” culture is changing the character and values of the FBI as a trusted law enforcement institution.  This article will address not only why this is important, but also why this FBI decision is a serious challenge to the foundation of democratic freedoms and human rights, and why this must change – both for the FBI and the American people.  The blunt and candid assessments in this article are not R.E.A.L.’s preference.  Softer, gentler language is preferred. But there is a time to speak frankly on matters of grave importance.  This is such a time.  R.E.A.L. apologizes in advance for any who are offended, but equality under the law, and consistent commitment to law enforcement is this important to America.

The FBI must prioritize trusting the American people; the American people need to have the confidence to trust the FBI.  For the FBI, such priority of public trust is not a choice. There are 328,000,000 Americans to 35,000 total FBI employees.  Despite the FBI’s perceived power and authority, the entire FBI is 0.0106 percent of America; it is dependent on the public trust of the American people. It cannot recklessly undermine such public trust by rash acts as removing “law enforcement” from its public mission.  But this is merely a symptom of institutional problems that require attention to clearly defining the powers of the FBI in written public law, as well as a renewed commitment in statement, values, and actions by the FBI in making law enforcement its top priority.

This will not be a “brief” summary of the issues, but will link multiple issues together to provide a broad understanding on associated issues challenging the commitment to equality under the law, and the consequences of making “law enforcement” a non-priority in a democratic republic, particularly for the FBI.  There are readers with different levels of knowledge on law, history, and human rights; the goal here is to enhance the general understanding of such interrelated topics to understand the imperative for a law enforcement defense of equality under the law.

A petition has also been created to urge friends of law enforcement to call upon the FBI to restore “law enforcement” to its mission statement.  You are urged to please sign this petition and take a stand on law enforcement as a priority in the FBI.

Contextual Notes on R.E.A.L.’s Position
(See also Note 1 and  Note 2 at conclusion of this article.)  

A. Path to FBI Decision to Remove Law Enforcement from Mission Statement

The mission orientation of the FBI has been a matter of debate for too many years, including terrible abuses that we have seen, and heroic 20th century efforts to reform FBI activities involved in intelligence,  But despite the reform efforts, the struggle over a law enforcement agency with a “dual mission” in intelligence has seen growing conflict in its mission and ethos in the 21st century.  After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a growing emphasis and body of resources on intelligence functions have gained priority and emphasis in the FBI.

This changing emphasis towards intelligence activities was initially notable during FBI Director Robert Mueller’s term.  The term that became popular was that FBI was now becoming an “intelligence-driven” organization, and Director Mueller was viewed as one who had reorganized the FBI from a “law enforcement institution to an intelligence-driven agency.  While these changes were prominent in resources and expanded focus during FBI Director Mueller’s term, they became even more so during FBI Director Comey’s term, which began in 2013.

As FBI Director James Comey stated to Congress in 2014: “Today’s FBI is a threat-based, intelligence-driven organization.”  In discussions with the media at intelligence forums, FBI Director sought to re-imagine FBI from a law enforcement agency role to a “leadership factory,” stating “I believe the FBI should be the leadership factory of the United States government and it’s not there yet.”  Media figures reported on how Director Comey sought to “recalibrate the FBI from a pure crime-fighting organization to an intelligence-driven national security enterprise.”

The first public reports of FBI intentions to remove “law enforcement” from its mission were in January 2014, as reported by national security lawyer Kel McClanahan, during a review of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) report, when he came upon an FBI fact sheet in a FOIA document review where the mission statement had been changed from “The primary function of the FBI is law enforcement” to “The primary function of the FBI is national security.”

FOIA on FBI Fact Sheet: Change from FBI Law Enforcement to FBI National Security Mission

Foreign Policy media reported an interview with FBI spokesman Paul Bresson who reportedly stated: “When our mission changed after 9/11, our fact sheet changed to reflect that.”  In April 2010, a public and redacted version of DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report 10-24 indicated that the FBI had doubled the amount of FBI agents on counterterrorism, while reducing resources on law enforcement.

But while this re-orientation of the FBI from “law enforcement” to “national security” mission was ongoing, where was the public discussion on this?  Where were Congressional Representatives in explaining to their constituents on the changes being made, and who was getting the public acceptance on this migration from “law enforcement” roles?  The public discussions on having the FBI perform counterterrorism investigations were NOT a discussion to have the FBI abandon law enforcement as a priority, and certainly not to literally remove the term “law enforcement” from its publicly-stated mission.  An FBI that depends on the TRUST of the American people cannot choose such a path of unilateral change in its mission, without the consensus, understanding, and agreement of the American people.  Let us never forget – it is OUR FBI organization – representing the American public.

Among other intelligence-centered efforts, FBI Director Comey went on to public “security” conferences to remind the American public that they should have no expectation of “absolute privacy” in America, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment, and the UDHR Article 12 on human rights of “privacy.”  On March 8, 2017, FBI Director James Comey stated: “There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach” – “Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America.” Former FBI Director Comey’s love for the powers of the FBI lost sight that the FBI’s powers were derived from, with the consent of, and on the authority of the American people, the written U.S. Constitution, and written law.  Power without accountability to the people and the law is not law enforcement.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 12 – on Privacy Rights

Two months later, “intelligence-driven” FBI Director James Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe took over as Acting Director.  Acting Director McCabe also had had a key role in intelligence within the FBI. (Director Comey is only the second FBI Director fired in its history.)

Some of the rest of the world was no longer even viewing the FBI as a “law enforcement” organization at all, as seen in a 2017 Australia article titled: “FBI Special Agent George Bokelberg reveals what it’s like working for America’s top domestic intelligence service.

But a few months before that article was printed, the FBI’s public mission statement was changed, with no announcements and no discussion by the media, despite rigorous coverage of news stories concerning the FBI.  While FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe was leading the FBI, the FBI’s public mission statement on its FBI.gov website was CHANGED on June 21, 2017 to remove the reference to the term “law enforcement.”

On June 18, 2017, the public FBI mission statement still referenced “the Bureau has dual responsibilities as a law enforcement and intelligence agency.”  On June 21, 2017,  the public FBI mission statement removed references to such “dual responsibilities” and to “law enforcement.”

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has seen NO REPORTS noting this dramatic public change in the FBI mission in the media or elsewhere.  For over a year, this public FBI mission statement has been changed with no notice, and no interest by the media, law enforcement professionals, and human rights activists.

In the FBI’s public mission statement, the references to the FBI as a “law enforcement” agency were removed between June 18 and June 21, 2017, while the FBI was being led by Acting Director Andrew McCabe.  By June 21, 2017, the FBI’s public mission statement deleted the reference that “the Bureau has dual responsibilities as a law enforcement and intelligence agency.”

The FBI mission statement left the focus of the remaining mission statement only to state: “To protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” with priorities to “Protect the United States from terrorist attack, Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage, Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes, Combat public corruption at all levels, Protect civil rights, Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises, Combat major white-collar crime, Combat significant violent crime.”

No statement was left in the FBI’s mission statement on “law enforcement,”  consistent with previous FBI mission statements and the mission statement of its parent organization, the DOJ.  As previously stated, there is a significant different in public commitment to equality under the law in law enforcement between those who work for “security” or for “intelligence” goals, or those who seek to merely “combat crime,” and  those in law enforcement responsible for Equality under the Law.

The DOJ commitment to “enforcing the law” is more than only “combating crime” or “security,” as described in the revised FBI public mission statement, which removed the reference to the FBI as a “law enforcement” agency.   Totalitarian nations around the world, vigilantes, and other abusers of the law, democracy, equality, and justice can claim to “combat crime” or have a “security” interest, but they are not representatives of a democratic nation’s public with federal law enforcement authority on behalf of its people.

A commitment to equality under the law is not merely a commitment to vague “security” or “intelligence” ethos, but to a law enforcement ethos that understands the law applies equally to everyone.  Our justice community must be trusted to adhere to written law and represent the American people.

The American people must not allow those who hold the law in contempt, such as terrorists and hackers, to drive our nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency to abandon a priority of law enforcement for “intelligence” or “national security.” We must not give such enemies of equality under the law such a victory over a democracy.

It is no small irony that this FBI mission statement abandoning law enforcement was changed while under Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe (FBI Deputy Director acting as director during May 9, 2017 – August 2, 2017) , with a focus on intelligence activities, who was charged with “lack of candor” by the DOJ OIG and who was subsequently fired on March 16, 1018.

It is even more remarkable that, since then, there have been no further changes to restore “law enforcement” (deleted on June 21, 2017) to the FBI public mission statement, under the administration by the new FBI Director Christopher Wray (August 2, 2017 to present).   This is despite another DOJ OIG report issued on June 14, 2018, regarding investigation into bias and “improper” behavior by the FBI personnel.  This June 14, 2018 DOJ OIG report was concerned about “accountability principles that guide law enforcement decisions in the United States.” Yet even as the DOJ OIG wrote these words, it failed to notice that such guidance was for an FBI organization that a year earlier had deliberately removed “law enforcement” from its public mission, and has continued to leave “law enforcement” out of its public mission statement.

The American people are smarter and better than this.  They need to have the public discussion and decisions on how their federal resources should be used, and if the U.S. can really afford to have the FBI abandon “law enforcement” from its public mission.

In respecting law enforcement, we must be committed to Equality under the Law – not just for those we like or those like us – but equality under the law for ALL… including the unpopular, minorities, vulnerable, and those considered outcasts from powerful elements in society.  This commitment goes with the law enforcement badge and the law enforcement authority in a democratic and free society.

To be perfectly clear, R.E.A.L. has zero interest in being critical of the FBI, and as noted elsewhere, R.E.A.L. is a longtime friend and supporter of law enforcement and the FBI, with R.E.A.L.’s founder having years of experience directly working for the FBI. More than most in the human rights, R.E.A.L. understands the imperative of public trust in the FBI’s commitment to law enforcement.  The trust of the American people cannot be recklessly disregarded for tactical operations to deal with extremists using terror or other methods. The “ends justify the means” is not the standard of law enforcement of a democracy in the United States of America or any democratic nation.

R.E.A.L. is very well aware of the many accomplishments and achievements of the FBI in the cause of justice, which are rarely acknowledged, and the acts of heroism which are either quickly forgotten or never publicized.  R.E.A.L. has long seen a reformed FBI as a positive force in law enforcement to protect the human rights of the vulnerable, and R.E.A.L.’s founder has had a direct role in this in the FBI.  R.E.A.L. is very much aware of the responsibility and integrity of the many thousands of FBI employees and agents working on behalf of justice.  To those thousands of responsible individuals in the FBI, along with the American people and U.S. Constitution that they represent, please know that R.E.A.L. urges such reform in the FBI on your behalf.  The FBI has a responsibility to “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” in its law enforcement mission, respecting the LAW, and respecting the TRUST to act on behalf of the American people.

The removal of “law enforcement” from FBI mission statement represents a new level of attack on the trust of the American people.  Voices respecting the law and law enforcement cannot remain silent on this dramatic decision.  Too often criticism of the FBI in recent years has been focused on near-term issues of political anger, denial, or personalities, while ignoring serious institutional issues that have developed over time, as a migration from “law enforcement” priorities continues.  R.E.A.L. offers a voice of reason, equality, and respect for the law to call for changes in this misguided path.  R.E.A.L. recognizes that the issues at stake for American democracy with the change in FBI values and mission are much larger than any one debate.

A responsible FBI is one with a core mission that is unequivocal in its commitment to equality under the law enforcement, first and foremost.  The FBI badge, given in TRUST to represent the people, must also be the ethical compass in holding fast to equality under the law — for all – not just those we like or those like us — but for ALL.

America’s FBI can never view such a commitment to “law enforcement” and the commitment to equality under the law which it must represent, as outdated or a lack of a national priority. Such a commitment to law enforcement is not something that can simply be erased by hiring more people in intelligence or a 1984-style removal of “law enforcement” from the FBI public mission statement. Where resource issues and legal direction are a challenge, those issues MUST be publicly discussed and shared solutions found.  But a solution to excise “law enforcement” from the FBI’s publicly stated mission and privately supported values – cannot be acceptable to the American public.

Such a departure from a public commitment to “law enforcement” tracks with a growing departure from a commitment to written LAW itself.  The concept that large segments of the FBI’s operations are based on internal “guidelines,” Executive Orders, and interpretations by friendly courts, are not the hallmark of a law enforcement commitment.  An FBI which must be trusted by the American people, must trust the American people to clearly and unambiguously document its powers and authorities in public written LAW.

A commitment to equality under the law must begin with our FBI itself.  Not the law and powers it wishes it had, not the law and powers that it self-legislates, not the law and powers agreed to in conference rooms and courts far away from the eyes and ears of the American people.  But a commitment to equality under the law must begin with the law and powers granted to the FBI, clearly and unambiguously, by the American people, written into the law of the land.  Sweeping generalities in the U.S. Code, with our law enforcement to decide “all of the details” is the most untrustworthy of laws.  There will only be vague and ambiguous responsibility or accountability to vague and ambiguously written laws.  The American people deserve better than this, especially regarding the FBI, one of the powerful organizations representing the American people.

By its very definition, TRUST must be shared. Along with equality under the law, trust is a foundational element of every functioning democracy.  While the FBI seeks the trust of the American people, it must also trust the American people it represents, and it must trust American to enumerate its powers and authority in more specific and detailed law.  Trust is measured in accountability to specific details, not simply to our general perceptions; in the case of law enforcement with the FBI, trust be measured as to how effectively in conforms to written LAW.  Vague and general laws on the FBI and its powers undermine such trust and accountability.  The decision of the FBI to simply remove “law enforcement” from its mission statement with no discussion and no public accountability is one of the smallest, but most dramatic failures of not having comprehensive laws which govern the FBI’s powers and oversight.  No one even noticed this change.  How can an FBI organization be trusted in law enforcement, when the FBI removes the term “law enforcement” from its public mission statement?

B. Can a Law Enforcement Organization Serve as An Intelligence Organization?

The argument of the FBI for decades, especially by former FBI Director Robert Mueller after the 9/11 attacks, is that the FBI can have a “dual role” as both a law enforcement and as an intelligence agency. This “dual role” perspective was also a previous view in the former FBI public mission statement, before it was changed and was removed along with the reference to “law enforcement” as part of the FBI’s mission, without the public’s knowledge. As this article will point out, there are also tremendous and inherent conflicts in such a “dual role,” which undermines the credibility of the FBI as a law enforcement agency, including a different set of values in law enforcement in “equality under the law” versus intelligence’s “the ends justify the means.”

The concept of a “firewall” between law enforcement and intelligence agencies is an argument, until the operations of “counterterror” within FBI field offices across nation and “joint task forces” suddenly merge and conflate law enforcement and intelligence. In the struggle against extremists using terror tactics, while the goal has been to prevent loss of life and destruction by terrorists, the more long-term damage in American democracy has been the destruction of the divisions between law enforcement and intelligence values, priorities, thinking, and resources.

In this struggle over the soul of the FBI, the loser continues to be “law enforcement” and a consistent commitment to Equality Under the Law. Removing the term “law enforcement” from the FBI mission statement is simply the most concrete example of changes in perception, priorities, values, and resource emphasis in the FBI over decades. If we could go back to September 12, 2001, and show the public what has been happening over the past decades, and show the nation the day when the FBI would remove “law enforcement” itself from its mission statement, would America still have taken the same path to struggle against extremist terror tactics?  Would we have taken the same approach as we have seen FBI informants grow from 1,500 to at least 15,000, with informants having the “right” to commit CRIME, as authorized by the FBI – to further intelligence investigations?

Would America have made the same choices as it saw our FBI law enforcement inciting terrorists to attack Americans, concocting numerous “terror plots” for entrapment, using Taliban terror group proponents as resources, seeking FBI informants who ended up committing mass murder terror attacks against Americans? Would we have felt the same when an FBI agent stood by and did nothing as terrorists he incited shot our police?  When we saw our FBI law enforcement believing that operating child pornography web sites was acceptable, entrapping those with cognitive challenges to the level of mental retardation, pulling knives out to threaten they “know where they live” to suspects and their families, and repeatedly putting public safety at risk to gather more “intelligence” in investigations designed to “keep us safe”?

The TRUTH is we would wonder what country is being discussed, because that couldn’t possibly happen in the United States of America.

But as Americans living in this very reality, we cannot continue to live in denial that we have a problem with individuals or a political problem at the FBI, when we have an institutional problem.

It is not because we didn’t KNOW better.  Despite the calls by former FBI Director Mueller and former FBI Director Comey to re-invent the FBI as an “intelligence-driven” agency, the American people already had the history to know better.  We didn’t need the facts of 21st century abuses, institutional conflict, and contradiction behind him, to remember the 20th century history of COINTELPRO and 20th century abuses, including the obscene FBI attacks and FBI blackmail threats calling for the very DEATH of Martin Luther King, Jr.  But the American people thought we could “reform” our way  out of this problem, with enough “oversight” and controls to prevent future abuses. We didn’t make the tough choices when we needed to.  Now, the FBI has removed “law enforcement” itself from its agency’s missionWill the voices of the American people finally be raised?

At what point would more voices of retired FBI agents, former FBI personnel, and the forces of legitimate law enforcement have no choice but to speak out on this very unpopular and controversial issue?

The FBI slogan of “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity” was created in 1935. It has accompanied over 80 years of accomplishments, but also suffered many years of controversy, especially when coupled with controversial efforts by “intelligence-driven” FBI activities. There is a significant difference in fidelity, bravery, integrity to a democratic nation under the Law, with intelligence during wartime emergencies, and with a standing and expanding domestic intelligence organization whose primary agenda is “the ends justify the means” on behalf of an ambiguous view of “national security.”  In an “intelligence-driven” organization, the priorities are not to equality under the law, or the U.S. Constitution, when “the ends justify the means.”  There is even less “bravery” in refusing to make such difficult choices.  For the FBI to live up to its motto, it must restore law enforcement not only to its mission statement, but also to its priority.  For the American people to TRUST the FBI, the FBI must be consistent to enforce the written law and the trust of the American people.

It is past time for those committed to equality under the law in law enforcement to speak up and take a stand for this nation.

The standard FBI badge symbol of “blind justice” has increasingly been replaced by a growing number of FBI National Security Branch personnel with a logo supporting “intelligence” and never blinking Eagle’s Eye. The “Blind Justice” of the Law and a Never-Ending Surveillance State are incompatible values for a single organization. We have seen this in the basic concepts of “noble cause corruption” among FBI leaders and individuals, whose “intelligence-driven” values of “the ends justify the means” have been a greater priority than the basic concepts of equality under the law. For those in law enforcement, there is no “higher loyalty” than simply “equality under the law” – for everyone… not just for those we like and for those like us – but for all.

C.  FBI and FBI Informants’ “Right” to Commit Crime

A law enforcement agency must be consistent in law enforcement.  As in any democratic republic, the American people must TRUST its law enforcement to hold to such basic standards of shared trust under the LAW.  While this should be an obvious truism, the “intelligence-driven” values of the “ends justify the means” has shouted down such basic and equality-based considerations, and we now see the FBI removing “law enforcement” even from their public mission statement.  The efforts to “keep America safe” after the 9/11 terror attacks led to a dramatic explosion of increased FBI informants in the post 9/11 America, leading to 15,000 FBI informants.  What many do not know is that FBI guidelines give these many thousands of FBI informants the “right” to commit crimes, as authorized by the FBI.

On an annual basis, the FBI has authorized FBI “informants” to perform between 5,000 and 6,000 criminal acts, or as the FBI and DOJ prefer to call them “otherwise illegal acts;” this is an average of “15 crimes a day.” Over a four year period, the FBI authorized informants to break the law 22,800 times, according to statistics collected from FOIA reports. Based on intelligence values in managing a network of “informants,” the FBI has prioritized use of informants to act on its behalf to gather information on criminal and terror threats, and rationalizes such informants committing criminal acts themselves as, “the ends justify the means.” The FBI justifies such “right to crime” for its Confidential Human Sources (CHS) informants (as well as its own Undercover Agents (UC)), as necessary.

After the 1970s COINTELPRO FBI Domestic Intelligence abuses, a series of reforms were put in place to document and control the use of intelligence activities to prevent future abuses. In 1976, this included a series of Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic Operations by then Attorney General Levi, called the “Levi Guidelines (“Domestic Security Investigation Guidelines”).” At the time of the U.S. Senate “Church Committee” research on the FBI’s abuses in domestic surveillance, the goal of these Attorney General Guidelines were to be part of reforms on the domestic political groups that the FBI could properly investigate.  In 1980-1981, an amendment to the guidelines under Attorney General Civeletti began providing guideline on immunity of some criminal behavior by FBI informants. After 9/11, the Attorney General Guidelines would be repeatedly amended to allow for more aggressive FBI domestic operations.

But after 9/11, another dramatic change happened in the use of FBI informants.  The number of FBI informants dramatically increased from the previous numbers documented by the DOJ, as the FBI mission being to migrate to an “intelligence-driven” agency.  As the number of FBI informants dramatically increased, so did the real power of FBI and DOJ authorities to authorize FBI informants to commit criminal acts.

According to DOJ records, in 1975, it was found that the FBI Domestic Intelligence Branch “was using more than 1,500 informants in connection with domestic security investigations.” But by 2011, it was determined the number of FBI informants had expanded from 1,500 to at least 15,000 – at least TEN TIMES the number of informants that were originally anticipated under the Attorney General Guidelines.  This shows the mapping of the FBI’s migrating focus from law enforcement to a new priority of domestic intelligence and “national security.”

For context, the number of 15,000 FBI informants is now larger than the estimated number of FBI agents (14,000 agents) and nearly equivalent to 50% of the total 35,000 workforce of the FBI itself. (This old total number of 15,000 FBI informants from 2011 may also now be significantly out of date by 2018, so the number may be larger.)  It must be clear to the FBI – these 15,000 FBI informants are not their primary guiding influence, rather it is the total 328,000,000 people in America, who the FBI represent.

In the post 9/11 era, with this sizable number of FBI informants to FBI agents, what influence can actual criminals now have in FBI priorities?

Along with this rapidly increasing number of FBI informants, the 1970s Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations, intended to guidance and control FBI Domestic Intelligence operations, were amended repeated, and amended after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2002 and 2006.

The DOJ justifies the current Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Domestic Operations, with the “right” for the FBI to authorize FBI informants’ criminal acts as follows: “These Guidelines are issued under the authority of the Attorney General as provided in sections 509, 510, 533, and 534 of title 28, United States Code, and Executive Order 12333.”   But the American people need to read these for themselves, because the language is very clear.  NONE of these laws or Executive Orders referenced by the DOJ in the Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Domestic Operations gives the FBI the “right” to authorize criminal behavior.  While the FBI, the executive branch, or the courts may choose to interpret such laws to grant such extreme powers to “authorize crime,” the written law of the land is conspicuously and unambiguously SILENT on such “powers.”

There is not a single word in these written public laws and Executive Order, referenced by the DOJ, that gives this right to “authorize” crime to the FBI, DOJ, or to federal prosecutors.  Read them.  The idea that the American people should accept independently developed guidelines for the DOJ, the FBI, or friendly courts, to somehow “give” them powers to “authorize” criminal behavior should be outrageous to every American, and to every American citizen who took a vow to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  If our FBI wants the power to give people the “right” to commit CRIMES, they need to have this discussion with the American public, not in conference rooms or hushed court rooms far from the American public’s eyes and ears.  Those who wear an FBI badge, wear an FBI badge given to them from the American people that they represent. The American public must TRUST the FBI’s badge and authority represents enforcing the written law of the land.

In the current Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Domestic Operations, the FBI is given procedures and authority for the expanded number of  informants to be authorized to perform criminal acts is detailed in Section V “Authorized Methods,” subsection C. “Otherwise Criminal Activity,” (pages 33-34). But one of  the first statements in this section (C.2) refers to another document, “Attorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of FBI Confidential Human Sources,” which describes “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” crimes that can be authorized by an FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) or a Chief Federal Prosecutor (CFP), (pages 5-7). (As of 2015, the GAO was still referencing the 2006 AG Guidelines on CHS.)

With the huge volume of criminal acts by informants “authorized” by the FBI, the question that the guidelines lead us to is: How are these FBI SACs and CFPs approving authorizations for criminal acts by informants with between 5,000 and 6,000 crimes a year, or 15 crimes per day of 15,000 informants across the nation?  The number of FBI-“authorized” crimes is staggering.  (According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) records in 2016, there were a total of 22,559 arrests by the FBI for federal criminal crimes, while the FBI was annually approving an average of 6,000 criminal acts by FBI informants (with FBI “authorized” crimes equivalent to 27% of the number of FBI federal criminal arrests).)

When we look at this number of FBI informant criminal acts and assess the number of FBI Special Agents in Charge (SAC) of FBI Field Offices (FO) (56 field offices) to approve such crimes, the number of criminal acts by FBI informants approved by the FBI is even more troubling. With an estimated 56 SACs in FBI FOs and an average 6,000 FBI informant crime authorizations per year, each FBI SAC would have to approve 107 authorizations by FBI informants to commit crimes.  This would equivalent to an authorization by every FBI SAC for an FBI informant to commit a crime essentially every 2-3 days.  With an ever reducing FBI emphasis on law enforcement, the “intelligence-driven” FBI is developing a emphasis to increasingly approve CRIME!   

But we know for a FACT that such controlled FBI approval of criminal acts by FBI informants is NOT happening by SACs of Field Offices, as testified by the FBI itself.   In February 2017, during a second set of trials of the extremists who took over the U.S. Malheur reservation in Oregon by gunpoint, we learned in court that 15 FBI informants were working with the extremist group.  We also learned that these FBI informants were authorized to carry weapons and commit criminal acts; one FBI informant provided weapons training to the extremists who had taken over the facility.  But in court, when “former FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Greg Bretzing, who oversaw the FBI’s response to the occupation” was asked about such FBI informants authorization to commit crimes, FBI SAC Bretzing stated “It would not have come to me.”  No one thought to ask the obvious question: “Why not? Aren’t those the FBI rules?” As reported by the Oregon Public Broadcasting, the FBI SAC “wasn’t clear about whether agents had directed informants, or given them authority, to break laws. He said those decisions would’ve been delegated to people in his chain of command.”

So WHO really is authorizing FBI informants to commit criminal acts?  And if we don’t know, how do we really know this is the only number of criminal acts being approved by the FBI?  An FBI dependent on public trust cannot be dependent on authorizing crime.

A law enforcement agency cannot be in the business of approving mass numbers of criminal acts.  Those committed to equality under the law and law enforcement need to speak out on this, and need to demand that the FBI restore “law enforcement” in its mission statement, as well as its priorities. Trust in the FBI must begin with the FBI trusting the American people that it represents to clearly and unambiguous define the FBI’s powers in written law.

D. History of FBI Authority, Practices, and Law Enforcement Values – Demonstrating Impact of Leaving Law Enforcement Out of FBI Mission Statement

Such a discussion requires notice to a number of key legal and historical facts, which are often ignored in the drama of intelligence and terrorist reporting. This discussion focuses on 14 topics providing different aspects and issues for the basis and the imperative need to restore “law enforcement” to the FBI’s public mission and priorities, both in word and in operational deed.

The 14 topics addressed are:
1. Legal Authority for FBI is Focused on Priority to Assist in Detecting and Prosecuting Crime in Support of Enforcing the Law
2. “Pursuit of Truth” versus “Seeking an Outcome”
3. “Just the Facts” versus “Need to Know Secrets”
4. FBI Was Not Created as a “Domestic Intelligence” Organization
5. FBI’s Domestic Intelligence History and Intended Focus for War-Time Threats
6. FBI’s Continued Domestic Intelligence During the Cold War under Hoover Led to Serious Abuses, inconsistent with Law Enforcement
7. FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Abuses Against Pastor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Led to Criminal Behavior, in Contempt of Equality Under the Law
8. U.S. Senate “Church Committee” and Attempt at Reforms within the FBI and FBI Domestic Intelligence Activities to Obtain Control Under Law
9. Change to Reforms and Resources on FBI Domestic Intelligence and the 9/11/2001 Terrorist Attack Impacting Priority of FBI on Law Enforcement
10. Difference in Law Enforcement and Intelligence Values Create Fundamental Ethical Conflict at FBI
11. The “James Bond Effect” – Growing Public Perception of the FBI as a Non-Law Enforcement Organization in Popular Media
12. Post 9/11 Investigations Conflating Law Enforcement and Intelligence Authority Leads to Increasing Undercover Techniques … even Leading to Entrapment Cases
12(a) Peyton Pruitt Terror Case and Prosecution of Cognitively Disabled Individual
12(b) Robert Lorenzo Hester, Jr. Terror Case and FBI Knife Threat Against Suspect and Family
13. Contradictions in Integrity and Public Safety with an FBI Based on Intelligence Values without Law Enforcement Controls
13(a) FBI Incitement and Failure to Act in Garland, Texas Terrorist Attack
13(b) FBI Agent Shoots Member of Public and Ignores the Victim
13(c) FBI Informant Provides Extremists Automatic Weapons Training During of Takeover of Government Facility
13(d) FBI Operation of Child Pornography Website
13(e) Reckless Lack of Concern for Public Safety in Crowded Areas while Investigating Terrorist Threats
(i) Taliban Activist Working with FBI
(ii) FBI Sought Recruitment of Orlando ISIS Terrorist as Trusted Source – killed 49 – planned to Attack Disney World
(iii) FBI Ignores Confession of Violent Individual Warning of Attack – Until He Attacks Ft. Lauderdale Airport for ISIS
(iv) FBI Watched DC Subway Police Officer for 6 Years Making Terroristic Threats and Going Overseas for Terror Training – While Hundreds of Thousands Endangered
14. Former FBI Agents on Culture Change in “Intelligence-Driven” Focus

1. Legal Authority for FBI is Focused on Priority to Assist in Detecting and Prosecuting Crime in Support of Enforcing the Law.

In support of the DOJ’s core mission to “enforce the law,” DOJ’s primary appointment role to appoint authority to the FBI begins with an emphasis for law enforcement support, according to the LAW.  Under the law in 28 U.S. Code § 533 – Investigative and other officials, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Attorney General is given the right to appoint resources “to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States,” as well other related investigations to protect the President, the Attorney General and other investigations “under the control of the Department of Justice…” Such authority traditionally legally comes from Department of Justice Appropriation Acts. The connection of Justice Department, and its FBI, as representatives of the American people to work on behalf of the public on legal matters of federal justice and law enforcement, are linked to public funding, executive management and Congressional oversight for such authority. The FBI, its personnel, and its resources act on behalf of the American public.  In addition, U.S. shared law outlines the authority of the FBI in 18 U.S. Code § 3052; it is notable that FBI powers described in 18 U.S. Code § 3052 are focused on law enforcement activities.

In 2004, under FBI Director Mueller and U.S. President George W. Bush, the U.S. Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act  (IRTPA) of 2004, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638. The FBI was granted additional counterterror and national intelligence powers under IRTPA Title II.  However, there were no descriptions of boundaries, and no details on processes.

Most importantly, these IRTPA acts did not end or eliminate the FBI’s law enforcement priorities under 18 U.S. Code § 3052, nor has this law been modified to re-designate the FBI from an organization with a law enforcement priority to an intelligence priority.

This one single paragraph is the primary operating written legal authority under our SHARED law for the “powers of the FBI.”  While other instructions are provided under specific crimes and general intelligence capabilities, this one single paragraph is the primary legal authority for the 35,000 FBI employees, including 14,000 special agents, at 56 Field Offices across the United States of America, as well as activity around the world.  If we expect the FBI to be responsible under the LAW, then the American people must also be responsible in demanding a U.S. Code of shared law by our representative lawmakers that truly and comprehensively defines the “powers of the FBI.”  This failure to have comprehensive and meaningful LAW is the root cause of the failure to have accountable law enforcement.  But even with this completely insufficient 18 U.S. Code § 3052 there can be no doubt that the intent of the powers of the FBI were to support law enforcement.

How can a U.S. Government organization representing the American people, with a core legal role in supporting law enforcement, remove “law enforcement” from its publicly-stated mission, without changes to public law and public discussion?

The FBI is required to exercise its powers and mission in accordance with U.S. law, not the whim and will of those in its leadership or institutions; we are a nation of laws (even insufficient and incomplete laws), not of personalities.  The FBI has important roles, but this is not a “carte blanche” authority for the FBI to act unilaterally as an independent entity,  with no real accountability to the U.S. Government or the American people.  A law enforcement organization must act within the powers given to it under the law, not those powers that it seeks to adopt as it deems appropriate.  If the FBI no longer considers itself a “law enforcement” agency within its publicly stated mission, then a non-law enforcement agency should not have law enforcement powers or authority.  The FBI cannot have it both ways: law enforcement power – without a law enforcement identity, values, and responsibility.

In 2007, FBI’s National Security Branch Deputy Director John P. Mudd stated, regarding the FBI, that “we are not and never will be solely an intelligence agency.”  But what is the message to the American public when very term “law enforcement” has been removed from the FBI public mission statement?

2. “Pursuit of Truth” versus “Seeking an Outcome.”

Both law enforcement and real national security is dependent on TRUSTING the American people with the truth, not depending on secrets. U.S. President John F. Kennedy stated on February 26, 1962: “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

In respecting Equality Under Law, the goal in law enforcement is the “pursuit of truth.” Truth is the only fundamental factor that is a driver of a law enforcement organization being able to equally enforce the law. In law enforcement, we must seek to ensure justice in law enforcement actions, protection of the innocent, and punishment for those who have been proven to break the law. We need such transparency on the truth to be able to retain the trust of the American public to cooperate with law enforcement, and also for law enforcement agencies to share the truth among themselves.

In pursuing equal justice under law, the facts of truth do not have a race, gender, nationality, religion, political background, or other identity. Facts are facts. A fact-based organization seeking law enforcement has a responsibility to document and share facts with the American public, so it can clearly determine the TRUTH about issues involving the American people’s public safety. The concept behind the creation of the FBI was to have an investigative body to support the DOJ’s mission to “enforce the law,” which will seek the TRUTH. Too often, we are told that today’s “intelligence-driven” FBI cannot reveal “secret” information, with increasing numbers of FBI documents that are “redacted” or “sanitized” to protect the American people from knowing things that they are not “authorized” to know.

Shared truth is decreasingly a priority to our FBI, with truth increasingly becoming the exclusive right for only the “privileged, “who are supposed to represent and get paid by the American people. How long can such an approach to federal law enforcement last in a democratic republic?

If “knowledge is power,” then those with a commitment to law enforcement values would seek to empower the American public with knowledge and facts, to be partners in protecting our shared law and our shared nation. Hoarding of knowledge and locking the facts away as “secrets” for the privileged few are the practices of dictators and totalitarian regimes, not democratic republics.

Law enforcement seeks the TRUTH, unlike intelligence organizations which seek “an outcome.” For example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spy organization has a different focus, however. Their focus is on reporting on “outcomes” that they seek to shape and control, and developing “narratives.” The goal to seek “outcomes” is not the same as the pursuit of the truth to protect equality under the law.

In intelligence agencies, these are different values, different standards, and different commitments to public integrity and truthfulness, from those given to a justice community with law enforcement authority.  A foreign intelligence community and its shadowy operations and manipulations are not given law enforcement powers for arresting and using force to protect our shared law.

The shaping of the  “outcome” of various global activities is a regular part of such spy reports. While spy organizations may seek an outcome, it must be the responsibility and accountability of American government organization with law enforcement authority to share the TRUTH with the American people.  America must not be a nation of shadows and secrets, but a nation of facts which we must face in the bright rays of democracy.

If the American public rightly expects truth and honesty from the FBI, consistent with the law enforcement powers they are given, then the crisis of the FBI’s “dual roles” in law enforcement and intelligence must be addressed by the American people, under the existing laws or if necessary, change the laws.  Abandoning law enforcement values or mission should never be an option for America’s FBI.  But this is where the growing FBI “intelligence-driven” values and operations has brought us.

The FBI’s “stealth” decision to quietly remove “law enforcement” from its public mission statement and simply expect that “no one will notice” – speaks volumes as to the institutional challenges and intentions regarding both law enforcement and the TRUTH.  This decision was an assault on Public Trust.

When Truth and Honesty are expendable, the real victim is democracy itself.  A nation that respects Equality Under the Law cannot make such sacrifices for “security,” because a public not trusted with the truth is a public that cannot trust its government.

A representative government does not have the right to betray the trust of its own people.  But in addition to the American people who were never told of this change to remove “law enforcement” from the FBI mission statement, who else within the DOJ and FBI itself were not told? How many of the FBI’s own 30,000 employees were told and knew of the FBI’s decision to remove “law enforcement” from its public mission statement?  A nation where the FBI does not even trust its own employees has done more than abandon “law enforcement,” it has also abandoned  its commitment to “Fidelity – Bravery  – Integrity” with the American people and its own personnel.

This is the path that a new version of an “intelligence-driven” FBI leads us to.  This is the real destruction that a handful of terrorists have truly achieved, by allowing terrorist actions, not the trust of American people, as the voice that decides the future of America’s democratic republic.  America must not be a nation with a dark and dishonest future to “Keep Fear Alive,” but a nation built on the bedrock foundation of Truth and Trust in support of Equality Under the Law.

R.E.A.L. asks those in the FBI, who remain committed to law enforcement, to sign our petition and demand that law enforcement be restored to the FBI’s mission statement and culture.

3. “Just the Facts” versus “Need to Know Secrets”

A culture of law enforcement and equality under the law is based on facts, with recorded information designed to address facts, not opinions.  These facts are designed to be accessible to the public or the public’s law enforcement representatives.  The concept of records management for law enforcement activities is intended to allow shared use by 80,000 law enforcement organizations and 1,000,000 personnel in law enforcement.  In all of this law enforcement-based record keeping, the focus is on documented facts, based on identities of criminal suspects and crimes.  In a democracy as our citizens are innocent until proven guilty, their private identification information is usually controlled.  Many public arrests are regularly reported in the U.S. news media, and criminal histories involving court proceedings are regularly accessible from court records through arrest records, in person and over the Internet, to all of the American public.

In the past the FBI employees worked with agencies around the nation to make certain that such shared law enforcement records focused on the FACTS.  Not opinions or planned “outcomes.”  Not bias, racism, gender bias… and most importantly not a “narrative.”  Equality under the law in nationwide law enforcement operations are dependent on responsible individuals who are focused on “just the facts.”

The culture of facts and sharing of facts with the American public was an inherent tool of America’s law enforcement functions under the FBI.  On difficult cases involving notable threats, the FBI has repeatedly gone to the American public, which shares its nation’s commitment the laws and public safety, for support and information.  The FBI’s history of a “most wanted” listing included posters of criminal suspects, which once included postings in the U.S. Postal Service, as part of goal to communicate with American public in a shared focus in respecting the law.  Such communications and coordination on the facts with the American public, even on terrorist crimes, became the American public’s perception of FBI’s communications with the public on matters of public safety.

But as the FBI continued an “intelligence-driven” pursuit, news articles and public communications increasingly focused on “redacted” and “sanitized” documents largely blacked out.  This troubling signal was a familiar sight to the public in the 1960s and 1970s when the notorious FBI COINTELPRO operations of disruption and harassment were viewed as acceptable forms of “intelligence.”  Even today, many documents remain “redacted” and “sanitized” from that time period, as if the American people don’t even have right to know their own government’s history.

Under an increasingly “intelligence-driven” FBI in the post 9/11 America, press conferences on shared criminal threats became increasingly replaced by FBI intelligence operatives “leaking” anonymous comments to media outlets, with the press shaping news stories around “leaked” information, rather than our FBI speaking openly to the American people on its concerns.  This change in “culture” has led to the DOJ OIG itself reporting on “a culture of unauthorized media contacts” within the FBI and the challenge of the “‘cultural attitude’ regarding media contacts and leaks at the FBI.”  But this change in culture represents a much larger challenge – a growing lack of trust in the FBI personnel addressing facts to the American people they represent – face-to-face.

True national security is best served not by endless secret tools, redacted documents, secure facilities, cipher locks, and retina scans – but the ability to look the American people truthfully in the face and tell people the TRUTH about law enforcement and public safety matters.  That is real commitment to national security.

To those who believe they are “combatting” extremist terror, foreign propagandists, etc., by enveloping the FBI in a cloak of “national security” secrecy, and undermining its foundational law enforcement mission – they need to understand that the only ones being helped are those you believe your struggling against.

These enemies are not the greatest threat to America, which has seen many threats before from many enemies. This included a half-century of threats from the U.S.S.R., which developed nuclear weapons, including those with an impact of 50 to 100 megatons (each megaton is 1,000,000 tons of explosive force, with a 100 MT weapon impact’s radiation for a 46 mile radius).

But the only enemy that can truly inflict long-term damage to America itself is the one that undermines the TRUST of the American people in equality under the law, and confidence that its law enforcement share this commitment to the law and public safety.  To those who believe the FBI should abandon its “law enforcement” mission, what worse damage can these secret enemies do, that undermining the public’s trust in the FBI’s commitment to equality under the law WILL do?

America simply cannot afford the FBI to abandon law enforcement from its mission statement.  The American people must be able to TRUST the FBI with a shared vision of equality under the law – for ALL.

4. FBI Was Not Created as a “Domestic Intelligence” Organization.

The concept of the FBI as a “standing” domestic intelligence agency was not the mission behind the creation of the FBI. The FBI was originally created as the Bureau of Investigation (BOI) on July 26, 1908, to obtain investigative individuals to support U.S. Department of Justice investigations.  Despite the efforts by some in the intelligence community to re-invent history, the actual investigatory focus of the BOI was regarding federal criminal threats, not domestic intelligence as they would like us to believe.

Prior to the creation of the BOI, the Department of Justice used U.S. Secret Service members to periodically conduct investigations. But at the beginning of the 20th century, concerns about growing federal crimes and the need to investigate them required the need for the Department of Justice to form this BOI.  One of the first priorities of the new organization was to address issues, under federal law, to stop forced sexual slavery of women and human trafficking of young girls (under the Mann Act). In 1935, the BOI was renamed the Division of Investigation, and then again renamed as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

5. FBI’s Domestic Intelligence History and Intended Focus for War-Time Threats.

The original focus was on law enforcement investigations related to federal crimes. During World War I and World War II (and the ramp up to both), the BOI/FBI assisted in wartime domestic intelligence investigations, but after the end of the war, such domestic intelligence emphasis was de-emphasized. The FBI provided both domestic and international support for intelligence services during World War II, with its FBI Special Intelligence Service. At the end of World War II, the FBI’s Special Intelligence Service was disbanded, and the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was asked to take over its operations and expand U.S. intelligence activities worldwide. The concept of a standing “domestic intelligence” organization during both war and peace was not the primary basis for the creation and maintenance of the DOJ FBI investigatory agency, with a priority to “enforce the law.”

6. FBI’s Continued Domestic Intelligence During the Cold War under Hoover Led to Serious Abuses, inconsistent with Law Enforcement

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s campaign to continue domestic intelligence during the “Cold War” with the threat of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which ended in December 26, 1991, remained a struggle for law enforcement ethics. Despite the disbanding of the FBI’s Special Intelligence Service at the end of World War II, FBI Director Hoover  sought to continue domestic intelligence activities with the FBI Domestic Intelligence Branch. In 1956, these renewed domestic intelligence effort led to the creation of the FBI COunter INTELligence PROgram (COINTELPRO), which during the 1960s and 1970s, significantly undermined democracy with extensive abuses, which also undermined the credibility of law enforcement and equality under the law.

While the FBI CONINTELPRO was created to protect U.S. citizens from USSR Communist domestic threats, the extensive abuse of such domestic intelligence authority by the FBI Domestic Intelligence Branch led to persecution of U.S. citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse and advocacy. The U.S. has clear and unambiguous historical documentation of the damage that domestic intelligence agents, given a law enforcement badge, poor management, a mission inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, and lack of oversight of representation on behalf of the American people, can do to a democracy.  After FBI Director Hoover’s death in 1972, such FBI intelligence abuses were documented by the U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-76 (Church Committee), in public hearings, and recorded in Final Report, S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976), Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans.

From 1956-1971, FBI COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare, smearing individuals and/or groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, and illegal violence. According to the reported findings of the Church Committee on FBI Domestic Intelligence abuses (Book II, pages 10-11) ranged from:
“- Anonymously attacking the political beliefs of targets in order to induce their employers to fire them;”
“- Anonymously mailing letters to the spouses of intelligence targets for the purpose of destroying their marriages;”
“- Obtaining from IRS the tax returns of a target and then attempting to provoke an IRS investigation for the express purpose of deterring a protest leader from attending the Democratic National Convention; ”
“- Falsely and anonymously labeling as Government informants members of groups known to be violent, thereby exposing the falsely labelled member to expulsion or physical attack; ”
“- Pursuant to instructions to use ‘misinformation’ to disrupt demonstrations, employing such means as broadcasting fake orders on the same citizens band radio frequency used by demonstration marshalls to attempt to control demonstrations and duplicating and falsely filling out forms soliciting housing for persons coming to a demonstration, thereby causing ‘long and useless journeys to locate these addresses’ ”
“- Sending an anonymous letter to the leader of a Chicago street gang (described as ‘violence-prone’) stating that the Black Panthers were supposed to have ‘a hit out for you. The letter was suggested because it ‘may intensify…animosity’ and cause the street gang leader to ‘take retaliatory action’ ”

The American people decided many decades ago that campaigns of harassment, violence, misinformation, slander, false reports in the media, and information warfare propaganda are not the roles of a law enforcement organization representing the American people, with the power to make arrests.  These known and officially-documented FBI Domestic Intelligence abuses should give the FBI an ethical and moral boundary to ever renounce its law enforcement commitment.

7. FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Abuses Against Pastor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Led to Criminal Behavior, in Contempt of Equality Under the Law

In America’s history, the FBI led law enforcement campaigns to challenge the white supremacist hate group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and investigated horrific murders of civil rights leaders, including the Mississippi murders on June 21, 1964 of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael “Mickey” Schwerner. But law enforcement successes were also tarnished with FBI Domestic Intelligence abuses.  Everyone in the FBI and all those who understand American history must recognize FBI Domestic Intelligence abuse of law enforcement resources, power, and authority in their own attack on civil rights leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are among the darkest chapters in American history.  Former FBI Director Comey once had FBI agents tour the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.  But let us not forget that that the U.S. had its own genocide, in the legalized crime of slavery of African-American human beings, and the subsequent persecution of African-Americans for over a century after their liberation in the Civil War, which we continue to see today. Americans don’t need to look only to Nazi Germany to see shame and horrific crimes against humanity.  They can see horrific abuse, slavery, murder, and persecution at home. It would dishonest and a disservice to a commitment to the equality under the law which we must support, to ignore the ignominious role of FBI Domestic Intelligence in this persecution, threats, and calls for violence against African-American citizens.

The well-documented FBI Domestic Intelligence’s “war” on Christian pastor and African-American minority human rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. should give every American patriot pause, when the FBI seeks to remove a “law enforcement” commitment to equality under the law from its mission.  The FBI Domestic Intelligence abuses regarding Dr. King are well-documented, infamous, and shameful to all those who respect liberty and equality under the law. After these abuses were discovered the American people gave the FBI a chance to reform as a law enforcement organization. This infamous case alone should provide all of the rationale necessary for the American people as to why the FBI **MUST** have a priority and consistent commitment for the integrity of equality under the law FIRST.

According to the Church Committee investigation on FBI Intelligence activities (Book II, page 11): “From ‘late 1963’ until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ‘neutralize’ him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s ‘war’ against Dr. King, ‘No holds were barred.'”

The Christian African-American human rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was originally monitored by the FBI Domestic Intelligence program beginning in December 1955 and through the 1960s, initially under the “Racial Matters Program,” and then in suspecting Dr. King’s possible ties to Communist figures under the “Communist Infiltration Program.”  The FBI Domestic Intelligence program wiretapped, surveilled, and ultimately threatened this historic American human rights figure. Much of this has since been made “public,” buried within hundreds of files in the FBI “Vault” archives , released under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (File Number: 100-106670, Section 103), (Part 1 of 2, Part 2 of 2). While this historic Christian human rights leader was clearly NOT a Communist, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and FBI Domestic Intelligence program leaders continued to seek to slander and spread false information about Dr. King.

This should give us pause, to those who believe the FBI abandonment of “law enforcement” from its public mission is “no big deal.”

The FBI Domestic Intelligence program regularly sought to undermine Dr. King’s message of nonviolence and human rights with despicable slander, attempting to portray this Christian pastor as a tool of Communism. Assistant Director of the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division, William C. Sullivan, wrote on August 30, 1963, about his view of “Negroes in the Communist Party”: “it may be unrealistic to limit ourselves as we have been doing to legalistic proof or definitely conclusive evidence that would stand up in testimony in court or before Congressional committees that the Communist Party, USA, does wield substantial influence over Negroes which one day could become decisive.”  America has seen what happens when the FBI walks away from a priority and discipline of “law enforcement” and gives power to FBI agents to persecute the American people “without proof or evidence,” simply based on hate.  In fact, we have actual historical “evidence” of this.

In FBI Domestic Intelligence Division’s William Sullivan’s August 30, 1963 memo on this Christian pastor and human rights leader, he also stated regarding Dr. King’s August 28, 1963 “I have a dream” speech, describing his message of love and hope for human rights as a “demagogic speech,” and urging FBI Intelligence “we must mark him now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in the Nation from the standpoint of Communism, the Negro, and national security.”

As Dr. King stated to the nation, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal’,” FBI’s Domestic Intelligence labeled him a “national security” threat.  We have the incontrovertible proof that it is unacceptable and intolerable for the FBI to further its “intelligence” mission, without a clear and compelling commitment to law enforcement’s equality under the law.  America has this historical EVIDENCE; we know for a fact what happens when we allow the FBI to abandon responsibility for law enforcement, and act to demonize, persecute, and harass our fellow citizens on what they will assess to be the interests of “national security,” without accountability.

Dr. King was covertly wiretapped by FBI Domestic Intelligence operations in hotels across the nation, including the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., where he had finished revisions on his “I Have a Dream” speech, and which is nearby the Freedom Plaza, where some of Dr. King’s artifacts (including his Bible) have been placed in a time capsule. R.E.A.L. and so many other human rights leaders have called for human rights, dignity, women’s rights, and equality under the law in this same Freedom Plaza, where nearby, in a shameful time for America, Dr. King was nearby being surveilled by FBI Domestic Intelligence. America must be better than this.  Change and reform must include an unquestioning commitment to equality under the law as part of “law enforcement.”

But the infamous damage done by FBI Domestic Intelligence against this human rights leader for equality and nonviolence went far beyond this.  FBI intelligence leaders sought to spread salacious rumors and slander about Dr. King to the U.S. media, and even developed a letter calling for Dr. King to commit suicide, or the FBI Intelligence agents would reveal damaging information on him.  While heavily redacted versions of this infamous threat letter by the FBI were previously discovered, the fully unredacted version this  infamous letter of FBI Intelligence’s blackmail hate towards Dr. King was fully revealed by an archivist, Beverly Gage in 2014. In it, the FBI threatened the Christian pastor and human rights leader: “you are done.” In fact, the only thing that was “done” was the credibility of FBI as an intelligence organization.

R.E.A.L. is very hesitant to publish with this article a copy of this obscene specimen of FBI Intelligence criminal threat to this human rights leader. But in the interest in educating the public to understand the immense gravity of what can happen with an FBI committed to intelligence ethos and becomes unmoored from law enforcement values, R.E.A.L. is providing an image of this letter.  It shamefully demonstrates our FBI engaging in criminal threats against one of the greatest national leaders of our times.  It is simply a national disgrace.  How could we ever allow such an organization to pursue “intelligence,” without law enforcement values?

According to Archivist Beverly Gage’s report, who identified the fully unredacted threat letter to Dr. King in the archives, Assistant Director of the FBI Domestic Intelligence Division’s “William Sullivan, apparently took it upon himself to write the anonymous letter and sent an agent to Miami, to mail the package to Atlanta.” Others have claimed that J. Edgar Hoover himself wrote the letter. The FBI should know who wrote this criminal threat of blackmail, and there should be an explanation as to WHY they were not criminally prosecuted under the law. Mr. Hoover died in 1972; Mr. Sullivan died in 1977. Mr. Sullivan was angered that he was passed over as a successor as FBI Director.

We either believe in EQUALITY under the law or we do not. There is no such thing as “situational equality under the law.” Like any other citizen in America, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hoover were NOT above the law. The FBI failed in its fundamental law enforcement responsibility in bringing WHOEVER was behind this criminal threat of blackmail to justice, like any other citizen. The idea that such criminal behavior was tolerated as “intelligence” operations by the FBI remains a national disgrace towards its commitment to law enforcement.

To those opposing Communist totalitarian oppression and police states, it is no small irony to see that the Stasi-like tactics used to persecute, silence, and slander those seeking political discourse and advocacy… were just like the very Communist authorities such FBI Intelligence claimed to be fighting against.  This is the core lesson to be learned from where we go when we embrace “the ends justify the means.”

8. U.S. Senate “Church Committee” and Attempt at Reforms within the FBI and FBI Domestic Intelligence Activities to Obtain Control Under Law

COINTELPRO was disbanded in 1971.  As a result of the U.S. Senate “Church Committee” hearings, FBI Domestic Intelligence and COINTELPRO abuses led to a series of reforms, including laws designed to regulate government surveillance and internal guidelines, including DOJ Attorney General’s Guidelines. This included calls during the 1970s for new Congressional oversight authority.  Based on concerns of the continuing need for U.S. protection in the 1970s from foreign threats, including the nuclear USSR Communist state, the U.S. passed a new law in 1978 called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as a means to provide court-oversight of FBI investigations of foreign communications in the United States, that it viewed to be a threat of espionage or sabotage to the nation.  Under the 1978 FISA law, the goal was to create Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (FISC) to independently validate warrants, based on detailed and verified facts of the need for such intelligence cases.  Even in 1978, there were questions about the potential for executive branch abuse under the new FISA law, but most viewed the reform as way for measured and documented accountability.

The continued reform focus on law and legal responsibility included the appointment of a judge, former Judge William Webster, in 1978, to serve as the FBI Director.  Within the FBI during the 1980s, there was also a renewed focus and emphasis on law enforcement, which after all, was the fundamental priority for the FBI.  R.E.A.L.’s founder worked in the FBI in the development of interstate criminal history records, and sought to identify and get corrections from state agencies on abusive terms in criminal records, left over from segregationist state histories, such as “rape of white woman.”  While public confidence in FBI had reached a nadir during the discovery of FBI Intelligence abuses, internally within the FBI, there was a new focus and sense of responsibility focused on consistency in equality under the law.

9. Change to Reforms and Resources on FBI Domestic Intelligence and the 9/11/2001 Terrorist Attack Impacting Priority of FBI on Law Enforcement

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-based Counterterrorist Center (including an FBI Intelligence agent) failure to share information about terrorists entering the United States (9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 6, pp. 181-82), an increased effort at domestic counterterrorism was initiated and led by the FBI.  This included a significant expansion in FBI intelligence functions, and by 2010, the U.S. DOJ OIG determined that number of resources in the FBI designated for cases on counterterrorism investigations had doubled, while law enforcement investigation resources continued to decrease.

In modern times, in addition to the FBI’s extensive intelligence organizations today involving counterterrorism, the FBI maintains a dedicated FBI National Security Branch (NSB) founded in 2005, integrating personnel from the FBI Counterterrorism Division, the FBI Counterintelligence Division, FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, and Terrorist Screening Center, and it administer an interagency High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG).  However, with the integration of counterterror operations across FBI Field Sites, there is a functional network of FBI intelligence services across the nation.

 

Under FBI Directors Mueller and then Comey, the number of FBI intelligence resources dramatically increased.  Laws intended to effectively manage FBI intelligence activities became overtaken by amendments to DOJ Attorney General Guidelines, by new legislation such as the 2002 USA Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56), and then in 2015, the USA Freedom Act (Public Law 114-23) (intended to with new provisions to control some use of public metadata by the National Security Agency – NSA), and by new intelligence authorities given to the FBI under Title II of IRTPA in 2004 (Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638).

The reform focus of the “Church Committee” controls to prevent abuses by FBI Intelligence resources were rapidly being overtaken or out-maneuvered by new “intelligence-driven” FBI imperatives.  In addition to the new laws and firehose of new intelligence resources, increasing numbers of FISA warrants were being approved by the FISCs.  The role of FBI intelligence processes in intelligence investigations on U.S. citizens has led to questions raised about the validation of facts used in obtaining FISA warrants, among many other vague areas in managing intelligence investigation authority and integrity. The new FBI “intelligence-driven” direction also had a molding effective on the career focus and relative ethos of FBI agents from a law enforcement focus to an intelligence focus.

FBI leaders, such as former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, migrated careers from law enforcement in the 1990s, to counterterrorism and intelligence career paths. In the “intelligence-driven” FBI,  Mr. McCabe worked in the FBI’s counterterrorism divisions, with a focus international terror cases, and was designated as a senior intelligence officer.  Director Comey promoted Mr. McCabe to Executive Assistant Director of National Security Branch in 2013, Associate Deputy Director in 2015,  Deputy Director in 2016, and by May 2017, he was Acting Director of the FBI.  By March 21, 2018, however, after a DOJ OIG scathing report on his “lack of candor” in official FBI interviews, Mr. McCabe was fired.

In the June 2018 DOJ OIG report, a cultural challenge was identified within the FBI, with a number of reports of senior FBI individuals using official communications tools for political and partisan comments, and remarks that caused troubling concerns over potential bias.  The June 14, 2018 DOJ OIG report also referred to FBI agents leaking information to U.S. media sources, and accepting gifts from media sources for FBI information, with the OIG advising the FBI that it “identified a need to change the ‘cultural attitude’ regarding media contacts and leaks at the FBI,” as well as ethics rules “related to the acceptance of gifts.”

The cultural challenge identified by the DOJ OIG led to them to conclude that a pervasive problem of FBI media “leaks highlight the need to change what appears to be a cultural attitude.”  The OIG reported remarked concern about “a culture of unauthorized media contacts….” that “although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks. For example, during the periods we reviewed, we identified dozens of FBI employees that had contact with members of the media.” (DOJ OIG Report June 14, 2018, page 430).

This extensive media leaks addressed by the DOJ OIG are especially notable here as this is not a typical a “law enforcement issue.”  Law enforcement professionals have a controlled chain of communication with the media and the public, to control case management of facts, and to prevent bias from influencing cases that go to court.  In this case, we see a DOJ OIG investigating an FBI problem of pervasive leaks and private communications with media individuals, which is not indicative of law enforcement, but rather on indicative of FBI Intelligence operations, with a goal to “shape” and “manage” a “narrative.”

As such a culture of FBI Intelligence ethos increasingly expands in the FBI, the law enforcement values of equality under the law become de-prioritized with the need to “manage the narrative” and coordinate “sources.”  We have seen the consequences of this with the COINTELPRO operations and FBI Domestic Intelligence operations to slander and defame Martin Luther King, Jr.  The FBI Intelligence operations, without the oversight controls necessary to prevent abuses, can result in undermining credibility to both the FBI Intelligence and law enforcement mission.

10. Difference in Law Enforcement and Intelligence Values Create Fundamental Ethical Conflict at FBI.

As previously noted, the June 2018 DOJ OIG report and its reference to “law enforcement” standards completely ignored the decision during former Acting Director Andrew McCabe’s administration to even remove the word “law enforcement” from the FBI public mission statement.  There are fundamental differences in law enforcement ethos in case management, equality under the law, essential need for honesty in communications including any documentation used in court – versus intelligence ethos and values.  While intelligence operations are ultimately to gain information for future use, the methods employed often entail misdirection, lack of candor, and open methods of deception.  Where the law enforcement foundation may be “equality under the law,” intelligence operations may be willing to accept “the ends justify the means.”

In law enforcement ethics, one of the primary issues discussed is the topic of “noble cause corruption.”  They specifically teach this as an ethical problem in law enforcement education. This is a corruption under a teleological ethical system, which believes “the ends justify the means,” even if such extralegal, illegal, or unethical, as the belief is that they will achieve a “good” result for society.  Such “noble cause corruption” is found with individuals justifying their acts as “for the good of the country,” “to achieve justice,” “to stop evil,” “for the greater good,” “on behalf of the truth,” or “to stop a greater threat.”  All of these rationales sound noble, honorable, and reasonable on their face. But these “ends justify the means” arguments, which may be so popular with those in the intelligence community are a literal form of ethical corruption in law enforcement. The “ends justify the means” is not “equality under the law,” nor is it “law enforcement.”

Law enforcement is fact-based and more specifically, LAW-based.   Law-based law enforcement in traffic law does not pull over people for speeding based on the color or make of their vehicle, the state on their license plate, or the identity group of person driving, but the facts of whether or not the vehicle’s driver is speeding or not.

A nation making law enforcement decisions based on personalities is not a nation of laws, and it is not a nation committed to equality under the law in law enforcement.

Yet the culture clash in the FBI, between the growing “intelligence-driven” priorities of increasing numbers in the FBI versus “law enforcement” values creates a built-in conflict. These are fundamentally in opposition with one another.

The removal of “law enforcement” from the FBI public mission statement, which is still removed over a year later, demonstrates that law enforcement values are not winning this struggle.

11. The “James Bond Effect” – Growing Public Perception of the FBI as a Non-Law Enforcement Organization in Popular Media.

A public portrayal of numerous FBI agents supporting murderers, conspiring with murderers to be shielded from prosecution, killing government officials, and other numerous crimes… should be OUTRAGEOUS and unacceptable to the FBI leadership.  But in popular American media entertainment, especially over the past 5 years, such portrayals of FBI agents have become “normal,” even “acceptable,” to the American public.  While the FBI leadership, which as the latest DOJ OIG report shows, has a lot to say on many topics to news media, outrage over portrayal of FBI agents as criminals, killers, and worse, is of no concern whatsoever.  At the same time over the past 5 years, the FBI has questioned its own role in law enforcement, to the point that the very term “law enforcement” has been removed from the FBI mission statement.

Since September 2013, NBC’s “The Blacklist” fictional television drama has weekly portrayed FBI agents as coordinating with murderers, helping them conceal their murders and crimes, and misdirecting others in law enforcement from investigating such crimes. In the 111 episodes of this television drama thus far, who are the worst “villains”?  The worst “villains” are actual “law enforcement” officers who view murder as “against the law” and occasionally seek to disrupt the FBI Agents cooperating with the “friendly murderer” who assists them on “more important” cases to find “bigger” criminals in a so-called “blacklist.”  In one set of episodes, NBC had fictional FBI agents covering up a series of 18 MURDERS by a “friendly murderer” to help continue to get information, because after all “the ends justify the means.”  During the same time period, ABC has also got into such portrayals, with fictional FBI agents as terrorists.  And of course, there is a lot more out there.   But with the four different FBI Directors we will have had in the past 5 years since September 2013: Director Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Wray (assuming he makes it to September) – this does not seem to be a concern to any of them.  And for the vocal FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), the outrageous “normalizing” by entertainment media regularly portraying FBI agents as murderers and terrorists isn’t even worthy of a Twitter message from them. Furthermore, the 30,000 active members of the FBI also seem to collectively shrug about this, thus far.

This should trouble the American people who still consider the FBI a law enforcement organization.  This lack of outrage regarding the portrayal of the FBI is not the natural behavior of a law enforcement organization, dependent on public trust to solve crimes, and committed to equality under the law.  If such an obscene entertainment media portrayal was being routinely done about the California Highway Patrol, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Texas Rangers, or the U.S. Marshals as murderers, actively conspiring to conceal and protect murder, and other heinous crimes, it is reasonable to expect that sometime, over the past 5 years, someone would raise an objection.  For a law enforcement agency, such protracted silence is deeply troubling.  We all have 1st Amendment rights, including law enforcement agencies.

But if you no longer view yourself as a “law enforcement organization,” then the “James Bond effect” of being viewed as somehow dangerous, edgy, willing to do “whatever it takes” may not be viewed as necessarily undesirable.  Has such a “normalization” process in public perception of the FBI, not as “law enforcement,” but rather as “secret agents” being “licensed to kill” or being “above the law” started to take root in the American psyche?

And if both the FBI organization and the American public are willing to normalize a re-imagining of FBI agents as “secret agents” within the United States, rather than “law enforcement” members sworn to equality under the law, then who will police the FBI?  With the FBI removing “law enforcement” from its public mission statement, then who will provide federal law enforcement to ensure equality under the law?

12. Post 9/11 Investigations Conflating Law Enforcement and Intelligence Authority Leads to Increasing Undercover Techniques … even Leading to Entrapment Cases.

(It is the expectation that there will be those who see the word “entrapment” and will reject the term, but R.E.A.L. urges the reader to continue as there is an essential law enforcement issue here.)

The nation and world is well aware the undercover tactics have been used by a wide variety of law enforcement organizations over time.  It is rational to expect that only a small portion criminals will literally be “caught in the act” in the commission of a crime against our shared laws.  Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to make certain that dangerous criminals threatening the human rights of society will be identified, captured, and prevented from doing further harm, while these criminals believe that they can act with impunity.   As we would expect, most criminals captured in an undercover law enforcement operation will claim that they are the victims of “entrapment.”  With a history of such false claims of “entrapment” by criminals over many years, it is not surprising that such claims would increasingly be viewed with skepticism and even scorn by some of the public.  After all, these are “criminals.”

But what happens when those who we give our law enforcement authority to, actually do engage in “entrapment,” particularly if they pursue intelligence-based standards?  Remember, if we are committed to law enforcement based on equality under the law, we must recognize that individuals are innocent until proven guilty, even (especially) those we dislike.  While the public may look on such individuals with scorn, we cannot wholly disregard “entrapment” problems. When we have a  law enforcement organization changing to emphasize the priorities, values, and personnel of intelligence operations, we cannot ignore there may be a blurred line between “undercover” work and “entrapment.”

Let us clearly define “entrapment,” so that we have a consistent understanding.   Entrapment is not simply undercover police work. Based on U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), “Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer.”  In Sorrells v. United States, the court also stated “It is not their duty [of law enforcement] to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it. It is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and to the established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offense of the like of which he had never been guilty and evidently never would have been guilty if the officers of the law had not inspired, incited, persuaded, and lured him to attempt to commit it.”

In other words, the concept of “entrapment” is based on the use of  coercion and other overbearing tactics to induce someone to commit a crime.  This issue becomes even more complicated when we look at the matter of counterterrorism operations by the FBI.  Of course, we all want terrorists stopped and we want terrorism prevented.  R.E.A.L. has been one of the longest and most consistent advocates on this point.  Those Americans who lived through and vividly witnessed such terror attacks have naturally hardened hearts on this point.  We have seen thousands of our fellow citizens massacred.  We have seen innocent children, families, vulnerable individuals killed, injured, mutilated, and gone through great suffering.  Our patience and tolerance, naturally, for those who side with those advocating monstrous killing and mass-murder in our nation, is essentially next to zero.  It is the normal and natural reaction of an outraged public that wants to protect its families, its communities, its nation, from threats, plots, sympathies, conspiracy, and God Forbid, acts of such terror — to seek the maximum punishment possible for those who seek such obscene crimes against humanity.  Under IRTPA Title II passed in 2004, the FBI was directed to work to prevent terrorism, and it is a logical plan under that law to develop intelligence operations and networks in the United States to identify possible high-risk threats and prevent them from committing such criminal terrorism.

Equality under the law can be a platitude for some.  There are those who like the sound of “equality under the law,” as long as such “equal law” is used to punish everyone we think deserves it.  But the truth is very different.  Equality under the law and democracy are not for the faint of heart.  These truths that our nation has continued to fight to preserve are a genuine struggle.  Those who fight for these do not succeed by just looking the other way, when equality under the law is not convenient or politically expedient for them.  Those who work for equality under the law must have the human rights fortitude to accept that such law is not just for those we like and those like us.  Certainly intelligence organizations have a different priority and value set than “equality under the law.”  The “ends justify the means” and “whatever it takes” are very different views of the world and America from the view of “equality under the law.” But if we support equality under the law, in the campaign to prevent terrorism, we must also have a law enforcement standard used in even in counterterror arrests.

Another primary challenge is the difficulty in obtaining factual information on terror arrests.  R.E.A.L. has increasingly found it difficult to obtain meaningful factual information on many terror-related cases, as the news media has often been moving away from the term “terrorism” itself, and an opinion-centric news media has been focused on either viewing suspects as saints or demons, based on their political orientation.  R.E.A.L. has frequently reported on terror suspects threats against human rights, but in the course of investigating the deep details of more of these cases, R.E.A.L. has had to go to the criminal complaint (often having to be purchased) on such cases.

But a number of the criminal complaints are very revealing about the both the details on the suspect as well as the actions/inactions and tactics of those in the FBI. The complaints increasingly reveal actors who had no real intent, resources, or meaningful motivation to commit acts of terror, before they were engaged by FBI undercover agents. It remains our hope that such undercover operations prevented such potentially dangerous individuals from being reached by real terror recruiters.  But an increasingly lack of concern about public safety with such suspects versus an intelligence focus on leading them on more and more – raises questions about whether tactics are really law enforcement undercover or as described by the U.S. Supreme Court, “entrapment.”

R.E.A.L. does not intend to summarize the many cases debated by the FBI, ACLU, etc. in this area. But the criminal complaints R.E.A.L. has seen are increasingly troubling.  The behavior documented in too many counterterror complaints does not have the tone or pace of what we might expect in law enforcement.   Two cases are particularly notable to raise concerns.

12(a) Peyton Pruitt Terror Case and Prosecution of Cognitively Disabled Individual.

On November 13, 2015, Peyton Jack Pruitt (18 years old) was arrested for “soliciting or providing support acts of terrorism,” Case Number CC-2016-000036.00. In this case, the teenager Peyton Pruitt had obtained a laptop the year before as a Christmas gift. The troubled teenager living in an Alabama trailer apparently created a Wickr account, which allowed him encrypted texting on the Internet with people who he thought were terrorists, but in fact were FBI undercover (UC) counterterror agents. The troubled teen used Wickr to read Al-Qaeda Inspire magazine website (which is also available in other sources), and then to chat with FBI UC agents about possible targets. But after discussions with FBI UC agents on the Internet on possible targets, Peyton Pruitt was arrested on terrorism charges and held.

The challenge of the investigation is this: Peyton Pruitt is severely mentally challenged, reportedly had an IQ assessment of between 52 and 58, and the court ordered a Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) IQ test, which measured him at 68 (ranked as “Extremely Low”). This WAIS level indicates that there are serious cognitive limitations; previously it would have been “a benchmark for mental retardation.” Peyton Pruitt thought that the individuals he believed he working to support were supporting “Arabaric” views (there is no such thing), and stated “Allah is Jesus in Arabaric.” A center where Pruitt had been going to school stated “he cannot drive a car, hold down a job or see after his own hygiene.” His father Tony Pruitt stated that “Peyton has been diagnosed with mental retardation, autism, and attention deficit disorder. He functions at the level of an 8-year-old child. He’s never lived on his own, has never had a job, and can’t tie his own shoes. He lacks motor coordination and cannot button a shirt or put on a belt.”

After extensive FBI interviews (unavailable as some records redacted), a $1 million bond, and a nearly a year in prison between court appearances, the court in October 2016 ordered him to be released from jail and into his father’s custody.  There is no question that this is a troubled individual, who needs close monitoring and supervision, including removal of computer access (per the court order). But based on law enforcement standards, was this individual a genuine terrorist threat under the law? Couldn’t FBI law enforcement investigators uncover that information about the genuine threat level of this suspect?

12(b) Robert Lorenzo Hester, Jr. Terror Case and FBI Knife Threat Against Suspect and Family.

On February 17, 2017 in Missouri, Robert Lorenzo Hester, Jr. (aka Mohammed Junaid Al Amreeki) was arrested for providing material support to the ISIS terrorist group.  This was another terror plot fabricated by FBI counterterror agents.  R.E.A.L. learned the details of the case, literally by chance, while finding that news media was not reporting on the threat adequately, and looking to the criminal complaint to get the actual details of the terror plot.  Robert Hester was a former U.S. Army veteran, unemployed and angry, a convert to Islam, who was recruited by FBI counterterror UC agents and sources over social media, as Robert Hester claimed that he sought to “overthrow” the U.S. Government, and he posted photos posted photos of weapons and the ISIS flag.  (As an aside, there are numerous individuals writing such messages and photos on Facebook, including one R.E.A.L. has previously reported on, who was working in support of the FBI and George Washington University.)  According the complaint, Robert Hester “engaged online” with FBI UC agents, “identified categories of potential targets for attack,” and the FBI UC offered Robert Hester an opportunity for “an in-person meeting with a like-minded ‘brother’.”  Robert Hester also had a record of violence, having thrown a knife through a store window during an argument with his wife; he was arrested on a felony charge when it was found he had a handgun in a diaper bag he was carrying.  The FBI UC agent stated that he represented ISIS and sought to engage Robert Hester in a plot in “an attack” that FBI UC agent was planning. After months of discussions about the plot including use of an online encrypted application, the FBI reports in the complaint that Hester “indicated through his statements and actions that he was ready and willing to participate and assist in the ‘plot.'”  In recruiting Hester for the “plot,” the FBI displayed guns, and pipes (which they claimed would be made into bombs).

In December 2016, as the “plot” was becoming closer to the date of attack, the FBI UC agent pulled out a knife on Robert Hester and threatened to attack Hester and Hester’s family with it if Hester decided to pursue violence on his own, stating he “knew where Hester and his family lived, among other forceful words.”

To complete the “plot,” in February 2017, the FBI gave Hester $20 to purchase 9-volt batteries, duct tape, copper wire, roofing nails, for “the bomb.” Hester purchased most of the products at the hardware store in Missouri, apologized that he could not buy copper wire with the $20, and he was arrested.  He remains in prison today, awaiting trial, which was supposed to start in August 2018.  R.E.A.L. has zero sympathy for Robert Hester’s online threats, remarks, and his actions with the FBI posing as ISIS, but it would be dishonest to fail to recognize the volume of such threats routinely appearing on social media and in the public. (Less than a month before Hester’s arrest, a famous entertainment figure was a headliner in a Washington DC protest march publicly stated, “I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House” to the public cheers of thousands.)  We cannot normalize Hester’s remarks about seeking “overthrow” of the U.S., his alleged willingness to act on violence, or equate sympathy with ISIS, to other political anger, but we must be measured in assessing the reality of FBI-concocted plots as well.

As Robert Hester made such hateful threats online and in texts, one could hardly consider it entrapment of ideas, as these were ideas that he shared with FBI UC agents.  But what he actually did was buy some products that anyone could buy; that was literally the extent of his “material support” for ISIS.  This was done after being threatened (as documented in the complaint) by an FBI UC agent drawing a knife on him with the FBI threatening violence or worse, stating he “knew where Hester and his family lived, among other forceful words.”  It may not be considered “coercion,” but when an FBI agent is allowed to pull out a knife and threaten a suspect and his family, while it is trying to incriminate him in a case, what exactly should we consider this to be?  What were the “other forceful words” by the FBI to the suspect at knifepoint, not documented in the complaint?  If this type of behavior, threatening a suspect and suspect’s family at knifepoint is “normalized,” then what is next?  This case needs close attention and scrutiny.

R.E.A.L. finds it troubling to report on such cases, as our history is in challenging the extremist ideologies that drive terrorists to threaten society and human rights.  But it would be dishonest in assessing the facts of some cases to ignore that there have been troubling cases that need the FBI to use “law enforcement” values and standards.

These two examples are not intended in any way to question the many legitimate, fact-based cases of terrorist threats that America has seen over the years.  But there are cases that require further consistency and credibility, based on law enforcement recognition of whether a suspect is a genuine threat; there are cases where the public and the justice system must have concern to ensure the suspect has not been enticed or coerced by undercover intelligence agents to entrap themselves.  When the FBI disrupts its own terror plots with these suspects, there must be a compelling law enforcement record that the case was one of undercover operations, and not entrapment. The threat of allowing entrapment to become normalized, simply because society holds the suspects in contempt, is a larger threat to America — particularly when the FBI choses to remove “law enforcement” from its public mission statement.  Those who support endless entrapment tactics won’t stop here.

We see an FBI that is willing to remove “law enforcement” from its public mission, but which uses such law enforcement authority to justify sting operations – not simply to gain intelligence, but also to concoct terror threats, engage individuals in them, and to arrest them – with too little distinction between anger of troubled individuals versus actual capability to represent a threat.  For its counterterror mission with law enforcement authority, the FBI must carefully distinguish between legitimate and credible terror threats versus random individuals without the capacity to conduct harm.  If the law states that everyone who makes a threat against the state or engages in violent fantasies is a criminal threat, Americans will need to build thousands of new jails to house the millions of those who must be arrested.  A law enforcement authority is also a law enforcement responsibility to consistently recognize actual criminal threats.

To those who will dismiss abuse of concocted FBI terror plots regarding troubled individuals, too many which as a “necessary evil” for those troubled individuals (as well as genuine threats) who associate themselves with Muslims, what happens if we change that model?  What if the FBI develops a vigorous campaign to concoct terror plots for those angry with the U.S. Government for any reason?  What if the FBI develops a vigorous campaign to concoct terror plots for those angry with the current U.S. President, especially given the many thousands (millions?) of death threats made against the U.S. President on a regular basis?  Madonna publicly threatens to “blow up the White House” to the cheers of millions, while a teenager with cognitive challenges at the level of mental retardation makes threats online and winds up in prison.

When the model changes from rounding up dozens of Muslims to targeting dozens of other groups, for example dozens of people of color, Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans,  etc., with concocted terror plots – will this preventive approach still seem credible for organization under a DOJ responsible to equally “enforce the law”?

While according to the U.S. Supreme Court, it may not be law enforcement’s duty “to incite to and create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it,” from an intelligence agency’s perspective, such maneuvers could continue to support a “narrative” to promote intelligence agency objectives.  This is a fundamentally different view of the world than one that respects “equality under the law.”  It once again shows there is an imperative for the FBI to retain “law enforcement” as part of its mission and values, as long as it retains the authority to make arrests.

Former FBI Assistant Director and Special Agent Thomas Fuentes (with 29 years of service) was interviewed about practices regarding terrorism and FBI budgetary requirements, stating: “If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that ‘We won the war on terror and everything’s great,’ cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half. You know, it’s my opposite of Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’—it’s ‘Keep Fear Alive.’ Keep it alive.”

A law enforcement agency is not in the business of keeping “fear alive.” 

13. Contradictions in Integrity and Public Safety with an FBI Based on Intelligence Values without Law Enforcement Controls.

The challenges to American society of having a combined law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency, such as the FBI, remains that law enforcement values, standards, expectations, controls on the law, public safety, and integrity remain at risk.

The American people may have granted authority to the FBI for law enforcement investigations and actions and intelligence investigations, but this is not granting a “carte blanche” authority for the FBI to do literally whatever it wants.

The “ends justify the means” values of intelligence operations can lead to illegal, extralegal, and questionable ethical practices, when FBI agents (with law enforcement authority) can act to threaten the law and public safety, without a law enforcement oversight. As we have now seen, the FBI has literally removed the term “law enforcement” from its public mission statement. But what are the other impacts to society of allowing a lack of control over domestic intelligence operations, or allow law enforcement functions to increasingly accept an intelligence-based “ends justify the means” value set?

The following are some documented examples of recent challenges, which represent a broader institutional problem for the FBI – and for the democracy of the American people.  This is not intended to be comprehensive, but merely selected examples of diverse issues, and it is also not intended to ignore the many achievements by the FBI.  But to solve a problem, we must first understand it.

13(a) FBI Incitement and Failure to Act in Garland, Texas Terrorist Attack.

In addition to the FBI’s primary law enforcement responsibilities (which it has now removed from its public mission statement),  the post 9/11 vision of IRTPA Title II , was intended to give intelligence roles to the FBI to support a “preventive counterterrorism posture.”  “Preventing” terrorism does not equate to creating plots that do not exist with troubled individuals that are not capable or likely to act. “Preventing” terrorism also means not inciting individuals to commit acts of terrorism, and then sitting back and watching while such terrorists act against the American people.

“Prevent” means to “stop something from happening.” Even with different ethos and values, professionals in law enforcement and intelligence share the same English language dictionary.  But in the FBI’s conflated intelligence and law enforcement mission in counterterror operations, the immediate safety of the American people must be the FBI’s priority.  This demonstrates why removing “law enforcement” from the FBI mission statement is such a serious issue.

On May 3, 2015, ISIS-supporting terrorists Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked the Curtis Culwell Center by gunfire, encouraged by the FBI to “tear up Texas,” while an FBI Undercover Agent was following them in an automobile and taking photographs of them during the terrorist attack.  CBS News reported comments from fired FBI Director James Comey that the FBI did try to give some “notice” of the attack, but this is inconsistent with FBI Agent’s testimony in March 2016, and additional later testimony in March 2018 on another related trial.  CBS News reported in November 2016 what former FBI Director Comey told them: “FBI Director James Comey said Garland was sent a bulletin three hours before the attack warning that someone could be on their way.”  (Senator Grassley later sought to obtain information from former FBI Director Comey on this case.)

But as we later learned through other court actions, the FBI Agent had been in active discussions with terrorist Elton Simpson, and had known since April 24, 2015 that Simpson was seeking violence, and specifically knew about Simpson’s campaigns against the event at the Curtis Culwell Center. Yet the FBI did not make an effort to prevent this ISIS-claimed terror attack, even as the FBI Agent followed right behind the terrorists in his car. This position is a challenge to the FBI’s commitment to law enforcement, and it dramatically demonstrates how “the ends justify the means” values are incompatible with law enforcement values.

The two terrorists were wearing body armor and equipped with three rifles, three handguns, and 1,500 rounds of ammunition in their vehicle as they pulled up to a roadblock outside of the Curtis Culwell Center and began firing at police and security guards, who had the security measures in place regarding a controversial exhibit in the center.  Garland ISD security officer Bruce Joiner was wounded by the terrorists. Officer Gregory Stevens of the Garland Police Department wounded the terrorists, who were killed by police SWAT team member called to the scene.  Terrorist Elton Simpson posted a hate message on Twitter social media moments before the attack calling themselves “mujahedeen.” Both terrorists Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi died in the shoot-out.  The FBI had been investigating Elton Simpson for nine years since 2006, prior to the Garland, Texas attack.  In 2010, Elton Simpson was arrested on “false statement regarding terrorism,” days before planned travel to Somalia, and was sentenced to three years’ probation and a $600 fine in August 2011 by U.S. District Court Judge Mary Murguia.

The anonymous FBI UC Agent was originally arrested by Garland police after the Garland, Texas terror attack as he took photographs of it, but after he was learned that he was an FBI Agent he was released “at another location.” The injured security guard in the attack, Bruce Joiner, reported what he saw to CBS News: “‘He was detained and put in the back of a squad car,’ said Joiner… ‘I think they allowed it to go too far.’ ”

After the Garland attack, the FBI largely remained silent on its role in inciting or watching the Garland terror attack unfold without meaningful warning.

Additional information would come, indirectly, out of other criminal complaints and FBI testimony regarding another suspected plotter linked to terrorist Elton Simpson, a man from Charlotte, North Carolina, named Erick Jamal Hendricks, who was arrested and has been under trial for conspiracy to aid ISIS.  This would come from other court documents in August 2016 and March 2018, where the FBI had to testify against Hendricks, and in the process had to describe the FBI’s relationship with the Garland terrorist Elton Simpson before the attack.

On August 3, 2016, FBI Special Agent Shawn Scott Hare testified in court, on Case 1:16-mj-02128-KSM, about the role of this anonymous FBI UC Agent, who incited the Garland terrorists, and then later was on the scene during the terror attack, taking photographs.  Key testimony on FBI’s knowledge prior to the Garland attack is on page 28, item 68 of the court record. On April 24, 2015, the FBI UC Agent (called “UCE-1” in testimony), who remains unaccountable for his role, had texted terrorist Simpson (named “juba1911”) just weeks before with the message, “Tear up Texas.” Furthermore, this same FBI UC Agent knew that terrorist Simpson was planning something about the Garland center specifically, and his response to the FBI Agent’s incitement was “U know what happened in Paris…,” to which the FBI Agent replied “Right,” and terrorist Simpson wrote “So that goes without saying.. no need to be direct” (referring to the January 7, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine – a few months before this conversation).

While the injured security guard Bruce Joiner sought to file a lawsuit against the FBI for failing to prevent the terror attack, the case has virtually disappeared from discussion – until a little followed terror trial in Akron, Ohio in March 2018.

On March 9, 2018, the FBI UC Agent (referenced as “UCE-1” in the earlier August 2016 testimony) involved with the Garland terror attack, testified in private court setting with his identity disguised, regarding associated terror suspect Erick Jamal Hendricks.  The anonymous FBI UC Agent appeared in an Akron, Ohio court testifying under the pseudonym “Steven Jane.”  He stated that his role in Garland was to improve his relationship with another terror suspect Erick Jamal Hendricks.  This FBI agent also admitted, in his March 2018 court testimony, to following the two terrorists in his car as they went to the Curtis Culwell Center, and doing nothing to stop their attack.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s report of this court testimony: “An undercover FBI agent who testified Friday against a terrorism suspect on trial in Akron said he was driving behind a car in a city outside Dallas when two men got out of the car and opened fire in an Islamic State-inspired attack in May 2015…. Hendricks also had Jane [the anonymous FBI UC Agent] reach out to Simpson, a little more than a week before the attack in Garland, the agent said.

The FBI UC Agent testified that he knew nothing about the planned attacks, as he followed the armed terrorists and took photos of them. However, in the same Akron March 2018 testimony, the FBI Agent also stated that he reached out to one of the terrorists less than a week before the attack, and asked the FBI Agent if he was aware of the Garland conference, stating that many had been on social media referring to themselves as wanting to be a “muhajed” or to “die for their faith” to stop the event (in fact that is exactly what terrorist Simpson called themselves, “mujahedeen,” in last Twitter message during the Garland attack). But FBI UC Agent still claimed to be “surprised” about the attack.  Remember this is the SAME FBI UC Agent, who according to FBI testimony in August 2016, urged terrorist Simpson to “Tear up Texas,” and who was told “U know what happened in Paris…”.  The challenge of “lack of candor” is a broader institutional problem which goes beyond the former Acting FBI Director McCabe, and when intelligence “ends justify the means” values become increasingly adopted by the FBI, such lack of candor can present a threat to American public safety.

The Daily Beast reported on the August 2016 testimony of the FBI’s involvement in the Garland terror attacks.   It reported its communications with the DOJ and FBI: “Press officers for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, the Cleveland FBI Office, and the Department of Justice declined to comment beyond the affidavit. FBI spokesperson Carol Cratty hung up on The Daily Beast after being asked about the ‘tear up Texas’ text.”  (Ms. Carol Cratty remains the FBI spokesperson.)

The injured security guard Bruce Joiner sought to file a lawsuit against the FBI for failing to prevent the terror attack.  Bruce Joiner stated: “I don’t know of any undercover agent that can allow their fellow officers and citizens to be fired upon in the course of an investigation you have to stop that before that happens.”

Who in law enforcement would find their natural reaction in witnessing an attack by terrorists on fellow members of law enforcement to either take photographs or flee?  This answer is obvious and simple:  NO ONE in law enforcement.

This is the core institutional problem for the FBI.  When FBI Agents are arrested for appearing to be collaborating with terrorists at the scene of a terror attack, this is not an individual problem, but an institutional issue of an organization that has lost its law enforcement priorities.  This example is truly all we need to see to demand that the FBI restore law enforcement to its public mission statement.

13(b) FBI Agent Shoots Member of Public and Ignores the Victim.

To those who respect the law, if you accidentally shot and  injured someone, wouldn’t you make sure to assist the victim?  Wouldn’t your normal and natural response be to go to the victim, and see what you could do?  But some believe different standards of law and social morality apply to FBI agents. On June 1, 2018, Washington Field Office FBI Agent Chase Bishop decided to go a Denver bar and nightclub, while wearing his gun, and his gun weapon fell from his waistband while he was performing a backflip on the bar’s dance floor, resulting in a bystander, Thomas Reddington, being SHOT.

Over 10 days later, FBI Agent Bishop was charged with second-degree assault on June 12, 2018 for the shooting incident.  On July 10, 2018, Colorado Judge Frances Simonet gave approval to Agent Bishop to carry his gun again, which apparently was the FBI management’s primary concern in this case. FBI Agent Bishop was ordered by a judge to stay at least 100 yards from Thomas Reddington at all times.

But on June 1, FBI Agent Bishop appeared completely unconcerned by what had happened and the victim, and walked off after discharging his firearm into a crowded bar. He was questioned after the shooting, not arrested, but released to his supervisor. Thomas Reddington, the man shot, was that he was confused as to what happened. Mr. Reddington was seated at a table when he was shot by the FBI Agent. Mr. Reddington stated to ABC, “Then I looked down at my leg and see some brown residue … I’m still thinking it’s a firework … all of a sudden from the knee down my leg became completely red. And that’s when it clicked in my head, ‘Oh, I’ve been shot.'” The bullet hit Reddington in his outer left leg just below the knee and exited his inner leg. Mr. Reddingon stated: “I like stand up and like start walking in a little circle saying, ‘Hey, I think I’ve been shot. Can someone call 911? I blacked back in on the ground. Blacked back out. And then I woke up to a paramedic putting a tourniquet on my leg.” Mr. Reddington stated that he lost a lot of blood, saying “I soaked through several blankets, several towels, a few gauze pads.” The shot man says “I just want to heal…I just want to be able to walk.” Meantime, the FBI management’s public concern has seemed to be making sure that FBI Agent Bishop gets his gun back.

Who in Law Enforcement ignores someone that you SHOOT, deliberately or not, without determining their medical condition?  Who does that?

Law enforcement values and standards go along with the badge and the gun. If the FBI continues its decision to remove law enforcement from its mission statement, then America needs to reassess the law enforcement tools that it gives to the FBI. It is “our” gun, it is “our” badge, that we give to the FBI, to enforce the law on the public’s behalf. No one, including the FBI, is above the law. A law enforcement organization would understand that.  But the FBI has chosen to remove “law enforcement” from its public mission statement.

13(c) FBI Informant Provides Extremists Automatic Weapons Training During of Takeover of Government Facility.

On January 2, 2016, a group of criminal extremists took over a U.S. Government facility at gunpoint at the Malheur National Wildlife Facility in Oregon suburb of Burns, Oregon.  The extremists, closely associated with the Sovereign Citizens Extremist (SCE) ideology, held the Malheur facility at gunpoint for 41 days, while the extremists surrounded area courthouse facilities, traveled with automatic weapons throughout Oregon and Utah to gain additional supporters and to appear on radio and television, and terrorized the general area with impunity.  For  a month, federal law enforcement was unwilling to act to stop this armed takeover.  This stalemate was only broken when the extremists were moving for further support of local law enforcement and public in John Day, Oregon.  Oregon State Police and FBI confronted the armed convoy, and some of the extremists were arrested.  Other extremists remained until they were arrested in the occupied facility into February.  In Oregon court proceedings against the extremists, however, the U.S. Government’s incompetence in court proceedings resulted in acquittal of the extremist leaders of all charges.

But in a follow-up court hearing, a more remarkable fact was learned under cross-examination of the U.S. Government’s witness FBI Special Agent (SA) Ronnie Walker; the FBI had 15 informants engaged with the extremists in the Malheur takeover, and FBI informants “were authorized to carry weapons and to engage in CRIMINAL conduct.”  FBI SA Walker clarified that among one FBI informant was training the extremists in combat and weapons.  FBI informant, Fabio Minnogio – who went by the alias John Killman, was training the extremists in both “hand to hand combat” and firearms training.  While a U.S. Government facility was under armed takeover, the FBI had this FBI informant “oversee the shooting range” and “proficient use of a firearm.”  Retired FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Greg Bretzing was not aware in court as to who authorized FBI informants to break the law.  The Oregonian interviewed this FBI informant who confirmed that he was at the extremists shooting range on January 25, 2016, and after seeing how poorly the extremists could shoot, he gave them training.

This raises a challenge in FBI’s conflation of intelligence and law enforcement tactics.  When challenged, the FBI uses Attorney General Guidelines to justify such “authorizing” of FBI informants to “break the law.”  But, as previously stated, the American public and its legislative representatives need to challenge the weak legal justification that is documented in the Attorney General Guidelines for this.  The reality is that if the FBI wants such power to authorize criminal behavior, it needs to get this authority from the American people, not develop internal guidelines self-empowering itself, based on vague interpretations of existing laws.  Certainly this is NOT part of the FBI powers under 18 U.S. Code §3052.

Further under the existing “guidelines” which the FBI seeks to cite, how was this extremist weapons training support justified?  According to the current Attorney General Guidelines, in Section V “Authorized Methods,” subsection C. “Otherwise Criminal Activity,” item 4, page 34, among those “activities [that] may not be authorized” to informants include “acts of violence.” What exactly is training extremists, who have taken over a U.S. Government facility, to use automatic weapons considered?

If there are FBI informants being authorized to break the law, carry weapons, and train extremists, during the armed takeover of a U.S. Government facility, and the FBI SAC does not know who gave such authorization, then who does know?  An institutional disregard for “breaking the law” does not represent the values of a law enforcement organization. The “ends justify the means” is not a legal use of law enforcement authority, especially when it involves training extremists with weapons.

13(d) FBI Operation of Child Pornography Website.

When the FBI was first created as the Bureau of Investigation (BOI), its first role was the protection of children, young girls, and women forced into prostitution or facing human trafficking, in its investigations under the Mann Act. On a regular basis, child advocacy and human rights activists turn to FBI agents on human trafficking and interstate child abuse issues. Over a century, the American public has an expectation of the FBI involved in federal criminal activities to exercise law enforcement values to protect children and others at risk.

In January 2017, the Dallas Morning News reported (along with other media) on an FBI “Operation Pacifier,” which involved the FBI seizing and operating a child pornography website, “Playpen,” for weeks in February and March 2015. Instead of shutting the child pornography website down, the FBI continued to operate an identical copy of the Playpen child pornography website, including distribution of the child pornography housed on the website, through a Government controlled server, located in Newington, Virginia.  The intent of the FBI was to get more information on the users, using a “sting” operation to stop such child predators.  It used a form of malware, which is called a “Network Investigative Technique” or “NIT,” to infect the computers of those logging into the child porn website to gain information about their Internet Protocol (IP) location to obtain evidence for further arrests; the FBI NIT malware reportedly infected over 8,000 computers in 120 countries.

As you can see in the attached link,  U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (in Case No. 1:1-SW-89), issued a search warrant to the FBI on February 20, 2015 to use such NIT malware on this child pornography server to collect information on those accessing it. While there has been debate over whether in this case, the FBI exceeded its search warrant physical location authority under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, Rule 41 has since been changed in December 2016 to allow a single judge to issue a search warrant for suspects living anywhere.  Among some, there was an ethical debate over whether the FBI’s widespread distribution of child pornography “enabled the very harms it was trying to stop” or whether such an operation ended up eventually in finding information to stop such criminal behavior and protecting children.  As reported by the Seattle Times, U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan concluded in a November 30, 2016 court ruling that it was “easy to conclude that the government acted outrageously here” and that the “only justification for the acts of the government… is that the ends justify the means.” Of course, the American public rightfully condemns the practice of child pornography, its possession, and its distribution, which are federal crimes.

But the issue that R.E.A.L. is addressing in this article is one of law enforcement. The FBI states authority for this investigation’s operations under  18 U.S.C. § 2252A “Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography” in the February 2015 warrant, and also under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 -“Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.”

But neither of these laws, nor the judge’s warrant, give the FBI the legal right to operate the child pornography website.  The judge’s warrant gave the FBI the right to distribute the NIT malware, but did NOT provide a warrant with a stated legal right to actually operate the child pornography website.  This is not simply a “fine point;” this is an essential point in law enforcement.  The FBI implied that it had this authority from the warrant, and FBI felt no need to give legal basis for actually operating the child pornography web site.  But the American people simply have NOT granted the FBI the power to operate child pornography web sites; that is not what the powers under the law describe as the FBI’s operational authority.

This case is important to consider, because we face a challenge of an FBI granting itself powers or implied rights that it feels are necessary which no one questions under the law. The FBI’s investigation and intelligence authorities simply authorize themselves “powers” to “break the law,” whenever it seems necessary, with the minimum of legal argument “coverage” to justify such new “powers.”  But that is not what the laws and the FBI’s legal powers actually state.  The United States government did not create the FBI as a self-governing organization to invent new powers and authorities as it goes along, with legal fig-leafs for a slightest semblance of credibility. That is not respect for the Law.  How can we have a law enforcement body which does not respect and regularly ignores the law itself?  If the FBI needs new powers, that is for the U.S. Congress representing the American people to decide, not the FBI to decide on its own.

The idea of “normalizing” law enforcement agencies to continually perform more and more outrageous federal crimes, when the “ends justify the means,” must give the American people pause. The other issue raised by increasingly “normalizing” criminal behavior by law enforcement, especially for an agency adopting “the ends justify the means” ethos, is that it can result in the commission of more serious crimes, such as distribution of child pornography, to respond to the less legally serious crime of possessing child pornography. Is it similarly reasonable for the FBI or DEA to become an actual heroin dealer for weeks so that it can arrest many individuals possessing heroin as an illegal drug?  Where does this end?  Should the FBI operate a murder-for-hire organization to arrest assassins after they murder members of the public?  At what point are those committed to law enforcement going to speak up and say ENOUGH?

As the FBI continues to migrate away from actual law enforcement values, the line between law enforcement and criminal becomes increasingly obscure. This is not the direction that the FBI, which was the U.S. primary federal law enforcement agency, can take, without seeking legal guidance on its powers from the people that it represents.

The idea of “sting” operations with undercover police selling vehicles, contraband, even drugs, have become common, as methods to gain arrests. We see more and more FBI-created “terror” plots becoming the “new normal” for a large percent of terror arrests. But at what point does the American public ask whether less harmful alternatives exist, and why they are not considered? In this case, there has been the normalization of the FBI operating a child pornography website.  Where is the FBI’s legal law enforcement authority to do this?  And if it becomes normalized, then what other federal crimes can the FBI engage in next?  When will the American people ask if “the ends justify the means” values undermines the credibility of law enforcement itself?

13(e) Reckless Lack of Concern for Public Safety in Crowded Areas while Investigating Terrorist Threats.

Both in law enforcement and in preventive counterterror intelligence, public safety should be a priority in respecting the LAW. In law enforcement, we cannot ignore the basic public interest imperative of public safety. In law enforcement, the public interest imperative is to enforce the law expeditiously – not only to ensure public respect for the law, but also to ensure public safety and protection of human rights from those breaking the law. While some with intelligence-based thinking may believe there is an intelligence interest in gathering more information about those breaking the law, public safety is a greater priority for a law enforcement organization. There is a real difference between collecting more evidence to make a stronger case on a suspect, and endangering the public to a suspected threat, when it comes to someone who may represent a threat to public safety.

In traffic law, when someone is driving recklessly and drives through red lights and nearly hits oncoming traffic or pedestrians, law enforcement does not simply watch and wait to see how “far” the reckless driver will go in endangering the public. They stop the reckless driver and keep them from further public threats. They don’t follow the reckless driver for many miles and miles, noting every threat to public safety, as the reckless behavior continues to endanger the public. We would be shocked and horrified if this was common practice in law enforcement. But with other threats to public safety, we have been led to believe such practices are “normal” and “necessary.”

Over the past 17 years, too many FBI counterterror agents with law enforcement authority have come to believe that the opposite of such basic public safety practices should be followed. Based on the largely outdated concept of complex international terrorist cells, we have seen in too many cases that FBI will look at radicalized individual threats and decide they should be “watched” for an extended period in hopes of gathering more suspects.  We have FBI agents watching and taking photographs of terrorists, such as at the Garland, Texas attack, while terrorists prepare to shoot other law enforcement agents, and doing nothing to stop such attacks.  This is not law enforcement.

This approach has resulted in the infamous term “known wolves,” where increasingly lone radicalized terror figures are found to be “known” to the FBI, after they have committed an attack. There are doubtless cases where additional evidence is needed and information on links among individuals also posing a threat is needed. But the FBI cannot fail to act in protecting the public.

The FBI is NOT the “CIA.” With law enforcement authority, as part of the DOJ, the FBI has law enforcement responsibilities in keeping the American public safe as its top priority.  If the FBI no longer believes it should be held responsible for law enforcement, then it needs to surrender its law enforcement badges and guns – not just remove the term “law enforcement” in its mission statement.

But an FBI “intelligence-driven” culture seeks an ever increasing network of “informants” and figures for “intelligence,” whether or not such intelligence sources share a commitment to equality under the law and public safety or not.  Intelligence operations seek to gather more information on topics that they consider relevant to their campaigns, based on understood “narratives.”  Law enforcement operations consider enforcing the law to preserve public safety as a paramount importance.  The increasing use of intelligence tactics at the FBI has led to ignoring clear public safety threats, which would be part of law enforcement concerns.

(i) Taliban Activist Working with FBI

While American men and women, loved ones, parents, and children of the American taxpaying public have courageously volunteered to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, risking their lives and bodies to fight the Taliban terrorist group, since October 2001. There have been over 2,400 Americans killed in Afghanistan thus far – at least 92% of the number of the American citizens killed in 9/11 terrorist attacks.  This does not begin to measure the many thousands killed by the Taliban terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In 2016, the Taliban terror group in Afghanistan claimed to be behind the terrorist murder of 17,500 in Afghanistan  in 2016 alone. If these figures were true, this would be the equivalent to SIX (6) 9/11 terrorist attacks across America.  The Afghanistan Taliban have also worked to promote terrorism attacks, along with the Pakistan Taliban, in Pakistan.  In one case alone, 148 children were massacred in a Taliban terror attack in December 2014 in Peshawar, Pakistan — 148 CHILDREN.

At the time of that terrorist MASS-MURDER of children, the FBI was using American taxpayer dollars to PAY a Taliban terror activist supporter in the U.S. to be a “Confidential Human Source” (CHS) informant.  This paid FBI informant, Seddique Mateen, was promoting Taliban terror attacks in the U.S., while working for the FBI, and he had been seeking to raise funds for another Taliban ” attack against the government of Pakistan,” when the FBI finally stopped using him as an informant. But why did the FBI stop using this Taliban terror activist as a paid informant? Because his SON committed the June 12, 2016 Orlando terrorist attack murdering 49 and injuring 53. But while the FBI promised “full transparency” on investigating this Orlando terror attack, it seemed to never seem important to mention that the terrorist’s father, a Taliban terror activist, had actually been working as a paid informant for the FBI.

This was uncovered in court on March 25, 2018, when it was revealed that Taliban terror group promoter, Seddique Mateen, had been working as a “confidential human source” (CHS) for the FBI from January 2005 through June 2016 (ending after the Orlando Pulse terror attack).  Seddique Mateen had been regularly and publicly advocating for the Afghanistan Taliban, including at U.S. Government facilities, and hosted a television show, Durand Jirga Show, on the behalf of the Taliban – all while this Taliban terror group has been a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organization, in accordance with Executive Order 13224, 31 CFR 594.310, and whose property is blocked in accordance with 31 CFR 594.201.  But to the FBI, Seddique Mateen was considered a reliable FBI CHS informant, all the while he was actively promoting a terror group that was killing Americans in Afghanistan.  This “FBI informant” was also reportedly raising funds to promote a terrorist attack on Pakistan, while he was supporting the FBI.  Public safety of Americans actively being killed by the Taliban was the last concern of FBI in intelligence operations with Seddique Mateen.

At a minimum, the American people must DEMAND that the FBI stop paying Taliban terrorist activists in the United States of America. It must be unconscionable and obscene to all those who respect law enforcement, the law, and public safety to allow such activities as the FBI’s funding of Afghanistan Taliban supporter Seddique Mateen to continue. We must call upon the Office of the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress to demand oversight into FBI activities, so that promoters of terrorism are no longer funded by the American people. We must reject Wrong as Wrong.

The American people must DEMAND that the FBI has no more “Seddique Mateen” figures being paid by the U.S. taxpayers as FBI informants, while they actively promote and raise funds for terrorist attack. R.E.A.L. urges the American people to sign a petition calling for an END to FBI funding of individuals who are active terrorist supporters and plotters, in the Taliban, or other terror groups.

https://www.change.org/p/federal-bureau-of-investigation-end-fbi-funding-of-terrorists-and-terror-supporters

Let us be clear to those in the FBI. The American people’s representative government must not be in the business of funding terrorism and terrorist activism. This is unacceptable to a nation that respects law enforcement and equality under the law. We also call for the U.S. Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Office of the President of the United States of America, to create a new form of independent oversight over FBI funding and assistance to those promoting and supporting terrorism. The American people must call an end to a practice that, at its heart, shows nothing less than contempt for the very laws we share.

This must UNACCEPTABLE to those who believe in Equality Under the Law.

(ii) FBI Sought Recruitment of Orlando ISIS Terrorist as Trusted Source – killed 49 – planned to Attack Disney World

The FBI “intelligence-driven” approach to fighting terrorism results in both rejecting law enforcement values with an “ends justify the means” approach to developing a network of “confidential human source” (CHS) informants. In Orlando, Florida, the American people discovered in March 2018, that this approach included planning to pursue ISIS terrorist Omar Mateen as an FBI informant, before Omar Mateen launched a terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, killing 49 and injuring 53.

The potential FBI informant was also planning a terrorist attack on Disney World in Orlando, which would have resulted in catastrophic deaths of American children and adults. As was stated in court in March 2018, “The target of the attack was Disney.”  Despite reported warnings about Omar Mateen, reported public comments sympathetic to terrorists, and reports of him listening to recordings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the FBI found no “connections” to organized terror (while his father was actively promoting the Taliban). Since Mateen got married and a job, the FBI felt that Mateen was now trustworthy, but even Disney warned them about Mateen. When asked after the Orlando mass murder terror attack if there was something different the FBI could have done, former FBI Director Comey replied “I don’t think so.” This was of course, in 2016, well before the secret was revealed that the FBI planned to use this terrorist as an FBI CHS informantPublic safety of Americans was the least concern of FBI intelligence operations, as it sought a new “informant” for intelligence campaigns, ignoring warnings and reports of terror threat from those who knew him and even by Disney.

(iii) FBI Ignores Confession of Violent Individual Warning of Attack – Until He Attacks Ft. Lauderdale Airport for ISIS

With law enforcement and equality under the laws values, a potential criminal threat or threat to public safety does not have to fit a certain “profile,” “model,” or “narrative.” Sadly, we see law breaking behavior of individuals from every age, gender, and identity group. Those who have had to see numbers of criminal arrest records know this truth. If we believe in equality under the law, we must also accept the truth that those who will break the law may come from any and every background. Those who spend many years in law enforcement will tell you that there is no “short-cut” and no “substitute” for the FACTS, especially in a democratic republic committed to equality under the law. Law enforcement values on equality cannot accept “not invented here” preconceptions about threats, when they ignore facts. With a constant demand for “action,” misplaced confidence in expedited alternatives from law enforcement perspectives can result in ignoring key facts that are essential in a law enforcement and public safety mission. Abandoning law enforcement in the FBI’s public mission statement or values can have a direct impact on public safety, even on the perceived goal of “preventing” terror.

A law enforcement-based, “just the facts,” approach may seem antiquated and naive to intelligence masters, who can be guided by advanced and nuanced “threat analyses,” identifying most probable areas of threats. In an “intelligence-driven” FBI, such law enforcement values and focus on “equal law/equal threats” is diminished to “likely” or “model” terror criminals. With an “intelligence-driven” outlook, extremist threats to the law and public safety can be dismissed by those focused on a specific profile or narrative, rather than the actual facts. To those supporting such an “intelligence-driven” philosophy, they believe they can grasp the “big picture” of “threat profiles” better.

Confirmation bias can damage the perception of new facts or information on threats to the law and public safety. The tighter the grip on intelligence-based dependencies and paid informants, the more that can slip through the FBI’s fingers in terms of individual threats to public safety and law enforcement. An intelligence operation can create its own blind spots, where facts and information that does not conform to a “narrative” are disregarded as “outliers,” and thousands of informants end up giving you information to confirm your own biases, because that is what you are asking them to provide. An “intelligence-driven” set of values actually creates a set of blinders on facts and threats, when they don’t mesh with preconceived standard on threats, especially terror criminal threats.

This is not simply theory. America has seen this problem repeatedly in diverse areas, including the modern priority of the “intelligence-driven” FBI in terror prevention.

Esteban Santiago-Ruiz, a Puerto-Rican born American citizen, didn’t fit many of the “profiles” of a terror threat. After serving in the Iraq war, this troubled young man remained haunted by seeing a bomb explode near two of his friends during the war, and he was discharged in August 2016 for “unsatisfactory performance. Puerto Rico police had investigated his behavior over reports of odd behavior and at one point had confiscated his guns, which were returned in 2014. Santiago-Ruiz also had been arrested for domestic violence, including attempting to strangle his former wife.

But on November 7, 2016, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz visited the FBI. Santiago-Ruiz told the FBI that he felt compelled to watch ISIS terrorist videos, that he was hearing voices in his head telling him to commit acts of violence, and he felt that he was becoming brainwashed into becoming a terrorist. However, Santiago-Ruiz was not a “model” of a terror threat, he was urged to get mental health treatment, and for a short time the local police held his weapon and then returned it to him on December 8, 2016, AFTER “coordination with the FBI.” He was considered not to be a “danger” to the community.

Despite coming directly to the FBI and telling them that he was compelled to watch ISIS videos and driven to commit acts of violence, the FBI Special Agent in Charge Marlin Ritzman reported that, in the FBI’s investigation “we found no ties to terrorism.” FBI Special Agent Ritzman stated that the FBI conducted inter-agency checks and reviewed databases. But despite Santiago-Ruiz’s actually coming to the FBI and warning him that he was being driven to commit violence and watch ISIS terror videos, the “intelligence-driven” model required FBI investigators to ignore his own statements, and rely on investigatory “ties to terrorism” and information in databases. FBI SA Ritzman, who held various FBI positions, and was formerly an assistant legal attaché in Islamabad, Pakistan, was appointed as FBI SA by former FBI Director James Comey.

With as many as 14,000 FBI agents, the FBI did not view Esteban Santiago-Ruiz as worthy of a follow-up investigation, even when he directly came to the FBI and warned them that he was being compelled to commit acts of terrorist violence. These facts simply were not consistent with FBI’s intelligence and database information as a terrorist threat. There was no flag on him as a threat to airline travel or caution to alert other authorities about his self-report to the FBI that he was driven to terrorism.

Less than two months after he warned the FBI, and less than a month after his gun was returned to him after coordination with the FBI, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz acted on the warnings of violence that he had made. On January 6, 2017, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz packed a Walther 9mm handgun and two magazines of ammunition into baggage, got DHS TSA approval to carry the gun in the checked luggage, after he made them aware of it. Santiago-Ruiz boarded a flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, retrieved his baggage, loaded the handgun in a bathroom, and stepped out and started shooting and killing passengers at the Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport. He methodically and calmly shot and murdered individuals in the airport in his planned attack. Santiago-Ruiz had time to go carefully go through his first magazine of bullets in shooting the public, and had time to reload his gun with the second magazine of bullets to kill and wound innocent victims in the airport. He killed 5 and wounded 6, with another 30 or 40 injured during the panic of the attack.

At Esteban Santiago-Ruiz’s bond hearing on January 17, 2017, FBI Special Agent Michael Ferlazzo testified in court that Santiago-Ruiz said that he committed the attack on behalf of the ISIS terror movement, and claimed to be talking online to others seeking to commit attacks. Santiago-Ruiz was determined to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, but after taking medication, was viewed to be considered competent to stand trial. On May 23, 2018, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz pleaded guilty to five counts of committing acts of violence at an international airport causing death and six counts of committing acts of violence at an international airport causing serious bodily injury. He pleaded guilty in return for a life sentence instead of a death penalty sentence. Robert F. Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Miami field office stated that Santiago-Ruiz was “now being held accountable.”

What about the accountability of those who abandon a law enforcement mission, values, and standards?

FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) Marlin Ritzman, who was first aware of Santiago-Ruiz’s direct warnings of violence, is still a SAC with the FBI.  He is one of 56 SAC leading FBI Field Offices around the country.

(iv) FBI Watched DC Subway Police Officer for 6 Years Making Terroristic Threats and Going Overseas for Terror Training – While Hundreds of Thousands Endangered

In Washington DC metropolitan area, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) “Metro” subway system has 91 subway stations and 1,126 railcars, stretching across 117 miles.  On an average day, the Metro subway has had between 600,000 and 830,000 passengers, depending on any construction or upgrades. In the DC metropolitan area, outside of the White House, the Pentagon, and the Capitol Building, it is probably the highest profile security threat in the nation’s capital, and unquestionable a threat to the Metro would have the highest threat to human life and safety. It is a massive choke point for the nation’s capital public and certainly for the DC Capitol Region’s homeland security.  With multiple shifts required, there are an average of 2-3 Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) for each station to provide protection for these hundreds of thousands of passengers in the DC Capitol Region area, in this high profile, highly fluid, massive target to extremist terrorists.

One of these MTPD police officers at a station on the border to Maryland and the District of Columbia was a terrorist supporter.  Not only was he an active terrorist supporter, but he also went overseas to get terrorist training, he was active with a terrorist behind a plot to bomb the Capitol Building, he regularly practiced with his AK-47 automatic weapon, and he was an active supporter of ISIS.

For 6 years, FBI counterterror intelligence agents knew and did nothing.

Given the high threat risk area, WMATA passengers are routinely warned if you “See Something, Say Something,” which appears to matter unless you happen to be an FBI Special Agent who is actually employed to prevent such criminal terror threats. For approximately 2,000+ days, MTPD police officer and terrorist supporter Nicholas Young was allowed to pose such a threat to hundreds of thousands of DC area subway passengers, while our FBI simply watched, took notes, and conducted some interviews.

To those who have seen crowded WMATA subway platforms, the concept of allowing a terrorist-supporting member of the MTPD police, able to wander in the crowd as an official police officer, who was training at home with an AK-47, while talking with terrorists in DC area and the rest of the world – is basically one of the worst case scenarios for subway passenger safety.  But to FBI counterterror intelligence agents, it was a routine, no concern investigation, even when terror supporter Nicholas Young called for kidnapping, beheading, explosions, weapons training with terrorists, etc.; our FBI basically shrugged regarding the DC area public safety.

Most local DC area readers wouldn’t get all of these facts from the local media (certainly not the Washington Post), unless you actually got a copy of the criminal complaint and the testimony of FBI Special Agent David Martinez, filed with the court in United States of America vs. Nicholas Young (Case Number 1:16mj355, later Case No. 1:16-cr-265), and carefully read through its 20 pages.  After Nicholas Young’s arrest, Joshua Stueve, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, told the local news media that ISIS supporter Nicholas Young never posed a “direct threat” to the Metro subway, and felt that Young was being monitored.  Those who would nod their heads at such an outrageous comment clearly have never been on a crowded Metro subway at rush hour. In February 2018, Nicholas Young was sentenced to 15 years in prison, convicted of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and obstructing justice.

But without reading the criminal complaint, key parts of this story are totally lost.  Over its 6 year investigation, the FBI had numerous reasons and opportunities to arrest terror supporter Nicholas Young and ensure the public safety.  The point of the enhanced FBI intelligence powers under ITRPA Title II are specifically to prevent” terrorism. But when law enforcement values and culture are overtaken by an “intelligence-driven” vision in the FBI, the idea of continuing to allow Nicholas Young to stay in place, with KNOWN automatic weapons, with KNOWN terrorist links, with POLICE authority, in one most CROWDED areas of Washington DC, was simply “the ends justify the means.”

Totally disregarding the known actual terror associations and the actual documented threats of violence by Nicholas Young, the FBI intelligence tactics were to use an FBI CHS informant to concoct a fake “ISIS recruitment” by leveraging his support for the ISIS terror movement’s cause. In the course of this intelligence campaign, the FBI sought to see what other intelligence they could gain from Young about others that might fall into the fake “ISIS recruitment” effort.  When efforts to actually gain any more intelligence or recruit others into this “sting” of an actual violent extremist, the FBI CHS setup Young to purchase financial “gift cards” worth about $200 for ISIS to use to make telephone calls.  This was what, after six years of investigation and endangering the public, the FBI finally arrested Nicholas Young over – the financial “gift cards” that he purchased on what he believed was in support of ISIS, but as actually an FBI sting operation.

But the news media decided that the rest of the story of Nicholas Young wasn’t as interesting to report. From a law enforcement and public safety values perspective, however, the FBI investigation before the “ISIS sting” is the real story. As documented in the criminal complaint, Nicholas Young had been under investigation since 2010.  Young had an AK-47 out of his window looking to shoot law enforcement in 2011. In 2011, Young threatened to behead anyone who “betrayed” him and was looking to blow up automobiles. In 2011, Young sought to attack the FBI and smuggle guns into a courtroom. In 2011, Young sought to kidnap and torture an FBI special agent. In 2011, Young traveled with terrorists to Libya with arms, body armor, to overthrow the government there. In 2011, Young had been meeting with a terrorist Amine El Khalifi, and warned him how to avoid the police; Amine El Khalifi planned a January 2012 suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Capitol building, and was arrested. In 2012, Young sought to get revenge on those who warned the authorities about the U.S. Capitol suicide bomb plot. Throughout 2014, it is documented that Young repeatedly made plans to seek to join the ISIS terrorist movement, not just as a supporter, but to join their terror activities overseas. In 2015, Young praised terrorist attacks in France by ISIS. Not long after his messages of support for ISIS terror attacks, it is documented that Young took his AK-47 to join other MPD police officers to “train” and improve his shooting with his automatic weapon. In November 2015, Young praised the Paris terrorist attacks by ISIS and how the West deserved such death and violence.  The FBI intelligence operations only want to talk about the “gift cards” that they actually arrested Nicholas Young over in their ISIS “sting operation.” But during all of this time period, during all of Nicholas Young’s violent and dangerous behavior, and his plots to support terror acts and organizations…  while employed as a MTPD police officer – with the safety of hundreds of thousands of WMATA subway passengers every single DAY – the FBI did nothing.

Remember, this is the SAME FBI that swiftly arrested a cognitively handicapped Peyton Pruitt in Alabama, virtually at an IQ level of mental retardation, who couldn’t even tie his shoes — over some online messages.  But in the case of Nicholas Young, when FBI’s intelligence-driven operations believed that they could get more information out of a suspect, no matter how much of a risk he posed to public safety,  the “ends justify the means.”   That is NOT law enforcement.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives actually asked questions as to how the DC area Metro riders were protected during the 6 years of this investigation.  But like so many other effort of the American elected representatives to get answers on the FBI, this report ended up in yet another dead end in seeking accountability.  The fact that this is not the biggest scandal in Washington DC shows how unaware our public remains of the dangers of pursuing “intelligence” over law enforcement.  (Since August 2016, R.E.A.L. has continued to report on this case.)

This case demonstrates  the level of danger that hundreds of thousands of Americans can be placed in, when our FBI abandons law enforcement values for intelligence “ends justify the means” standards.  Hundreds of thousands – every SINGLE DAY – told “Say Something, See Something,” but when the FBI knew about a terror threat to that same public, the FBI said nothing.   The honest truth is the DC area “dodged a bullet” with this disastrous case.  The casualties could have been staggering beyond imagination.  It is a cautionary tale of the danger of those respecting law enforcement from failing to stand up to those who are willing to abandon law enforcement for an “intelligence-driven” agenda.

The American people must DEMAND that the FBI restore law enforcement to its public mission, and that its priority remains law enforcement and the protection of the public’s safety.

14. Former FBI Agents on Culture Change in “Intelligence-Driven” Focus.

Former FBI agents now publicly recognize that the culture change in the FBI to an “intelligence-driven” focus is blurring the line that “separates the legal from the extralegal.” As former FBI Agent Thomas Baker (with 33 years of FBI experience) wrote in the Wall Street Journal on March 19, 2018, changes in the FBI were the result of “a cultural change that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.” “For reasons that seemed justified at the time, the bureau set out to become an ‘intelligence driven’ organization. That had unintended consequences. The FBI’s culture had been rooted in law enforcement. A law-enforcement agency deals in facts, to which agents may have to swear in court. That is why ‘lack of candor’ has always been a firing offense. An intelligence agency deals in estimates and best guesses. Guesses are not allowed in court. Intelligence agencies often bend a rule, or shade the truth, to please their political masters. In the FBI, as a result, there now is politicization, polarization, and no sense of the bright line that separates the legal from the extralegal.”

E. Call for Change to Restore Law Enforcement to FBI’s Mission

Those who love America, who love our Justice system, and especially those who are good friends and allies to the FBI, must recognize when things have gone deeply wrong in the FBI’s institution. From retired FBI agents or employees, R.E.A.L. has read and heard deep concerns about the effort to re-imagine the FBI as predominantly a domestic intelligence agency with law enforcement badges.

To the FBI

Responsible for Equality And Liberty asks the agents and employees of the FBI, how many of you were informed that the FBI decided to remove “law enforcement” from its public mission statement?  Is that the organization you joined?  If they didn’t feel the need to tell YOU, why didn’t they trust you enough to tell you?  And if you aren’t trusted enough to be informed on such fundamental issues, what do you think that says about the trust towards the American people? The vow to defend the Constitution of the United States of America with over a century of other FBI personnel began with an expectation of protecting the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law with a law enforcement mission.  Of all the (perhaps naive) hope in an audience on this topic, R.E.A.L. hopes first and foremost that members of the FBI read and think about the consequences of abandoning “law enforcement” in the stated FBI mission, as the canary in the mine for the FBI, to wake up to a growing threat of the FBI abandoning law enforcement values, standards, and a commitment, to become “intelligence-driven” instead.  You can take a stand to make a difference in the future of your nation and your democracy.  Choose the side of law enforcement and justice for all.  We can defeat our worst enemies, as long as we do not chose to become our own enemies to our nation’s democracy.

To the American People

We must appeal to the law, we must appeal to reason, and most importantly, we must appeal to the conscience of those in the FBI, the DOJ, and the American people, in a call for change.

Law. America cannot protect and defend the Constitution of the United States with representative organizations that have no clear boundaries, limitations, and oversight under the law. The FBI cannot grant itself whatever powers it deems necessary, when “the ends justify the means.” But we have seen too many such reckless decisions, without oversight, without consultation, and without concern for the law it shares with the American people. The FBI is not an “independent” organization, without responsibilities to the executive branch, without the need to respond to the legislative branch, and without a responsibility to answer first and foremost to the American people that it represents. That is THE LAW. The FBI has responsibilities to all of these, under the law, with powers and functions that are DEFINED by the law, not by individual FBI leaders. The decision, under FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, to remove “law enforcement” from the FBI mission statement is simply indicative of an institutional problem, which true friends of the FBI committed to the Justice Community, must recognize and address.

This issue is much larger than a decision about the identity of the FBI. This is a decision about who and what America is. Will Americans continue to seek to become “one nation…with liberty and justice for all… [where] all men are created equal”? Or not?

We must decide if are a nation of law or a national of personalities. If America chooses to surrender in being a nation of law, then ultimately it surrenders on its goals as a democracy. But if America chooses to remain a nation of law, then there must be a review and update of key laws involving the powers of the FBI and other U.S. government organizations. We cannot have representatives without guidelines, and we cannot give authority without boundaries. Yet in today’s law, the powers of the FBI are in diverse areas, and the core fundamental aspect of the governing law on FBI powers, 18 U.S. Code § 3052, makes no reference to intelligence powers. The scattering of FBI powers and authority in numerous other laws, IRTPA Title II, Executive Orders, and even Attorney General Guidelines represents chaos. It must be a priority in a democratic republic to clearly and unequivocally define the roles, powers, and authorities of a law enforcement organization, under our shared law.

At the same time, the FBI has removed “law enforcement” from its publicly stated mission statement, while this is core part of the DOJ’s mission. A nation of laws must have consistency in laws and coherency in the powers of legal authority given to government representatives. We either believe in “equality under the law” inherent in “law enforcement” or we do not. The “ends justify the means” are not the values of a nation of law, no matter how insistent our intelligence and national security forces may believe this. America’s national security begins and ENDS with equality under the LAW.

Reason. It is not rational for an organization, dependent on law enforcement authority, to remove “law enforcement” from its mission statement. We see an FBI which gains it operational authority, based on its role as “law enforcement” organization, including its guns, badges, and its nationwide investigative authorities, but no longer deigns to keep “law enforcement” in its mission statement.  Furthermore, those who seek “national security” cannot abandon the foundational structure for a democratic republic in equality under the law, protected by law enforcement. The idea is entirely non-rational. It is like a carpenter who seeks to first construct and install a roof on a house, without a building’s foundation and walls. No matter how many times the carpenter seeks to install the roof in mid-air, without walls and a foundation, it will constantly crash to the ground. Gravity is an inescapable law on Earth. For democratic republics, equality under the law is an inescapable law for national security. To those with brief attention spans who seek “excitement” and “drama,” law and law enforcement are often a poor choice. Much of law is decided in the law library, not the courtroom. Much of law enforcement is decided in careful, deliberate interviews and patient investigation, not in police chase scenes. Every problem is not solved in 42 minutes, unlike the average television drama.

Also unlike the glamorization of such professions by the media, law and law enforcement does not always give you the satisfaction of closure and fairness. With equality under the law, some things will not seem “fair.” With equality in law enforcement, people we suspect of being “guilty” will also go free, because under the law, our citizens are innocent before proven guilty, and we must have evidence of guilt, not just our “feelings.” So the impatient will find law and law enforcement a less than interesting approach to social problem solving.

But the idea that we can solve threats to our nation by abusing investigatory powers and spying on our citizen is not rational. Endless commitments to “national security intelligence” alone will not keep our nation safe. What keeps our nation safe is Americans respecting Americans. The American people are not the enemy. The American people are our shared national defense force. They see problems, and they need to trust that we have law enforcement organizations that they can go to, not police state intelligence forces, who will seek fair, equal investigation under the law. The idea that we can prioritize “national security” over “law enforcement” is built on the non-rational idea that we cannot trust the American people to work together with us. If we cannot trust the American people, then nothing we do will secure “national security.” The trust, respect, and dignity found in equality under the law is the foundation for both law enforcement and national security.

Conscience.  For many years, Responsible for Equality And Liberty has waged campaign after campaign for human rights equality and liberty for groups and causes in nations around the world.  We work for human rights because our compassion, our respect, and our conscience for one another demands that we act.  We volunteer for the most difficult challenges in human rights because we will not surrender to a world that is based on values to “keep fear alive,” but we live for a world with the mercy and dignity for one another to “keep hope alive” – no matter how difficult and even how daunting our circumstances may seem.  Our conscience is our mercy and compassion for one another – simply because we are fellow human beings.

Based on our shared law, reason, and conscience, it is imperative to urge the FBI to restore Law Enforcement in its mission, not only in its printed public mission, but also in a culture that is restore to respecting law as its priority. 

Responsible for Equality And Liberty frequently calls for public support for global human rights issues.

Today, Responsible for Equality And Liberty is calling for your support for an American human rights issue.

Because if we turn our back on the law enforcement mission of the FBI in the United States of America, we will be abandoning the premiere organization for justice against America’s greatest threats to human rights.

We must not only be concerned about the priorities in intelligence threats of terrorism, foreign intelligence, and cyber-terror hackers – but also be concerned about the fundamental threats to democracy’s foundational concept on EQUALITY under the Law, which must be a priority in the United States of America and for the USA’s FBI.

Equality under the law and law enforcement is not an “outdated” concept of the past. America and its democratic system depend on unequivocal commitment to law enforcement from the U.S. Federal Government to protect such equality under the law.

We call for the immediate restoration of law enforcement to the mission of the FBI.

If the FBI will no longer publicly commit to a mission of such law enforcement, either the U.S. Federal Government must change the leadership and institutional challenges at the FBI, or another agency must be found to protect this vital threat to justice and security in America. Today, this is a call to the CONSCIENCE of Americans and all those who respect the law.

America needs your voice and your support for law enforcement, and equality under the law, today. You are urged to please sign this petition and take a stand on law enforcement as a priority in the FBI.

Today, the call is made for all to be Responsible for AMERICAN Equality and Liberty.

May God Guide and Bless the United States of America.

====================================

[NOTE 1: Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) is a long-time friend to law enforcement, and R.E.A.L.’s founder spent many years working in the FBI, working for change and defending equality under the law in law enforcement. R.E.A.L. is a friend to the FBI; however, our friends must also work to keep us honest and guide us on our moral and ethical compass.  To have the courage of our convictions, we must also face when we have made mistakes and errors in judgment, and continue to work to defend the public’s trust and the democratic values that we all cherish.
R.E.A.L.’s founder has been an active defender of the FBI for over 35 years, many years actually working for the FBI, and has been a conference speaker on issues involving the human rights challenge of terrorism to FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Since 2009, R.E.A.L. has published over 140 articles involving the FBI (with about five expressing any concern or about 3 percent); this does not include the hundreds, quite possibly thousands, of social media efforts advocacy in support of the FBI.  There will be those, who don’t want to hear about the factual challenges in this article, who may want to falsely portray R.E.A.L. as “anti-FBI.”  The documented facts are that nothing could be further from the truth.  R.E.A.L. supports the FBI most importantly in its mission as a law enforcement agency, as it has done very publicly for many, many years. The efforts to move the FBI away from law enforcement are a serious institutional challenge to the FBI and to American democracy.  R.E.A.L.’s conscience in human rights, democracy, and its respect for the FBI and law enforcement cannot permit it to be silent on such challenges.]
[NOTE 2: Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) is aware of debates regarding the FBI’s activities impacting political figures. This is of no relevance to R.E.A.L.’s report, and no interest to R.E.A.L. regarding a human rights-based commitment to effective law enforcement and equality under the law. R.E.A.L. has been noting and gathering information on such law enforcement issues since 2014, way in advance of the 2016 election or subsequent political debate. R.E.A.L. is, and will remain, a non-partisan organization.]

Responsible Majority of America Must Challenge Anarchist Terror Threats and “Antifa” Violence Against American Human Rights

Summary – the Anarchist/Anarcho-Communist/”Antifa” War on Human Rights and the Need for the Responsible Majority to Challenge.

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports the shared universal human rights of all people, and all Americans, including their right to security and life, which too many violent extremists would take away. R.E.A.L.’s leadership has focused half a century in challenging racial and Nazi hate and terrorist movements. But R.E.A.L. has also challenged the ideas of Communist and Anarchist violent movements, which have long history of terror, violence, and attacks on the United States; this has included violence against R.E.A.L. volunteers.

R.E.A.L. provides this information on the Anarchist threat to Americans, who have been largely uninformed and uneducated on the history of Anarchist terror and violence, which is too widely given misguided glamorization today.  After this general summary, R.E.A.L. has provided a detailed review of this continuing human rights threat. R.E.A.L. will document and clarify that the Anarchist leaders of so-called “Anti-Facist” or “Antifa” movements are not merely an “Anti-Racist” movement as some might want to believe, but they represent Anarcho-Communism, and a history of Anarchist violence and Anti-democracy ideology that has threatened American human rights for over 100 years.

The context of our history and its details matter if we are to defend our shared human rights, democracy, and democratic values. We cannot work for justice, equality, liberty, solve problems or educate our fellow Americans on problems that we do not understand. Today, we see too many who call for violence over use of informed democratic processes. We have seen what happens in America and around the world when individuals replace politics with acts of violence. Such political violence, especially in democratic nations, do not further the cause of human rights and dignity. Before we act, we must first learn.

R.E.A.L. notes that violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists, and their acts of terror, represent the smallest fringe of the American public. As with Nazis, white supremacists, and other fringe extremists, it is essential not to exaggerate their numbers and their influence. But with many American young people unfamiliar with the violent history and anti-democracy views of such extremists, and the disinterest by the U.S. political media in reporting such facts, R.E.A.L. has summarized the history and continuing threat to American human rights by such violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communist extremists. Such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism is seeing a new revival in the United States of America, and those concerned about human rights, law, and the safety of our fellow citizens must be vigilant about such threats. In terms of journalistic integrity, it is deeply troubling to see the U.S. political media glamorizing such extremist movements that have been responsible for so much violence, terrorism, and death in America.

The many learned individuals in the press do know better. While we must not exaggerate the impact of such extremists, we must recognize there are at least 50 known armed Anarchist extremist groups in America today, and the years of lack of consistency in law enforcement on Anarchist violence has allowed thousands of violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists to develop, practice tactics of bombing and violence, and gain experience in attacking the public, our government, and law enforcement, using the streets of America as their training grounds. Responsible security measures need to be implemented to protect all Americans from violent extremist groups, especially those with a history of over a century of terrorism in the U.S. Among American national security concerns, this should be a priority.

With over a century of Anarchist terrorism and anti-democracy violence against America, R.E.A.L. will document the continuing pattern of Anarchist bombing and suicide bomb efforts, murder, assassination, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon, and government and legal instituations, attacks on our businesses, killing of our citizens, numerous firebomb attacks, and mass-murder terror plots. This history of such Anarchist terrorism has now come to include so-called “Antifa” firebombings and other mob violence attacks on American citizens.

As R.E.A.L. will document, Anarchist and “Antifa” activists openly state, they are not working to defend our “rights” or our “democracy,” and they have contempt for and seek the destruction of both. To those rationalizing and normalizing Anarchist terrorism and violence, this undermines support for our shared human rights, democracy, law, and certainly justice. In a democracy, “justice” by violent force is not simply the opinion of a group of self-appointed criminals, whose their belief that the “ends justifies the means” shows contempt and outweighs the decisions of the American people, their shared legal system, and their Constitutional rights.

The Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign is not an “anti-racist” campaign respecting our rights and equality, it is an Anarcho-Communist campaign attacking American rights, with the goal to further insurrection against all U.S. institutions and democracy. Political partisans may think such attacks only target other political partisans. They do not. Such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” attacks are an attack on our law, our Constitution, and the rights of every American.

R.E.A.L. brings decades of experience in genuine and peaceful efforts to challenge the racist and hate views for decades of white nationalists, white supremacists, and Nazis. R.E.A.L. understands the problem and the challenge. R.E.A.L. provides a pro-human rights position to challenge anti-human rights extremists from every ideology. But we know that tactics hate and violence only destroys ourselves and our integrity. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”

The concept that hate, violence, and terrorism can be rationalized by anyone’s political beliefs goes to the core of attacking our shared democracy and American’s Constitutional and human rights. We are responsible for equality and liberty precisely to provide for the common American and members of the public to provide a responsible and peaceful response to anti-human rights extremism that would attack our shared rights and democracy. This must recognize the threat that Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremist violence and hate also poses to our nation.

Americans act from their conscience, and they have a proud history of standing up to end injustice. Those who respect this American compassion for justice must not be silent about the efforts by violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists to twist and pervert genuine expressions of peaceful protest and concern into acts of violence that have no respect for any human rights. In our mathematical ethics of human and civil rights, we Americans know that two wrongs do not equal a right. R.E.A.L. calls for the American public to reject extremist movements that want to teach us hate and violence as paths to love and peace. We intrinsically know this does not make sense, and we must listen to our frustrated fellow citizens, yet guide them away from the path of attacking democracy and human rights as proposed by Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violent ideologies.

Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence has frequently gained interest during periods of political and social unrest in America, with the false promise of quick change through violence and insurrection, rather than the hard work of finding lasting solutions based on shared law and respect. We have seen that political and social change is never achieved from their anti-democracy ideologies, radical hate, and acts of violence. America has achieved lasting political and social change through shared respect, compassion, compromise, and dignity for one another. America’s real accomplishments in working to end wars, achieve progress in social and racial justice, promote fairness in labor and capitalism, were truly reached not by street violence, destruction, lawlessness, and hate, but by outstretched hands of those with different views finding common cause and even compromise, in peace and progress, despite their differences.

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists will try to convince frustrated Americans that our democratic system and our society is nothing but a “zero-sum” struggle and just a division of winners and losers. To those who understand the diversity of the American experience, we know that simplistic argument is not true. In a shared democratic society, we cannot long afford any massive group to only be a “loser.”  Our democracy has worked because, no matter how frustrated some may be, our society is combination of both “winners” and “losers” at every area and group in America, who work together to raise each other up, not tear each other down. The freedom and ability of change and compromise from such democracy and democratic processes is why Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists fear and hate democracy so much, and whose primary mission is to de-legitimize democracy and democratic processes in America.

As R.E.A.L. will document, the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign is not an “anti-racist” campaign respecting our rights and equality, it is an Anarcho-Communist campaign attacking American rights, with the goal to further insurrection against all U.S. institutions and democracy. Political partisans may think such attacks only target other political partisans. They do not. Such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” attacks are an attack on our law, our Constitution, and the rights of every American.

R.E.A.L.’s  struggle for American human rights is centered on our commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). (Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, barely escaped from being killed or maimed by an Anarchist terrorist suicide bomb.) Our commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the UDHR is the most fundamental aspect of our “war of ideas” with Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorists and criminals. Both the U.S. Constitution and UDHR give Americans human rights of freedom. The UDHR also commits to our right of security as human beings and our right to human dignity. Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorists declare war not only with the U.S. Government,  U.S. authorities, U.S. democracy, but also declare war on the truths that we hold self evident. Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism declares war on our free speech, free thought, the basic safety of the individual to be free from mob violence in the street, as we have seen so often from the Anarchist, Anarcho-Communists, and the campaign they ironically call “Antifa.”

To fight this “war of ideas,” Americans need to stand resolute to challenge those within the Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, and “Antifa” movements that seek to attack our shared human rights and Constitutional rights. We stand for American truth of seeking all human beings as created equal, not some more equal than others, based on your political views. We stand in support of freedom of speech and freedom on conscience, not just for those we like and those like us, but for all people. We stand in support of all human beings “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” not to have our fellow Americans chased and beaten in street by “Antifa” mobs with baseball bats and clubs. Our universal human rights ensure that: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Again, not just those we agree with and those we like. But everyone.

The Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, and “Antifa” movements think they can pick and choose who has these rights, they believe they alone can choose what laws we can respect. They claim they acting to overthrow authority, but that is not true. They really seek to overthrow our representative authority, and the rights of every man and woman in America. Because if we sit still and allow them to choose which of us has freedom of speech, security, and any other freedom at their whim, then we have surrendered not some, but everyone of our freedoms.

The Anarchists, Anarcho-Communist and their “Antifa” movement claim they are war with the decision-makers. They are; they are at war with every single one of us in America that are free to make decisions in our representative democracy and in our lives. They are at war with this entire nation, every race, political group, religion, gender, age, and identity group. They are at war with our Constitutional and human rights.

The “Responsible Majority” – of American citizens, families, faith groups, human rights groups, institutions, leaders, government, law enforcement, and media – must not stay silent and cower at their threats to this nation and our human rights. This is not just a law enforcement issue. This is not just a homeland security issue. This is not just a political issue. No. This is OUR issue, OUR problem, and jointly as Americans, our Responsibility for Equality and Liberty – for all.

Extremists may think they can attack our rights and seek the destruction of our democracy, but it is our role as the “Responsible Majority” of Americans to demonstrate that Americans will not surrender to mobs of masked Anarchist criminals and terrorists. The “Responsible Majority” of Americans must show that we understand the history, true agenda, and objectives of violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists, and we must show that we are not afraid to defend our shared human rights and democracy.

R.E.A.L. calls for those confused by the Anarchists, Anarcho-Communist and their “Antifa” movement to abandon their cause of extremism, violence, and hate. We call for their families to remind them of the freedoms that so many have sacrificed for all Americans. With an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, we urge them to stop their attacks on this nation, and return to family of the American people that respect our shared Constitutional and human rights.

We must urge our fellow Americans to Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.

——————–

Contents

Summary
(1) The First Foreign Terrorist Attacks in America by Anarchists.
(2) The Weather Underground Anarchist Terrorist Attacks Across America.
(3) Anarchist Cynaide on Chicago Subway and Mass Power Outages.
(4) 21st Century Anarchist Terrorist Bombings and Threats.
— Cleveland Terror Plot to Blow Up Bridge, Attack Community
— Chicago Terror Plot on Attack NATO Summit, President Obama Campaign Office, and Police
(5) Anarchist Terrorists Co-Opt Environmental Concerns.
(6) Anarchists Frustrated with Occupy Protests Call for More “Insurrectionist” Goals.
(7) Anarchist Terrorist Plots Often Obscured in Media Reports.
(8) Anarchist Terrorism Glamorization by Film Industry.
(9) Anarchist Terrorists Adopt Black Bloc Tactics.
(10) Anarchists Infiltration of Protest Groups Expands Reach and Recruitment for Violence.
(11) Anarchist Terrorists Redefine Racial Strife as “Fascist” Challenge to Legitimize Non-State Violence.
(12) Anarco-Communists and the History of the “Anti-Fascist” (Antifa) Movement.
(13) Early Anarchist Use of “Antifa” Campaign for Violence in America
(14) Political Unrest Provides “Perfect Storm” to Advance Anarcho-Communist Violence.
(15) Violent Assault on Fringe Nazi Leader by Anarchist Black Bloc Gets Media Praise.
(16) Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Use Political Unrest to Recruit and Attack Democracy.
(17) Armed Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists Parade with Automatic Weapons in American Streets.
(19) Berkeley Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Campaign.
(19) The Washington Post Glamorizes Anarchist Violence (Again).
(20) Women’s Rights Activists Must Denounce Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Terrorism and Violence by Women.
(21) Charlottesville Riots and the Failure to Stop Violence.
(22) Lost Opportunity to Clearly Define Ideological Threats Used by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists.
(23) Increased Calls and Support for “Antifa” Violence.
(24) Violent Anarchist Get Media Legitimization for Violence as “Antifa”.
(25) Emboldened Anarchists / Anarcho-Communists Use “Antifa” Target HOMES.
(26) Anarchists / Anarcho-Communists Defeat Police in Berkeley, Beat People in Streets.
(27) Responsible Majority of Americans Must Defend Human Rights, Democracy, Law, and U.S. Constitution from Anarchist Violence.
——————–

(1) The First Foreign Terrorist Attacks in America by Anarchists.

The first foreign terrorist organization (FTO) performing terror attacks across America began nearly 100 years ago with nail-bombs and terrorist attacks, suicide bombing, and other attacks across the nation, after assassinating the President of the United States of America. But these early terror attacks were not based on racist or religious hate; they were Anarchist terrorism, which remains a continuing threat to human rights in America today. The Anarchist terrorist message threat to America has changed little in the past 100 years in the views of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism: “there will have to be murder: we will kill” and “there will be destruction.”

Terrorists have supported the Anarcho-Communist extremist cause to kill, maim, and destroy government, courts, newspapers, business, and homes in the United States of America. Anarchist mass-murder terrorism plots against Americans has ranged from nail bombs against newspapers, U.S. Post Office, government, and police, bombings across the U.S. target the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol, cyanide poison gas plots to murder Americans on subways, to more recent Anarchist arson violence on vehicles, beating people in the streets with clubs, baseball bats, and other violent attacks on Americans and others.

One of the earliest FTO Anarchist terrorist leaders supporting terror plots against America was German-American Anarchist Johann Joseph “Hans” Most. In his native Germany, Johann Most promoted acts of violence as “action as propaganda” or what Anarchists and communists would calls as “propaganda of the deed” (also known as “the Attentat”). Johnann Most promoted the use of terrorist bombs in Germany, but was forced to flee Germany and eventually ended up in the United States. In America, Johann Most provided Anarchist terrorist ideological leadership for a new generation of American citizens in Anarchist terrorism. Most inspired other anarchists in America including Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Alexander Berkman went on to attempt to murder Henry Clay Frick in 1892, who survived and Berkman was imprisoned. Emma Goldman was repeatedly imprisoned for incitement to riots, and was an advocate of politically motivated murder (the “Attentat”) and violent revolution. Emma Goldman became a protégé of Anarchist terrorist ideologue Johann Most; she was eventually deported to the USSR in 1919.

On September 6, 1901 in Buffalo, New York, Anarchist terrorist Leon Czolgosz assassinated U.S. President William McKinley. With the growing anarchist terrorist ideologies spread across America and financial difficulties, Leon Czolgosz was convinced that it was his duty as an anarchist to kill the U.S. President. Anarchist terrorist ideologue Johnann Most praised this terrorist murder of the U.S. President as Anarchist should not consider it a “crime” to murder a “ruler.” Anarchist protégé of Johann Most, Emma Goldman defended the “ideals” of the presidential assassin Leon Czolgosz later in book entitled “The Psychology of Political Violence.” (For context, in his career before politics, President William McKinley was a volunteer and war hero in the Union Army fighting against the Confederate States of America, who rose to the rank of Brevet Major in the 23rd Ohio Infantry. That is who the Anarchist terrorists murdered.)

Prior to such Anarchist waves of terrorism, America was rocked in Chicago, Illinois by the Haymarket bombing and subsequent riot, which led to the death of five police, four civilians, and many wounded. While no one was ever prosecuted for actually throwing the bomb at the Haymarket bombing, eight Anarchists were convicted of conspiracy in the bombing. One of the Anarchist bombing conspirators was August Spies, who was an associate of Anarchist terror idelogue Johann Most.

Anarchist terror ideologue Johann Most continued to promote a form of Anarchist violence, which combined Anarchist and Communist theories, called “Anarcho-Communism,” which is seen in the combined red and black flags and symbols of violent Anarchist groups today. Violent Anarchist groups have often worked with violent Communist groups, sharing extremist values of destructions. The black / red combination of Anarchist and Communist values was defined as “Anarcho-communism,” which seeks the abolition of state, capitalism, private property, through insurrection, to be replaced by communal (e.g., communist) economies. The shared black and red symbols of Anarcho-Communism remain the symbols of such violent insurrectionist extremist movements, regardless of what terms leaders use to disguise their intent, as we have seen with the so-called “Anti Fascist” or “Antifa” events, disguised to bring unknowing and well-intentioned Anti-Racist and other supporters into Anarcho-Communist and Anarchist violent riots and attacks.

Anarchist terrorist violence was among the first major forms of mass nationwide terrorism in 20th century America, organized early by Anarchist Galleanist group (led by an Italian Anarchist leader Luigi Galleani). The Galleanist Anarchist terror attacks used nail bombs mailed to attack government officials, then newspapers, and police. The terrorist attacks of 1919, nearly 100 years ago were the first major plots on U.S. America was forced to deal with the bloody terrorism of Anarchism – directly attacking Americans. 36 Anarchist terrorist bombs were used in April 1919 alone, intended for the Anarcho-Communist May Day (May 1) celebration, attacking the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Supreme Court, the predecessor group of the FBI (then known as the Bureau of Investigation), Senators, Congressmen, mayors, governors, police, U.S. Postmaster General, business leaders, and newspapers. Of the Anarchist bombs, 16 were setaside as having “insufficient postage” and never reached their targets, 12 of the 16 Anarchist terrorist bombs were disarmed, but among the terror bombs that exploded, one of the terrorist injured a Senator’s wife, and severely burned her face and neck. Another victim of the Anarchist terrorist bomb was a working class Black American housekeeper. The Anarchist terrorist bombs were sent to New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Pennsylvania, Utah, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Two months later, another series of Anarchist terrorist bombs spread across the nation, with bombs packaged with heavy metal slugs to function as shrapnel, simultaneously sent to 8 U.S. cities, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Patterson in New Jersey, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia. The Anarchist targets were the police, a Catholic priest, a mayor, businessmen, a state legistlator, and three judges. The bombs killed two men, and an Anarchist suicide bomb terrorist attack on the home of the U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, injuring the Attorney General.

The Anarchist terrorist suicide bomber, Carlo Valdinoci, also nearly injured or killed Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) (the future U.S. president), who was then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and who lived across the street from Palmer. The Anarchist terrorist suicide bomber exploded across the street from FDR’s house, minutes before FDR was there, with the terrorist body parts landing on FDR’s doorstep. For further context, one of individuals who was also nearly killed in this Anarchist suicide bombing was Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR’s wife. Surviving this near Anarchist terrorist bombing, Eleanor Roosevelt would also go on to become the Chairperson of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1946, and a contributor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948.

The Anarchist terrorist attacks were accompanied with a manifesto calling for “Class war,” and attack on the “darkness of your laws.” The Anarchist terrorists provided pink flyers with each of their bombs entitled “Plain Words,” which described their call to terrorist murder and killing: “There will have to be bloodshed; we will not dodge; there will have to be murder: we will kill, because it is necessary; there will have to be destruction; we will destroy to rid the world of your tyrannical institutions.”

Other terrorist attacks included the Preparedness Day suitcase bomb terrorist attack in San Francisco, CA, killing 10 and injuring 40 (widely suspected to be done by Anarchists), and large black powder bomb that killed nine policemen in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1917, suspected to be done by an Anarchist terrorist linked to a New York City bombing of Wall Street.

Anarchist terrorists then attacked New York City, using wagon with a bomb, as an early version of a “car bomb” on September 16, 1920 at Wall Street, killing 38 and injured 143 Americans. This mass casualty Anarchist terrorist attacks was the largest terrorist attack on American soil at the time. A terror group called the “American Anarchist Fighters” left threatening notes in a Post Office Box, calling for release of terrorist prisoners or “it will be sure death for all of you,” found before the Wall Street Anarchist terrorist attack.

Such Anarchist terrorism was the beginning of U.S. problems with Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Anarchist terror attacks in the U.S. led to the Anarchist Exclusion Act (1918), after repeated Anarchist terrorist acts; it was signed into law as Public Law 65-221. The sponsoring government agencies at the time held meetings, to address “disposition of cases of alien anarchists, some of whom are Italian anarchists and others Industrial Workers of the World [IWW] and Russian Union workers, now pending.” Using such laws and the Sedition Act, a number of Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists were arrested, and some were deported to Russia.

In 1920, after the series of Anarchist terrorist attacks, a number of Anarchists were arrested during what were called the “Palmer Raids,” named after the U.S. Attorney General Palmer injured in the Anarchist suicide bombing on his home. While the crackdown on Anarchist terrorist ideologues and terrorist violence gave the American government a short pause in Anarchist terror attacks dwindling by the 1930s, largely due to improved police procedures and coordination, Anarchist terror and violence would return to plague the United States.

(Regarding the U.S. government reference to the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in discussion over the Anarchist Exclusion Act, it is noteworthy that the Industrial Workers of the World union organization is also prominant in recent protest activities in the U.S. Historically, the IWW, aka “Wobblies,” have stated their use of violence has been “defensive” in nature and their links to anarchism more related to “anarcho-syndicalism.” The concept behind Anarcho-syndicalism, similar to Anarcho-Communism, is to call for revolutionality industrial unionism, aka “syndicalism,” as a means for workers to gain control over a capitalist economy. Like Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists also use the red/black flag.) R.E.A.L. notes for the record, that during the January 20, 2017, Anarchist Black Bloc riots in Washington D.C., there were numerous Black Bloc Anarchists photographed carrying red Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) flags.

Let us reflect on the progress of American unions and Anarchist violence. Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists rationalized their acts of terror against America, by claiming they were “fighting for the working man.” But how did labor unions progress in America? NOT through such violence. The reality is that meaningful progress in labor was achieved through law, changed through America’s representative democracy, peaceful protest, and collective efforts in peace, not violence. The National Labor Relations Act and collective bargaining was acheived through shared respect and compromise, not by Anarchist bombs, murders, and hate. What the Anarchist violent terrorism acheived was delaying such American progress, by their tactics of terrorism, which were truly focused on dividing America and undermining its democratic processes.

——————–

(2) The Weather Underground Anarchist Terrorist Attacks Across America.

A radical Anarcho-Communist organization known as the “Weather Underground” led terrorism and riots attacks against the United States government and its public for another 20 years, through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The Weather Underground led violent riots across Chicago in what were known as “Days of Rage” in October 1969, with 300 violent extremists attacking Chicago’s business district, including destruction of a Chicago police statue, remembering the victims of the 1884 Anarchist Haymarket bomb and riot. In July 1970, the “Weather Underground Organization (WUO)” “Weathermen” issued a “Declaration of a State of War against the United States government, and adopted fake identities. WUO terrorist leader Bernardine Rae Ohrnstein (aka Bernardine Dohrn) wrote in the WUO terrorist Declartion of War that: “Revolutionary violence is the only way.” (This is how the sickness of violence of affects the mind and spirit: Bernardine Dohrn also praised the Tate-LaBianca murders by Charles Manson murders in 1969.)

Anarcho-Communist terrorists of the WUO were identified, however, during a failed terrorist operation, when three of the terrorist were killed while building a bomb that was intended for a terrorist attack on Fort Dix, New Jersey to kill U.S. Army soldiers. (If the WUO terrorist attack on Fort Dix had been successful, it would have killed 100 people.)

The WUO terrorist group claimed dozens of bombings and terrorist attacks during 1969 through 1977, including bombings in: Chicago police bombing (1969), Chicago Haymarket police bombing (1969), New York City police department bombing (1970), San Francisco police bombing (1970), Judge Murtagh house firebombing (1970), National Guard Association Building bombing in Washington DC (1970), Bank of America NYC bombing (1970), Queens court bombing (1970), U.S. Capitol bombing (1971), Office of California Prisons in Sacramento and San Francisco bombing (1971), MIT bombing (1971), New York Department of Corrections in Albany, New York bombing (1971), Pentagon bombing in Washington D.C. (1972), 103rd Police Precinct in New York bombing (1973), ITT headquarters buildings in New York City and Rome, Italy bombing (1973), U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare offices in San Francisco bombing (1974), Office of the California Attorney General bombing (1974), Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters bombing (1974), Anaconda Corporation bombing (1974), State Department bombing (1975), Offices of Dept. of Defense in Oakland bombing (1975), Puerto Rican bank in NYC bombing (1975), Kennecott Corporation bombing (1975), California Senator office bomb plot (1977).

Due to prosecutorial misconduct with FBI COINTELPRO illegal searches in collecting evidence, the leaders of the WUO terrorists mostly escaped accountability. WUO leader Bernardine Dohrn pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping, for which she was fined $1,500 and given three years probation. Ms. Dohrn served less than one year in prison for refusing to testify against another WUO terrorist regaring a bank robbery. WUO co-leader Bill Ayers was not prosecuted. The cost of maintaining a law enforcement focus at the FBI was that future Anarcho-Communist terrorists were given a lesson that the U.S. government would allow such terrorist bombings to go on, without consequences and accountability. This remains the root of the continuing degradation of law and order in America today. WUO leader Bill Ayers told the New York Times that “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and viewed his terrorist acts as “symbolic acts of extreme vandalism.” WUO leader Bill Ayers was and remains married to WUO co-leader Bernardine Dohrn. According to Wikipedia, WUO leader Bernardine Dohrn “now serves on the board of numerous human rights committees.”

Once again, let us reflect on how the Vietnam War ended. It was not achieved by Anarchist WUO terrorist bombings, violence, criminal acts, and hate. This political change was achieved by peaceful political protest, and political decisions in America’s representative democracy. What did the Anarchist WUO terrorist acts achieve in this area? The only thing such terrorist violence achieved was undermining the legitimate efforts by peaceful protesters by linking concerns on these issues with such anti-democracy hate and violence. The WUO terrorism did not progress these areas, but actually worked to delay progress, and such Anarchist addiction to violence to overthrow the U.S. government continued even AFTER direct U.S. military involvement ending in August 15, 1973, with the last few Americans in South Vietnam removed in April 30, 1975.

——————–

(3) Anarchist Cynaide on Chicago Subway and Mass Power Outages.

In 2002, Chicago police discovered (largely by accident) an Anarchist terrorist plot to use cyanide poison gas in the Chicago subway, organized by Wisconsin’s Joseph Daniel Konopka, who called himself “Dr. Ch@os.” Konopka used Internet chat rooms to recruit supporters, and held meetings at a location near Green Bay, Wisconsin. Konopka called his Anarchist terror associates the “Realm of Chaos” and stated that he had committed 50 acts of damaging power substations and communication facilities. Chicago police found that Konopka had a 1 1/4 pounds of cyanide compounds in a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) blue line tunnel. He was never charged with any terrorist crimes, but pleaded guilty to lesser charges for 11 felonies, initially receiving a prison sentence of 23 years, but an appeals court threw out a conviction on arson and so he remained imprisoned for 13 years for the cyanide plot at ADX Florence supermax prison, Fremont County, Colorado. Anarchist Dr. Ch@os is scheduled for release in two years on August 24, 2019. From his prison cell, Anarchist terrorist Dr. Ch@os calls for “rational anarchists” to “capture” technology to be used to “transcend regimes and borders.”

Dr. Ch@os’ Anarchist terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st century was indicative of a new resurgence in Anarchist terrorism in America, with Anarchists organizing by using the Internet and social media. Now Anarchists openly promote use of baseball bats in the street as “mainstream” support for terrorism and violence, with very few voices in the American human rights community willing to speak out and object to such “normalization” of Anarchist terrorism.

——————–

(4) 21st Century Anarchist Terrorist Bombings and Threats.

Anarchist bombings have continued but thus far were usually on a smaller scale in the early 21st century. Such anarchist terrorist bombings were rarely recognized as “acts of terrorism” by the U.S. mainstream media, and usually relegated to local press reports, which would lose interest after one or two reports, with minimal to know follow-up. Major U.S. cities (New York City, Portland) have typically been targets of random, small-scale Anarchist terrorist bombings, usually with few arrests. Once again, a pattern of a failure to take Anarchist terrorism seriously and hold violent individuals accountable on a regular basis become a routine practice, and sent the wrong signal to Anarchists that such terror acts would go without punishment, further emboldening an entrenched pattern of Anarchist violence in the United States. Bombings at Starbucks coffee shops and McDonalds restaurants causing mainly property damage receive little press and media coverage, and are quickly forgotten. As we have seen in other Anarchist acts of terrorism, such violence has not changed or stopped chains or franchises of restaurants, coffee shops, or other businesses. Such Anarchist terrorism has achieved only thunderstorms of senseless violence, hate, and fear, but like thunderstorms in life, the American people wait out storm and go on with their lives.

Some Anarchists rationalized firebomb terrorism against Starbucks coffee shops in America, based on Starbucks CEO’s Howard Shultz support for Israel. With virtually no institutional memory of such Anarchist terrorist attacks, including Anti-Semitic rationalization by some Anarchists in attacks on Starbucks coffee shops, there is no one holding such same Anarchists accountable for credibility, when they would later claim to be “Anti-Fascist.”

In some cases, Anarchist terrorists only needed to make terrorist threats of bombs to be effective. As we reported in 2005, a flier released and attritubed to the Anarchist Black Cross Boston made a series of threats to Boston areas organizations as a part of “protests” against the Iraq War. As the Boston Herald reported, “The flier, released by Anarchist Black Cross Boston, goes on to list the address of Boston Police Headquarters in Roxbury, FBI headquarters in Government Center, the IRS building and a military recruiting center on Summer Street. There is also a list of corporate sites, including Fidelity, the Gap, Niketown, and Raytheon’s Waltham location.” With relative anonymity, the continued use of masks among Anarchist Black Bloc protesters, Anarchists have been able to have limited scrutiny as potential terrorist threats to Americans, while too much of U.S. political media has gone from largely ignoring Anarchists to openly defending and promoting them.

Violent Anarchists in the past typically used other notable events for them as a basis for terrorism and violence. One that has been regularly used by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists is May Day (May 1), which is widely celebrated by Communists and radical organizations as an inspiration to insurrection.

Cleveland Anarchist Terror Plot to Blow Up Bridge, Attack Community

In 2012, such Anarchists plotted terrorist attacks to destroy a Cleveland bridge, and also planned attacks for hotels and banks in Cleveland, Ohio. In addition, the “May Day” terrorist plots also made references to possibly attack hospitals in Cleveland. The Anarchist terrorists finally made their primary target a bridge used by the public. This plot was foiled on May 1, 2012, when five American Anarchist terrorists were arrested for a terrorist bomb plot in Cleveland, planned to be an Anarchist “May Day” bombing. Three of the Anarchist terror plotters were sentenced to prison for a bomb plot to blow up the Route 82 bridge looking from Brecksville across the Cuyahoga River to Sagamore Hills. Another man pleaded guilty to a related charge, with four sentenced to prison, and one evaluated for mental competency. Cleveland’s WKSU news reported on November 30, 2012 that: “the men thought of themselves as anarchists and wanted to topple the busy commuter bridge to demonstrate their anger with corporations and government.” The Anarchist terrorists planted eight packs of plastic explosives strapped to a concrete abutment at the bottom of one of the bridge’s pillars. The Anarchists terrorists obtained a code for a bomb detonator to blow up the Cleveland bridge that would have killed many Ohio Americans, but the Anarchists were using a fake explosive that was provided by an FBI informant. The Anarchists were frustrated members of the Occupy protest, which were disappointed that Occupy had not pursued a sufficiently insurrectionist direction.

In addition, the criminal complaint for these Cleveland terrorists stated that they also planned to make bombs to be used throughout Cleveland, and sought to use “The Anarchist Cook Book,” a long time terrorist bomb-making reference guide. The federal complaint also stated that the terrorists were considered attacks on hotels and banks in Cleveland, and also wanted to move on after the Cleveland terrorist attacks to firebombs involving the NATO summit in Chicago. As it turned out, other Anarchist terrorists had already made terror plots for Chicago.

Chicago Anarchist Terror Plot on Attack NATO Summit, President Obama Campaign Office, Police

The history of Anarchist terrorist plots in America in the early 21st century also included May 2012 (post “May Day”) terror plots for Chicago, just after a separate Anarchist terror group was plotting attacks to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. The Chicago terrorists, who were called the “NATO 3,” Brian Church, Jared Chase, and Brent Betterly, were sentenced to prison for felony charges of possession of an incendiary device, as well as charges of mob action. Brian Church was from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jared Chase was from Keene, New Hampshire, and Brent Vincent Betterly, was reportedly from Oakland Park, Florida. This is yet another case of violent Anarchists traveling to plot terror in other parts of the country.

According to the initial May 19, 2012 criminal complaint against the three Anarchists, Brian Church, Jared Chase, and Brent Betterly are “self-proclaimed anarchists, and members of the ‘Black Bloc’ group,’ who traveled together from Florida to the Chicago area in preparation for committing terrorist acts of violence and destruction directed against different targets in protest to the May 2012 NATO Summit, then U.S. President Barack Obama, and the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Specifically, plans were made to destroy police cars and attack four CPD stations with destructive devices, in an effort to undermine the police response to the conspirators’ other planned actions for the NATO Summit. Some of the targets included the Campaign Headquarters of U.S. President Barack Obama, the personal residence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, and certain downtown financial institutions.” The complaint also stated that Brian Church “stated that he wanted to recruit four groups of four co-conspirators (for a total of sixteen people) to conduct the raids, and that reconnaissance had already been conducted at CPD Headquarters located at 3510 South Michigan Avenue for the purposed of a planned attack. As part of their effrots, the defendents also possessed and/or constructed improvised explosive-incendiary devices and various types of dangerous weapons (including a mortar gun, swords, hunting bow, throwing stars, and knives with brass-knockle handles), as well as police counter-measures such as pre-positioned shields, assault vest, gas mask equipment, and other gear to help hide their identify durint their operations. At one point in the investigation, church stated that he also wanted to buy several assault rifles, and indicated that if a police officer was going to point a gun at him, then Church would be ‘pointing one back’ at the cop.”

The complaint also stated that on “May 8, 2012, as part of their pre-NATO Summit preparations, the defendants resided in an apartment, along with other individuals, located at the three-flat residence on 1013 West 32nd Street, Chicago, Illinois. During the investigation, topics of converstaion by the conpirators included committing acts of violence in other jurisdictions, planning escape routes, discussing and conducting late-night training sessions for engaging in combat with the police, and avoiding detection by law enforcement’s use of electronic surveillance, FBI informants, and forensic evidence. In one conversation, a defendant stated that ‘the city doesn’t know what it’s in for’ and that ‘after NATO, the city will never be the same’ as before.” “On May 16, 2012, Church, Chase, Betterly and others engaged in detailed conversations about the preparation of numerous incendiary devices known as ‘Molotov Cocktails’ made out of empty beer bottles that were filled with gasonline and fitted with fusing. During these activities, Chase obtained gasoline at the BP Gas Station located at 31st and Halted, and then returned to the safe house at 1013 West 32nd Street. Upon return, the defendants using gloves began to make the Molotov Cocktails and cut bandanas as timing devices. During construction, Church and Chase assisted in the preparation and Betterly gave instructions on how to properly assemble and use the Molotov Cocktails. While the Molotov Cocktails were being poured, church discussed the NATO Summit, the protests, and how the Molotove Cocktails would be used for violence and intimidating acts of destruction. At one point, Church asked if others had ever seen a ‘cop on fire’ and discussed throwing one of the Molotov Cocktails into the 9th District Police station. Upon completion of several of the devices, plans were then discussed to load the Molotov Cocktails into a car loaded near the residence.”

Given the immiment threat to public safety, surveillance officers obtained a search warrant for the Chicago Police Department, and the police, FBI, and U.S. Secret service found the weapons, completed Molotov Cocktail fire bombs, pipe bomb instructions, Chicago area map, computer, recording and video devices, and assault vest. Despite the terror plot, the Chicago 3 Anarchist terrorists were convicted on explosives, arson, and mob violence charges. Judge Thaddeus Wilson gave them sentences of five to eight years in prison, and stated “No matter what they do in other countries, Americans will not stand for the throwing of Molotov cocktails at police in the streets.”

Anarchist Brian “Jacob” Church was released from prison in November 2014. Anarchist Brent Betterly was released from prison in April 2015. Anarchist Jared Chase, now Maya Chase, remains in prison at Pontiac Correctional Institute, and with additional charges of violence against police, he is now set to be released in June 2019.

There is widespread discussion on social media that one of the members of the three arrested Anarchist terrorists has gone back to active violence. This discussion is based on photographs and comparison of facial and distinctive tattoo markings. R.E.A.L. is aware of this conjecture, but without any hard facts, there is nothing to report at this time.

——————–

(5) Anarchist Terrorists Co-Opt Environmental Concerns.

Another tactic for Anarchist terrorist efforts has to co-opt environment concerns and encourage violence, as we have seen with extremists like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) between 1997 and 2009, largely using various tactics of arson and firebombs to attack and destroy business, government, and housing facilities. While such terrorist attacks were largely in California and Washington State, there were attacks in Oregon, Maine, Michigan, Connecticut, Alaska, New Mexico, Alabama, Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, North Carolina, and Maryland. Periodically, Anarchist and firebomb attacks that went array, resulted in identifying suspects, and arrests, as in the Lincoln, Auburn and Sutter Creek series of 15 firebombs in California. But many others required extended investigations, as the indictment of four ELF members for firebombs in Michigan 8 YEARS after the attack, with a significant sentence of one ELF member, Marie Mason, was sentenced to 22 years in prison, 10 years after the attack. But over the years, many firebomb attacks have been ignored as “merely” vandalism by the media, and law enforcement has had limited effectiveness in linking such attacks to political terrorism. Such ELF efforts were supported and promoted by numerous Anarchist extremist sites on the Internet, including Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) extremist support organizations. In some cases, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Sacramento, California investigated Anarchist-linked ELF arson attacks, and offered rewards.

Once again, what did such Anarchist terrorism achieve to promote environmental causes? The only thing such Anarchist terrorism achieved was undermining legitimate, peaceful, and responsible efforts to achieve environmental change through cooperative and democratic processes. Environmental progress over decades has been achieved despite, not because of such Anarchist violence.

——————–

(6) Anarchists Frustrated with Occupy Protests Call for More “Insurrectionist” Goals.

During 2011-2012, American protesters challenged the conditions of economic justice in the United States formed a series of “Occupy” protests, starting at Wall Street in New York City, and spreading to 600 cities in the U.S., as well as global protesters in 951 cities in 82 nations. The focus changed with various protest activities in different areas and participants, but the overall focus was the protesters views of economic and social inequality. The initial protest activity, “Occupy Wall Street,” resulted in protesters taking over part of New York City’s Zuccotti Park. The argument that protesters made was that financial inequality by a “1 percent” was harming the social equality for the “99 percent.” While the Occupy protests included illegal acts, the majority of activities were non-violent. Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists were frustrated with this, and sought a different, more “insurrectionist” approach. Among the values that the Occupy National Gathering (NatGat) sought to agree on was: “peace, nonviolence.”

Some Occupy-related violence did occur, including incitement by Anarchists within the organization that sought to move the Occupy protests towards a more insurrectionist direction. This included Occupy clashes with police in Oakland, California, in January 2012, at Frank Ogawa Plaza which resulted in 400 arrested; witnesses blamed Black Bloc Anarchists for inciting the Oakland violence. A 2012 photograph of the Oakland violence shows individuals dressed in the typical Anarchist Black Bloc black clothing and bandanna scrafs breaking down fencing at the plaza. In addition, some frustrated Anarchists formerly with Occupy movement also went on to plot (foiled) terrorist bombing attacks in Cleveland and Chicago.

Among the others frustrated by Occupy movements failure to adopt “insurrectionist” goals were Anarchist associated with Natasha Lennard. “Antifa” activist and media writer Natasha Lennard asked on July 12, 2012, “After National Gathering, Is There Room for Insurrectionary Anarchism in Occupy?”. Those on the political left who respected such protests should pay attention to the real message from the violent Anarchist movement. As “Antifa” activist and media writer Natasha Lennard wrote, Anarchists were disappointed about the failure of the Occupy protests to represent an opportunity “where insurrectionary action could be fostered.” One of Natasha Lennard’s fellow Anarchists in Brooklyn told her that Occupy was “counterproductive” because “it was gutted of any insurrectionary potential.” Natasha Lennard wrote: “For many anarchists who participated in and organized Occupy actions, the idea of protesting money in politics or free education was always comparatively unimportant.” She pointed out that while “the Occupy struggles provided a space to insert insurrectionary ‘methods’,”the failure (per the Anarchists) to have “escalation” by supports of the Occupy Movement, made the protests into nothing more than a “wasteland” for “insurrectionary anarchists.”

This should provide a lesson to those who believe that Anarchists and Antifa activist Natasha Lennard’s support for “Antifa” as “anti-racist;” this is a failure to understand the real priorities and objective of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist exttemists. Anarchist extremists do not seek “progress” in America, they only seek “insurrection.” This has been the case for the past 100 years in the U.S., no matter what cause or unrest the Anarchists attach themselve to, if the unrest does not produce “insurrection,” then it is a “waste” to them. This is because the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists have different targets; they do not support our shared human rights and democratic values, but only have a singular end goal of violent insurrection.

The Anarchists within the remnants of the “Occupy” movement are increasingly gaining support for the cause of violence and hate. In California, in February 2017, “Occupy Oakland” promoted the violence of the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” movement, writing “we will control the streets,” and “We will dismantle the state. This is war.” Less than five years, such calls for public violence and riots by Anarchist individuals within the Occupy movement are a far cry from the 2012 Occupy National Gathering which stated its support for “peace, non-violence,” with Occupy groups on social media openly promoting “Antifa” mob violence.

——————–

(7) Anarchist Terrorist Plots Often Obscured in Media Reports.

Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism is not only the “left-wing versus right-wing” distinction that many in the U.S. media want to simplistically portray it. Anarchist and anti-government terrorism blurs in many areas, and with government and media organizations focusing on releasing only information that supports a narrative they support, it is difficult to determine how much conflation between Anarchist and Anti-Government groups is going on. An additional problem in the 21st century is the difficulty in getting accurate information about Anarchist violence and terrorism, with a U.S. media that has become increasingly sympathetic to such views. In 2009, a Democratic Party HQ in Denver, Colorado was attacked, largely leading the media to suspect “right-wing” violence, when in fact, it turned out to be an Anarchist making such attacks. In 2012, reports of an “anarchist militia group” based out of U.S. Army Fort Stewart, Georgia, with members sporting Anarchist symbol tattoos, plotting attacks to overthrow the U.S. government, according to Georgia prosecutors in the case. The group was discovered after its leaders murdered two of its members about its silence. But the prosecution remained focused on the two murders, with reports about terror plots, bomb materials, and other information, including a reported assassination plot against U.S. President Barack Obama, with details never made available to the public.

But a consistent and coherent view of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorist and violent threats remains difficult to discern, with the combination of the normalization of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence infilitrating many large protest activities, and the increasingly willing of the U.S. media to shield or, in some cases, openly praise such violence and terrorism. While some members of the political media have believed that they could “leverage” such anarchist violence to damage political and governmental bodies they disagree with, the reality is failing to challenge such violent and hate has only undermined the integrity and credibility in the media.

——————–

(8) Anarchist Terrorism Glamorization by Film Industry.

Anarchist terrorism and violence also became increasingly glamorized by Hollywood writers and producers in major films by writers, actors, and artists, with a practice of portraying authorities figures as “fascist,” and thus legitimizing and normalizing acts of Anarchist violence against them. In 2006, the “V for Vendetta” glamorized Anarchist terrorism, which would inspire young Anarchists for many years to come. In the “V for Vandetta film,” the Anarchist terrorist “hero” is responsible for stabbings, murders, and leads terrorist bombings around London, including the destruction of Parliament and Downing Street. (It is no small irony that Time/Warner, Inc.’s Warner Brothers used this Anarchist normalization film to generate over $190M in capitalist revenue.) This Warner Brothers effort led to an even more widespread popular use of the Guy Fawkes for Anarchist to disguise themselves. In 2013, the 1919 Anarchist bombings across the United States were portrayed in another film, “No God, No Master.” Not surprisingly, the film version on some of the 1919 Anarchist terrorist attacks seeks to re-write history and portray the terrorists with sympathy and their victims as villains, conveniently leaving out the innocents killed and injured in such terror acts.

——————–

(9) Anarchist Terrorists Adopt Black Bloc Tactics.

During the 1980s, Anarchists in Europe began using a strategy called a “Black Bloc,” which is a method of anonymous riots and protests, by wearing all black clothing, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, and motorcycle helmets. This approach to Anarchist violence became more visible in 1999, when Anarchist Black Bloc tactics were used in the Seattle, Washington riots outside of the World Trade Organization (WTO). During the riots, police and WTO representatives were physically and violently attacked by the Anarchists. The riots were called “N30,” based on the November 30, 1999 date, and Anarchist terrorists in a Black Bloc formation began smashing windows between Pike Street from 6th Avenue. The Black Bloc violence encouraged other non-violent protesters to join in the terrorist attacks of vehicles and buildings, and the police became overwhelmed by the number of the rioters. Police declared a 50 block area for “no protest”, and curfew, by the National Guard was called in to end the violent insurrection. Anarchist terrorists found the violence to be a “victory,” by adapting new methods to recruit otherwise non-violent protesters to join into fevered Anarchist terrorist violence as part of a group effort against law enforcement and representative government authority. In 2000, Anarchist extremists used another major Black Bloc operations against the against the IMF in Washington DC, Festival De La Pueblo March in Boston in 2002, and the siege of the Lewiston Armory in Maine, 2003. This would become one of the new tactics of Anarchist operations.

With the use of Black Bloc organization tactics, Anarchist terrorists could now hide within any public protest activity, protected by the police and free speech, and by using peaceful protesters as the equivalent to “human shields,” go out and commit violence, incite riots, and then slip away, while the police and law enforcement felt paralyzed to effectively act. While such Anarchist Black Bloc violence and riots were less dramatic in terms of being life-threatening, Anarchist terrorists found this to be a tactic which would allow them to continue to spread a regular series of attacks, without meaningful consequences. U.S. law enforcement has been mainly interested in restoring the peace, and not arresting those “human shield” of peaceful protesters caught up in the Anarchist terrorist riot. Law enforcement has also been understandably concerned about “over-reaction” to such violence, after the decades of WUO terrorism went without consequence due to prosecutorial misconduct.

In Europe, such Anarchist Black Bloc attacks happen during every G20 event, and in the United States such Anarchist Black Bloc attacks frequently happen during conservative and Republican national events. Recent U.S. Presidents (both Obama and Trump) have been threatened in Europe by such Anarchist Black Bloc events.

Anarchist terrorists’ weapon of choice migrated from bombs to baseball bats, which could be readily purchased, untraceable, not illegal, and allowed them commit violence and disappear into a crowd. The United States of America has seen such Anarchist terror on a routine basis from the Anarchist Black Bloc groups, and from the perspective that it has become so commonplacee, the question as to who exactly the Anarchists are “terrorizing” is a legitimate question. Basically every year, we see Anarchist Black Bloc terrorist smashing windows, destroying police vehicles, throwing molotov cocktail fire bombs, throwing gas bombs, starting arson fires, and attacking the public, and by today, it is becoming a routine occurance.

——————–

(10) Anarchists Infiltration of Protest Groups Expands Reach and Recruitment for Violence.

In 2009, the DHS reported that “Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable. Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks—all of which extremists regard as nonviolent—to bombings and arson.” The DHS reported that Anarchist extremists “frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals,” and DHS identifed some of the Anarchist extremist groups as Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68.

But during the early 21st century, and especially over the past 10 years, Anarchist extremist and terrorist movements have profligated across the Internet and social media, with minimal resistance, largely because many of the organizations focused on identifying terrorist and extremist groups either have a focus on what they consider “right-wing” extremists, which are actually racist and Nazi groups, or on religious extremist movements. A coherent, organized, and responsible tracking of Anarcho-Communist extremist and terrorism is largely lacking, and of absolutely no interest to the U.S. mainstream media, which mostly considers Anarchist violence and terrorism as either “harmless” or even “positive.” The U.S. mainstream media has failed to grasp that the continuing underming of law and order also undermines the ability of legitimate state authority to protect American human rights, and has failed to appreciate the anti-democracy message of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists.

Furthermore, by Anarchist extremists co-opting peaceful protest movements by their use of Black Bloc and violent tactics, Anarchists found a new way to strike at the United States, its government, and its people, to maximize new recruits and not be held accountable for their acts of violence. During the early 21st century, political events, presence of U.S. government leaders, World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings, International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings, business activities, and the Iraq War were regular uses of Anarchist Black Block violence. In Washington DC, Anarchists attacked local businesses in the Georgetown area, and workers, due to an IMF meeting in Washington DC. While DC businesses tried to board up their windows, extremists attacking the businesses included injuring one woman worker for Abercrombie and Fitch store, by hitting her in the head with a brick.

Woman Holding Bloodied Head After Anarchist Terrorist Brick Attack in Washington D.C., October 2007, Channel 5 News

But the U.S. media increasingly gave little critical coverage of such Anarchist activities within protest marches, and the random Anarchist violence continued to become “normalized” as “routine” by both the media and law enforcement. Did such Anarchist violence change any globalist organizations and functions? History will show that such Anarchist terrorism, violence, and criminal acts achieved nothing in actual change in globalism or corporate responsibility. All such Anarchists achieved was to de-legitimize protest in the minds of some who witnessed their violence and contempt for law, democracy, and shared human rights and dignity.

Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists have also used political party national conventions in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, as organizing, recruiting, and training events in the United States, by using and infiltrating political protests for random acts of violence, Black Blocs, and using disaffection of protesters with major political candidates to try to recruit new members to their anti-democracy cause. This includes targeting both the Republican National Convention (RNC) and the Democratic National Convention (DNC). In the 2000 RNC and DNC conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, Anarchist terrorists used urine- and acid-filled Super Soaker guns on police, lighting fires and blocking traffic. The 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles was used by Anarchists not only for violence, but also for organizing a “North American Anarchist Conference” to organize and recruit for future violence. During the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Anarchist extremist threats included those by the Anarchist the Bl(A)ck Tea Society group that sought “direct actions to confront the Democratic National Convention in Boston,” and “No DNC: finish the american revolution.” At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Anarchist extremist Black Blocs led violent protests, and attacked police. Anarchist extremist group Crimethinc wrote that the Anarchist violence at “the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions constituted the most significant nationwide effort anarchists have undertaken to organize militant action in the US in several years.” Police arrested some Anarchist terrorists with pipe bombs who planned to use them at the 2008 Republican Convetion. In 2012, Anarchists planned to use acid-filled eggs as part of violence at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Charlotte and Tampa, although alert law enforcement was able to better control Anarchist violence at the 2012 conventions. At the Democratic National Convention, violent Anarchist sought to attack using “urine-filled eggs, acid-filled Christmas ornaments, and water guns containing urine, all meant to be used against the law enforcement security forces throughout the city.” At each American national political convention, Anarchist terrorists have gained more and more training in violence, knowledge of law enforcement tactics, and have started to obtain police planning documents and spread them online to better organize attacks on the democratic and political processes.

The U.S. war in Iraq was a regular cover and recruitment for Anarchist terrorist and Black Bloc violence, while infiltrating and co-opting anti-war protests by otherwise peaceful protesters. Any major anti-war demonstration became an opportunity for Anarchist organizations to issue Black Bloc violent groups into the streets, often in to as many as 25-50 cities simultaneously in one day. With police inability to recognize Anarchist terrorist activity among the protesters, too frequently Anarchist terrorists managed to commit acts of violence without consequence and to then hide among the protest crowds. Such Anarchist efforts were more than simply scattered acts of violence; they also provided opportunities to organize, train, and practice coordinated Anarchist violence. While Middle East wars provided terrorist training opportunities, America and Europe’s struggles and failure to have an effective “War of Ideas” to manage violent Anarchist infiltration of anti-war and other protests, has allowed national protests to become Anarchist Black Bloc violence training opportunities. Just as with the Vietnam War, the unpopular Iraq War was not settled due to the extremist violence of Anarchist terrorists and criminals, but was decided by the democratic processes that the American people use for their political system. The real goal of such Anarchist violence and terrorism has been to use opportunities of political and social unrest to promote an end to U.S. representative democracy and its government.

——————–

(11) Anarchist Terrorists Redefine Racial Strife as “Fascist” Challenge to Legitimize Non-State Violence.

Over the past 10 years, a key effort by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists in recruitment and rationalization of acts of violence has been in arguing that such political and terrorist violence was to fight “racism,” which remains a legitimate challenge in the U.S. although the degree of racist activity has actually significantly reduced over the past 50 years, thanks to the sober and responsible work of non-violent human and civil rights activists and government officials. Those who actually worked for real achievements in American civil rights and racial justice know that it was not achieved with violence and division, but by compassion and integrity. Such rights and dignity were not improved with an upraised fist, but with an outstretched hand. Americans shared the democratic vision of non-violent leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr.

With the growth of ubiquitious instant hand-held video, using a combination of new social media tools Twitter (2006), YouTube (2005), and the new iPhone (2007), injustices that were not previously documented and widely shared among the public, could now be instantly distributed among what would be called “social media” to mass audiences. In August 2014, a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri of an 18-year old black man, Michael Brown, launched massive protests, and also a demand for by those in support of racial justice for law enforcement accountability and responsibility in using violence appropriately. Protesters organized around a Twitter term (hashtag) of #BlackLivesMatters, and concerned Americans began to follow and document other acts of excessive police violence, which now could be instantly recorded, documented, and shared to a mass audience, without the mainstream media’s involvement. Additional police violence in Cleveland, OH, Cincinnati, OH, Baltimore, MD, Baton Rouge, LA, Chicago, IL, New York City, NY, among others, led to nationwide campaigns calling for racial justice and reviews of police use of violence involving black Americans. Most of the protests and concerned citizens involved in these were individuals that were genuinely and legimitately concerned about abuse of authority and persecution of black Americans, and were working to promote racial justice and respect for all Americans. R.E.A.L. shared and promoted such concerns for racial justice, as part of our members’ many, many decades of support for racial equality, justice, and human rights in America.

But just as with the Iraq War protests, Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists sought to try to infiltrate and manipulate actitivies during protests for their own anti-democracy and anti-Human Rights agenda. Furthermore, Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists sought to use such public concern and unrest for extremist recruitment, and discouraging concerned individuals from supporting democracy, and rejecting the authority of state law enforcement, which they urged the public to consider as “fascists.” Anarchists and Anacho-Communists sought to portray such public disturbances, excessive police violence, and killings of black Americans during police activity, as a rise of new “fascist” state within the United States. By Anarchists portraying the challenge as a “fight against fascists,” they sought to legitimize and normalize violence against police and other figures of authority.

Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists sought to de-legimitimize the use of state-sanctioned violence in law, law enforcement, and public order. With efforts to try to undermine the authority and the right of law enforcement to use violence to maintain the law, the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists offered another alternative to the public: “AntiFascist” vigilante violence by Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists. Not only were such extremists seeking to end the authority of law enforcement, they also sought to establish and Anarcho-Communist led “Anti-Fascist” movement as an alternative method of “enforcing justice.”

——————–

(12) Anarco-Communists and the History of the “Anti-Fascist” (Antifa) Movement.

It is wrong to allow the public to be deceived that such Anarcho-Communist movements, as the so-called “Anti-Fascist Action” (“Antifa”) are nothing more than another “anti-racist” movement. That is not true. Anarchist terrorism has a history of over 100 years terrosits attacks on U.S. and U.S. democracy, and violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists have adopted concerns over racist views to promote their own ideology.

The history of the “Anti-Fascist” movement began in the 1920s, with the combined efforts of Anarchists, Communists, and Socialists in rejecting Benito Mussolini in fascist Italy. The Italian Communists began with non-violent activities, but the Italian Anarchists organized repeated bombings against the Italian fascist community. Italian Anarchists were also the source of Foreign Terrorist Organization involvement in bring Anarchist terrorism to the United States. During Nazi Hitler’s rise to power, similar Anti-Fascist efforts developed in Spain, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The German Anti-Fascist organization was known as “Antifaschistische Aktion,” and was a predominantly Communist violent organization, which physically attacked and challenged Nazis in Nazi Germany. The Antifaschistische Aktion group was frequently known as “Antifa.” The original German Antifaschistische Aktion (“Antifa”) logo had two red (Communist) flags.

The concept of an “Antifa” organization was revived in Germany in the 1980s by Anarchists, Communists, and Anarcho-Communists, which sought block modern Neo-Nazi rallies. The modern Antifaschistische Aktion group has no connection to the 1930s group, other than adopting it banner of two flags, and changing it from two Red (Communist) flags to one Red (Communist) and one Black (Anarchist) flag in the logo, symbolizing the “Antifa’s” commitment to Anarcho-Communism.

For context within the United States, this European “Antifa”-based organization and violent approach is very different from the U.S. historical Civil Rights and legacy of effective and peaceful Anti-Racist movements, which have dealt with white supremacist and white nationalist hate in America. But increasingly, Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist extremists have sought to redefine the struggle in promoting racial equality and peacefully rejecting hate, as instead a violent struggle of being “Against Fascism,” based on the European model and history.

Within the United States, American Anarcho-Communists have adapated the modern German flag of Antifaschistische Aktion, and simply translated this into English as “Antifascist Action,” as an American version of “Antifa.” The Americanized version of Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” was then integrated as part of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist infiltration of American political and civil rights protests, with a new black and red flag banner to further recruit new followers to anti-democracy Anarcho-Communist views. Some groups in Washington DC and events calling for or engaged in violence have modified the “Antifa” logo to have two Anarchist (black) flags. Several groups Portland-based “Rose City Antifa,” “Antifa Today” reversed the order of the “Antifa” flag to show the Anarchist (black) on top and the Communist (red) on the bottom.

Anarchist activist Mark Bray has described for Vox that this American “Antifa” is led by “anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum,” confirming the Anarcho-Communist vision of the American version of “Antifa.” Anarchist activist Mark Bray also described such “Antifa” Anarcho-Communists as having “no allegiance to liberal democracy.” As Anarchist activist Mark Bray also told Vox, “remember that antifa isn’t concerned with free speech or other liberal democratic values.” Antifa activist and media writer Natasha Lennard also challenge respect for democracy and human rights. On January 19, 2017, she condemned those who would respect law and free speech, and rejection of Antifa views of disruption and violence, saying a division should be made to reject: “when someone, in professed name of democracy, would sooner condemn or even imprison anti-fascist, anti-racist actors before they would see a ceremony affirming and buoying fascism meet with interference.” The next day, Natasha Lennard joined Anarchist Black Blocs in the Washington DC January 20 riots, and praised those assaulting Richard Spencer. She argues that the Antifa campaign is not based on “a rights framework,” and “[t]his is not a question of rights, it’s a question of justice.” On August 16, 2017, Natasha Lennard rationalized her Antifa support in attacking rights: “We’re not asking for Nazi speech rights to be curtailed. Antifa is not about asking.” The Anarchist and Anacho-Communist writers seek to rationalize their self-appointed authority to make up their own laws, and be the judge, jury, and punishers of other Americans, without regard to democracy, the law, and human rights. As Antifa” media writer Natasha Lennard writes in The Nation: “[t]his is not a question of rights, it’s a question of justice.”

A further detailed review of the Anarcho-Communist views of the American “Antifa” leaders shows that the threat is more than just a lack of “allegiance” to democracy, but an open and public REJECTION of representative democracy. It has no intentions of supporting peaceful Anti-Racist causes, “liberal” causes, the support of the U.S. Constituion, or “patriotic” views – all of which the American Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists clearly reject. While the Anarcho-Communists have allowed some to be deceived about their real intentions to help slowly recruit members to their cause, the misinformation about what “Antifa” actually represents has also become frustrating for some doctrinaire Anarchists and Anarcho-Communist groups, who have felt compelled to make it clear that “Antifa” does not represent American anti-racism and it does not support American democracy.

Anarchist groups such as Crimethinc have felt increasingly confident to reveal more of their real agenda, which is to attack and end democracy in America. Thoughtful Americans should give sober and serious thought as to the manipulation by Anarchist movements to incite Americans to move for insurrection against democracy itself. (Crimethinc was one of the Anarchist extremist groups in 2009 DHS report regarding Anarchist and extremist groups in a report on terrorist threats to the United States.)

In a recent statement by the Anarchist extremist group Crimethinc, the Anarchists attack democracy itself as an option in America: “Anarchism is one of the most thoroughgoing forms of opposition to fascism, in that it entails opposition to hierarchy itself. Virtually every framework that countenances hierarchy, be it democracy or ‘national liberation,’ enables old power imbalances like white supremacy and patriarchy to remain in place, hidden within the legitimacy of the prevailing structures.” To the Crimethinc Anarchists, they call for Americans “to cut to the root of things” – that is to abandon “the legitimacy” of the U.S. government and of DEMOCRACY itself. As the Anarchists at “Its Going Down” write: “Refining laws and electing politicians cannot dismantle white supremacy.” Such Anarhists and Anarcho-Communists do not seek political “allies,” but as “It’s Going Down” writes, they seek the overthrow and destruction of “the whole system.” The Anarchist “Its Going Down” site makes it clear in its article “The Liberal Myth of Free Speech” that it rejects “the lie of free speech.”

So Anarchist extremists have sough to persuade Americans that challenging racist fringe groups means rejecting democracy. This is the long-run strategy for Anarchists and Anarcho-Communist organizations, which have a goal to recruit more member for violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, businesses, and institutions in America.

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists have manipulated too many in the public and the media to believe that the protests by such American “Antifa” are simply “anti-racist,” conveniently omitting the rest of story to mainstream media and those who might not be fully convinced, of the rest of the Anarcho-Communist extremist commitment to violence and rejection of democracy. Among the few in the U.S. political media to challenge such Antifa violence, The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart wrote “Antifa’s violent tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left.” Beinart also wrote: “Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation.”

Ignoring the evidence of Anarcho-Communist violence, as well as the Anarcho-Communist links to the so-called American “Antifa,” U.S. Today journalist Doug Stanglin, claimed that such “Antifa” was not violent. In an August 23, 2017 article, “What is antifa and what does the movement want?,” he wrote: “Members pointedly do not eschew violence but rather see themselves as engaging in ‘self-defense,’ protecting other protesters and primarily confronting neo-Nazis and white supremacists to deny them a platform to publicly spread their views.” Doug Stanglin writes that such “self-defense” violence (totally ignoring the 100 years of Anarchist terrorist violence and the numerous attacks by the new Anarcho-Commmunist “Antifa” is considered necessary to stop “fascism.” He quotes the Portland, Oregon-based Rose City Antifa’s Facebook page (May 24, 2017) prior to a violent Anarchist event in Portland: “We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy.”

USA Today’s Stanglin does not mention the history of violence, the calls by Antifa to burn down U.S. courts, the attacks by “Antifa” on the public, and the growing nexus between Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist acts of violence and terrorism, and the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign against law, government, and democracy itself.

Core Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists have selectively revealed their true objective on the destruction of representative democracy in America for a more selected group of those deceived that their “Antifa” campaign equals what Americans would understand as patriotic and Constitutional challenges to racism. They would begin to be more candid about their goals in overthrowing the U.S. government and subverting democracy as more campaigns gained greater media and public support. For the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists, a significant political change in the election of a new president became an opportunity for them to gain new followers, and to move from merely fringe terrorists to more aggressively working in the overthrow of the U.S. government and democratic processes.

The modern American Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign was provided a uniquely historical opportunity for expansion as a result of the 2016-2017 political unrest, and the decision by the U.S. political media to repeatedly use the term “fascist” to describe political figures it rejected. The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and 2017 post-election period provided unparalleled openings for Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists to expand their Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign, by using the U.S. political media which was actively working to de-legitimize the 2016 election and the new administration. With the Washington Post and other mainstream media political pundits calling the new president a “fascist,” now Anarcho-Communists no longer had to wait for a random appearance of a fringe White Supremacists and Nazis to rationalize acts of violence.

By labeling the new government leader as a “fascist,” and by association anyone working for him, “working for a fascist,” the Anarcho-Communists now had a ready made straw-man argument for 24×7 continuous violent “direct action” by those in the “Antifa” campaign. Anything said or done by the new government would now become rationalization for Antifa violence and terrorism, based on claim that this was merely “self-defense” against a “fascist” government. Furthermore, any criticism or honest investigation into “Antifa” campaign violence by Anarcho-Communists would be rebutted with a ready critique, “do you support fascism?”

By the U.S. political media normalizing the slanderous use of the word “fascist,” this gave Anarcho-Communists a ready tactic to silence anyone who challenged or disagreed with their anti-democracy, anti-free speech authoritarianism.

The more the U.S. political media pursued extreme political partisan attacks against the new government as “fascist,” the more the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign, including its violence and terrorism became legitimized. It created a “perfect storm” to advance Anarcho-Communist violence, with too many human rights groups afraid of pointing out the truth on this violence, and a U.S. political media which became more concerned about challenging government leaders it did not like to stop and consider the consequences of enabling growing Anarcho-Communist violence and terrorism.

At the same time this was happening in 2016, DHS and FBI were recognizing “Antifa” as presenting a threat of “domestic terrorist violence.” According to a Politico report, “Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as ‘domestic terrorist violence,’ according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO.”

——————–

(13) Early Anarchist Use of “Antifa” Campaign for Violence in America.

Despite widespread U.S. political misperception, the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaigns in the U.S. did not begin in 2016 during political unrest or in 2014 after the Ferguson police violence. In fact, the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaigns had been active for some time in the early 21st century, but the U.S. mainstream media choose not to pay attention to this in its news reporting. Information on this is scattered and inconsistent due to the disinterest by mainstream media in most instances. But as Eli Lake has recently wrote for Bloomberg about the “Antifa” campaign, “[t]his movement in the U.S. has been around for decades.”

This is not a trivial point of history. There are those within the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists that have a propaganda lie that the political unrest in the U.S. during 2015-2017, particularly the past two years, is the nexus for its “Antifa” campaign. But this is simply a blantant lie, and it is documented that this is a lie. The objective of the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist propaganda lie is to normalize, rationalize, and legitimize their use of violence and hate, to those who are angry and frustrated due to political unrest. The Anarchists seeks to manipulate such anger to get Americans to lose their commitment to our rights and our democracy, and choose acts of violence and hate instead. The real goal of the Anarchists is to move such “Antifa” campaigners toward the real goal of the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists which is total national insurrection. They don’t want change; they want destruction of America.

R.E.A.L. noticed a particular uptake in “Antifa” violent activity in 2009 (8 years ago), but as we have previously reported such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence has been a threat to U.S. for over 100 years. R.E.A.L. volunteers challenging Hamas were targets of violence by Anarcho-Communists in 2009. We were aware of other groups calling themselves “Antifa” in October 2009 in Philadelphia, PA threatening other extremists. R.E.A.L reported on violent “Antifa” counterprotests in Los Angeles, CA in 2010, and in Philadelphia, PA in 2010.

We also have a clear proof point of “Antifa” violence in 2012 in Chicago, because this violence was significant and public enough that it could not be ignored by the media, although it was only Chicago media. In this case, the “Antifa” group also used the name “Anti-Racist Action (ARA).”

On May 19, 2012, a gang of “15 to 18” masked and hooded “antifascist” (“Antifa”) criminals attacked a restaurant “Ashford House” in Tinley Park, Cook County, Illinois near Chicago. The Chicago Tribune also described the Anarchists “Antifa” attack as “anti-racists” with the “Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement.” Their target was a group of white nationalists eating at the restaurant, but their terrorist attack included the general public. The masked “Antifa” thugs came in “wielding bats and hammers” (according to the Chicago Tribune) to attack the public and smash up the restaurant. The Chicago Tribune also reported: “A long-time waitress, who declined to give her name, said of the melee: ‘It was the scariest frickin’ day of my life.’ The woman later said outside the restaurant that she first noticed the group of victims in the parking lot around 12:30 p.m., milling around some cars with out-of-state plates. About 15 minutes later, the second waitress told the woman that there was a brawl in the restaurant. The woman said when she emerged, she saw the attacking group attacking patrons with bats and hammers. All the dishes and plates were knocked off the tables and smashed, and people were either lying on the ground bleeding or crouched behind tables, she said.” Mother Jones News reported (in 2017) that the terrorists used “baseball bats, police batons, hammers, and nunchucks” in attacking the public and the restaurant.

In addition to the “Antifa” criminals attacking those they identified as white nationalists, Mother Jones news reported that “[a]n 80-year-old woman celebrating her granddaughter’s high school graduation at a nearby table was also pushed to the floor. A retired cop who believed he was witnessing a terrorist attack used a chair to knock out one of the masked intruders. That’s when they ran off, dragging their dazed companion. In less than two minutes, the anti-racists had unleashed a flurry of destruction. A mosaic of smashed glass covered the floor. Blood polka-dotted the ceiling. Three people required medical care.”

R.E.A.L. has a provided link to a video excerpt of the attack. This should provide a clear vision of the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist campaign of violence represents.

Five were arrested from the group of masked criminal thugs, who arrived in cars with Indiana license plates (which is only way they were caught.) The five arrested and charged were Dylan Sutherland, Jason Sutherland, John Tucker, Cody Sutherland, and Alex Stuck. Some of the group claimed to be members of an “anti-racist” group, “Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement” (HARM). But research into their supporters provided a clearer part of the story. Jason Sutherland had a fund-raising site describing themselves as “five antifascists.” This was in the Spring of 2012. The criminals were support by “Anarchist Black Cross (ABC)” groups, who described them as “Antifa” and the “Tinley Park 5” (“TP5”). The five arrested Anarchist “Antifa” accepted a plea-deal for a reduced sentence, and all of them have now been released, and are publicly trying to maintain a “low profile” while on parole, with Jason Sutherland continuing in 2017 to tell the media they were fighting “a war” and that the public needs to “take sides.”

One of the “Antifa” TP5 supporters, which Mother Jones News calls “Telly,” likely for pseudonym “telephoneassasin,” has been working to help create the East Coast “Torch Antifa” network. The “Torch Antifa” has gone on to publicize other “Antifa” events and acts of violence, including a link to a May 2017 attack in Chicago, where “Known White Supremacist Tom Christensen Sent to Hospital by Antifa,” bragging that this man was “sent to the hospital in an ambulance following a lengthy meeting with the business end of several cue sticks.”

As previously mentioned, Anarchists viewed the Occupy movement as insufficiently violent and insurrectionary. So it was with these Anarchists. “Antifa” terrorist John Tucker, who as a cousin to the Sutherland brothers, told Mother Jones News that: “The feeling was that Occupy had been too moderate and unfocused.” So these Anarchists sought acts of violence. We have continued to see a pattern of violent attacks by such Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists, using any rationale of “injustice” as a larger goal to promote violence and attack our shared human rights. Such “Antifa” is not based on peaceful defiance and rejection of racism, but is based on its own hatred and calls for violence, which only perpetuate more hate and violence.

——————–

(14) Political Unrest Provides “Perfect Storm” to Advance Anarcho-Communist Violence.

During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Anarchist violence and terrorism was increasingly used on a routine basis to disrupt Republican political events, with major Anarchist-led and inspired events in Chicago, Portland, Oregon, throughout California, Arizona, New York, among many others. Black bloc mobs went from merely smashing vehicles and starting fires, to openly attacking, chasing, and beating chasing political activists. Too often, especially in California, law enforcement stood by and did nothing during such violent riots, which set the stage for the growing Anarchist violence crisis in 2017, by allowing a further normalization of Anarchist and Anarchist-inspired violence. Those performing such violence were given the misleading view by too many unwilling to act in law enforcement, that their criminal activity would be “permissible.” [For the record, R.E.A.L. is a non-partisan organization; we are reporting on this Anarchist violence, as we do other anti-human rights violence and terrorism, and regardless of who and what its targets are. The challenge to R.E.A.L. is the threat of such violence and terrorism to our shared human rights, in this case, for all Americans.]

With the political strife following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists found the popular division as another opportunity to spread their message of Anarcho-Communist violence against authority and rejection of democracy. They found an unparalleled receptive audience in frustrated American political partisans and the U.S. political media.

On January 20, 2017, R.E.A.L. was present in Washington, D.C. as explosions went off and the ground itself shook. The sounds of massive explosions could be heard blocks away from a violent standoff between law enforcement and Anarchist rioters. The Anarchist rioters, using the “DisruptJ20” movement and those protesting against the U.S. president’s inauguration as “human shields” between themselves and the police, created Anarchist Black Bloc terrorist violence throughout Washington D.C. Anarchist terrorists clad in black, wearing masks, attacked Washington D.C. buildings, smashing windows, setting fire to automobiles, and attacking the police and the public. Cordons of police were needed, with one of the largest deployments of law enforcement, including National Guard and other U.S. military within Washington D.C. on January 20, to contain and prevent the Anarchist terrorists from breaking through police and security barriers and threaten the lives of the public and President-Elect.

By the end of January 20, 2017, over 200 had been arrested by law enforcement desperate to get the “J20” riots under control, many charged with felony riot criminal charges. But the Anarchist terrorists scored a new victory by engaging and recruiting political protesters to begin to take their side. The Washington Post and other major U.S. media painted a sympathetic position towards the Anarchist terrorists, which has continued to this day.

Notably a number of supporter of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were part of Anarchist Black Bloc organizations during the January 20 riot in Washington D.C. The planning efforts of “Anti-Capitalist” IWW were publicized on January 6 by the Anarchist news service “It’s Going Down,” which reported that they met and discussing planning efforts for public disruption with “two members from the Counter-Inaugural Welcoming Committee, as well as two members of the General Defense Committee (GDC) of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).” According to the IWW GDC Facebook site, their role within the union is to promote “militant anti-fascism.” A number of Anarchist Black Bloc individuals were photographed at the January 20 riot, carrying red IWW union flags. According to the IWW GDC Facebook site, in April 2017, they sought donations for bail for “35 IWW members [that] have been charged with felonies” at the Disrupt J20 riots. The IWW frequently posts articles on social media from the Anarchist “It’s Going Down” radical website, and the Communist Jacobinmag radical website. On May 1, 2017, in Washington DC, supporters/members of the IWW wearing IWW shirts and flying IWW red flags protested outside the DC Superior Court, making threats against the court and chanting “burn it down.” The IWW has appeared in numerous other “protests” including recent threats outside of the Alexandria, Virginia apartment building where a Nazi extremist lives. Responsible union members should be asking about the IWW’s involvement in such riots, threats to destroy U.S. courts, and other violent activity.

Those supporting American human rights and Constitutional rights have a responsibility to reject and condemn the Anarachist and Anarcho-Communist lawless and violent campaign of “Antifa,” as nothing other than an attack on shared rights, liberties, freedoms, and a direct assault on American democracy itself.

——————–

(15) Violent Assault on Fringe Nazi Leader by Anarchist Black Bloc Gets Media Praise.

In addition to Anarchist extremists, other political fringe elements showed up on January 20 to get media attention, which they never would have ever received in any other time. So fringe extremists such as Richard Spencer of the Neo-Nazi National Policy Institute (NPI), who would normally have a small room of a few dozen fellow extremists, now received Washington Post and international media coverage. Such strawman extremist figures provided violent Anarchists with all the excuse they needed for further acts of violence. As the media went to interview Richard Spencer, one of the Anarchist terrorist from the Black Bloc broke away to punch Spencer in the face, while the media was interviewing him. This violence became a media sensation, and gave the Anarchists new legitimization for acts of violence; unlike calls for non-violent “civil disobedience” in debates over civil rights and political issues, these were calls for open VIOLENT disobedience to police and government.

The next day, on January 21, 2017, much of the political media was using this as the new headline story, decrying the number of Anarchist terrorists being arrested (rather than the violence and destruction they had wrought), ignoring the concerns of legitimate peaceful protesters as not “sensational” enough, and focusing on legitimizing and normalizing Anarchist violence in the on-camera punch by the Anarchist attacking Nazi Richard Spencer. As R.E.A.L. has previously reported, a sea of support for the Anarcho-Communist violence flooded the Establishment media – Newsweek: “The Infinite Joy of Watching a Nazi Get Punched to Music,” The Nation: “If You Appreciated Seeing Neo Nazi Richard Spencer Get Punched, Thank the Black Bloc,” The New York Times: “Internet Asking Is it O.K. to Punch a Nazi?”, The Independent: “Yes, it is OK to punch a Nazi like Richard Spencer in the face,” Washington Post: A step-by-step guide to a meme about punching a Nazi in the face,” The Guardian: “Is punching Richard Spencer inciting violence or ‘American as apple pie’?”. The “reporter” for The Nation was an open participant in the Anarchist Black Bloc violence in Washington D.C., and the “reporter” for the Washington Post article promoted sales for shirts to “punch a Nazi.” The Nation’s Natasha Lennard glowingly describes her role and support for the Anarchist Black Bloc, which attacked the police, public, building, and vehicles on its “J20” riots, by creating a straw-man “enemy” which the Anarchists were “fighting against.” Natasha Lennard writes that “You don’t have to fight neo-Nazis in the street, but you should support those who do,” which reads well to those who actually were not in Washington D.C. on January 20, but the reality there were “neo-Nazis in the street,” except a random fringe extremist or two, like Richard Spencer. She portrays circumstances that never existed, as a way to rationalize and normalize Anarchist violence and terrorism in the mainstream media. Those few challenging this normalization of Anarchist violence would then face slander of being falsely accused of “defending” Nazis, when the reality is that those few courageous individuals in human rights were defending America’s democracy and freedoms from the threat by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists.

This was the glowing media reaction to the Anarchist violence, and praising public assualt in the streets of Washington D.C., while failing to condemn the Anarchist “J20” riots across the city, leaving fire, damage, destruction, and assault in its wake. Such praise of Anti-human rights violence by Anarchists terrorists was nothing less than an open assault on the law and American democracy by the U.S. and mainstream media. Such acceptance and support for public violence has rejuvenated and glamorized the Anarchist terrorist movement in 2017.

——————-

(16) Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Use Political Unrest to Recruit and Attack Democracy.

In the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist after-glow of their public relations “victory” on January 20, such extremist movements began looking for new opportunities to use political unrest to promote their cause. Having practiced efforts at public deceit over an Anti-Fascist cause, which was really an Anarcho-Communist cause for several years, the efforts of much of the coastal political U.S. media to attack political candidate and the President Trump as a “fascist,” provided another opportunity for them. While previously the Anarcho-Communists could only use their “Antifa” recruitment campaign in the occasional appearance of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, now the U.S. polical media gave the Archo-Communists a ready propaganda gift that the U.S. President was “a fascist,” and anyone associated with the U.S. Government was now “working for a fascist.” The struggle between the new president and the political media was so intense, that the political media not only would not step back from such incendiary rhetoric, it felt compelled to repeat and expand on it. It was a “dream” opportunity for the Anarcho-Communists. With the Washington Post pundits calling the U.S. President a “fascist” and the New York Times pundits calling the U.S. President a “terrorist,” certainly no one was going to look very closely at what the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists misson statement.

As political unrest grew and political media became more fevered, the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists only had to state that they were offering an “Antifa” against a government itself which was led by a “fascist” or a “terrorist,” according to major media pundits. If you dared to question the history of violence and actual terrorist attacks on America by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists, the ready response would be, “don’t you want to stop ‘fascism’? Perhaps you are a ‘fascist’ too.” By positioning themselves as the only “Antifa” defenders against “fascism,” the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists achieved what their ideology was best focused for: silencing free speech and demonizing those who would ask questions about them.

At each new protest involving political unrest, Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists continued to infiltrate Black Blocs (which had now been glamorized by the political media) to commit acts of violence and incite riots. Increasingly, they convinced more recruits that “violence is the answer” and when major U.S. political media were openly questioning the benefits of democracy, the Anarcho-Communist argument that democracy and the U.S. government system should be overthrown, was less of a hard sell for them.

After a century of terrorist acts designed to destory and overthrow the U.S. Government and democracy, Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists were faced with a new problem: how to harness the public political unrest effectively enough to actually complete their vision. One of the key goals, the Anarcho-Communists realized was that they needed to continue to encourage disaffected members of the American public to attack and destroy Freedom of Speech of those that they opposed. Opposing voices remained a threat to their plans.

But the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists realized that destruction of Free Speech would not be quickly acheived without significant convincing. So they wanted for opportunities of extremists in on the right, and set them as “straw man” individuals who represented a threat of “hate speech.” In this era of political unrest, they argued, convincingly to too many, after all, if we have an “Antifa” movement to stop the “fascist control” of our nation, we cannot allow “hate speech” to proceed without consequence. As a result, they began convincing thousands of Americans to promote the view that “hate speech is not free speech,” and of course, the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign would decide what represented “hate speech.”

This was another step in the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorist efforts to de-legitimize law in America. They had been working for years to de-legitimize law enforcement, then to de-legitimize law enforcement’s right to use violence to enforce the law, now the next step would be to de-legitimize the Constitutional right of the government to protect free speech. The Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists then just needed to watch for opportunities to use Black Bloc organized violence to recruit new Americans to attack Constitutionally-protected free speech. The literal “war of words” was working, and Anarcho-Communist campaigning was successfully, leveraging political unrest, to turn Americans against one another in denying free speech to each other. The Anarcho-Communists needed to continue to link such Antifa-assessed “hate speech” into an actual “fascist threat,” which was becoming a reality, with their enhanced support by an agitated U.S. political media. The IWW GDC describes in the tri-fold membership application that their role is in “defense of those who find themselves at odds with the bosses, the police, and the courts because of their commitment to the working class,” rationalizing a support for defensible criminal activity, simply as another worthy campaign to challenge “fascists” in every branch of commercial and state authority.

——————–

(17) Armed Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists Parade with Automatic Weapons in American Streets.

Anarchist / Anarcho-Communists are building an “Antifa” network of groups with automatic weapons across the U.S.

In early 2017, Anarchist extremist and terrorist movements, communicating and organizing by using modern social media, continued to grow as the U.S. media continued to legitimize Anarchist violence. This included the use of automatic weapons, rifles, and other guns taken by Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists at public events. There has been increased public activities by armed Anarchist extremist groups, such as “John Brown’s Gun Club” and other Anarchist “Redneck Revolt” groups and similar armed Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “clubs.” Such armed Anarchist group have been seen wearing masks and disgusing their identity, repeatedly attended political events and protests with automatic weapons, including AR-15 and AK-47 automatic rifles. (John Brown was an armed abolitionist, who led a failed armed raid on the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry on October 16 through 18, 1859, prior to the U.S. Civil War.)

The armed Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist organizations are part of a nationwide network that calls itself “Redneck Revolt,” which armed chapters in 26 states and 47 cites/regions. The “Redneck Revolt” has a symbol with a red bandanna mask, a gun, and wrench. The armed Anarchist “gun clubs” operate out of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernardino Valley, and Bay Area branch), Florida (Tampa Bay, Greater Orlando), Georgia (Atlanta, Savannah) Idaho (North Idaho), Illinois (Central Illinois, Chicago), Kansas (Northeast Kansas), Louisiana (New Orleans), Maine, Michigan (Southeast Michigan, Northern Lower Michigan, Lansing), Missouri (Mid-Missouri, Phelps County), New York (North Country, Suffolk County-Long Island), North Carolina (Silver Valley, Carolina Mountain, Shelby), Ohio (Scioto, Cincinnati), Oklahoma (Oklahoma City), Oregon (Rose City, Springfield), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh), Rhode Island, South Dakota (Black Hills), Texas (San Antonio, Houston), Virginia (Roanoke Valley), Washington State (Puget Sound), West Virginia (Friendly City), Wisconsin (Fond du Lac, Upper Peninsula).

Using the “Antifa” campaign argument, such armed Anarchists further rationalized such weapons as part of their fight against “fascism,” and they filmed themselves in armed formations on public streets and marching among the public. This is not the only armed Anarchist “Antifa” group, others exist to support Anarchist and Communist armed causes in the United States of America, including the “Socialist Rifle Association,” which regularly posts images of “Antifa” banners, automatic weapons, and knives.

The Phoenix News Times repeatedly reported on such armed Anarchist campaigns and protests, including one reporter (now working for the Southern Poverty Law Center), who was repeatedly threatened for photographing the Anarchists parading with automatic weapons. According to the New Times, “Redneck Revolt began as a blog run by JBGC member Dave Strano, an anarchist activist who previously has operated out of Kansas and Colorado,” and Dave Strano was “a leading member of a group called Anarchist Black Cross.”

This group of armed Anarchist and “Antifa” sent 20 of their armed members to protests in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017. Prior to the protests, the armed Anarchist groups issued a warning on its website: “To the fascists and all who stand with them, we’ll be seeing you in Virginia.” After the Charlottesville riots, this armed Anarchist / “Antifa Redneck Revolt group posted to its web site that “Redneck Revolt members formed a unified skirmish line” against white supremacists, as part of its activities in Charlottesville. According their posting online, most of the Redneck Revolt members were “open-carrying tactical rifles.”

The IWW Mid-Atlantic General Defense Committee used its social media communications on Facebook to promote the Anarchist John Brown’s Gun Club armed campaigns, writing on July 15, 2017 that: “The working class is not going to take state repression, institutional racism or any other axes of oppression sitting down.”

The armed Anarchist groups have appeared at public demonstrations that R.E.A.L. has seen documentation on at Phoenix, AZ (repeatedly), Boston, MA, and Charlottesville, VA. This included an armed patrol of such Anarchists with automatic weapons with protesters outside of recent speech by the U.S. President in Phoenix, where protesters threw flaming smoke bombs at the police. Before the attacks on the police in Phoenix, the armed Anarchists marched throughout the public crowds with their automatic weapons. With the growing tolerance for mob violence at Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / “Antifa” events, this armed presence represents a security challenge that should be considered in ensuring peaceful nature of public protests and events.

——————–

(18) Berkeley Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Campaign.

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists had used Berkeley, California as one of the many coastal university communities, as primary sources of recruitment and ideological indoctrination, and their riots on February 1, 2017 gave them a sense of empowerment in challenging law and order. The reason for the riot was the appearance of a controversial speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos. British controversial right-wing personality Milo Yiannopoulos has remained a controversial figure due to his frequently offensive comments on women, race, and other topics. Yiannopoulos decided to start a campus speaking tour in late 2015, which gained a series of protests during 2016. Repeated efforts were made during 2016 to interrupt and keep him from speaking.

After the U.S. presidential election, he sought to continue such campus speaking engagements in 2017. On January 20, 2017, his speech outside the University of Washington led to violent protests outisde the event, including violent use of pepper spray, bricks, and other violence among protesters and counterprotesters. The violence between the two groups escalated when one of male IWW protesters was shot by a woman counterprotester who told the Seattle Times that she feared injury outside the event. The IWW protester was released from the hospital, and the woman counterprotester’s court case remains pending.

Instead of recognizing that such political violence was getting out of control, Milo Yiannopoulos decided to go forward with another public discussion 10 days later at the University of Berkeley, California. The Yiannopoulos speaking event was canceled at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2017, but this did not stop the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist rioters who sought to make certain they used their counter-protests over this non-event to injure and destroy.

An estimated 150 Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist rioters infilitrated the protest group of 1,500 University of Berkeley protesters, to turn the protest against Yiannopoulos and his views into a violent riot, using Black Bloc attire and attacks. The Anarchists attacked and injured the public with clubs and metal bars, set fires, threw rocks at police, threw Molotov Cocktail firebombs, smashed windows, and damaged property around the campus and businesses.

Anarchists rallied around what they sought to portray as an “Antifa” protest, and they were joined by California-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). BAMN had a leading role in a 2016 Sacramento riot, with one of BAMN’s organizer’s Yvette Felarca filmed in attacking and beating a man during the riot, with her supporters dragging a man to the ground, beating, and kicking him. In the 2016 Sacramento riot, at least 10 people suffered stab wounds and lacerations.

In videos of the February 1, 2017 riots and violent attacks shared by proud members of the Anarchist organizations on social media, Anarchists could be seen taking wooden clubs which had been used to hold flags, metal rods, and pepper spray to attack individuals outside the event and speaking to the media. Videos of Anarchists were posted to social media, showing them going into crowds of counterprotesters and bludgeoning them, beating them into the ground, and seeking to badly injure anyone who disagreed with the Anarachists riot. Black Block Anarchists assaulted a Syrian Muslim man in a suit, with metal rods and pepper spray, because they claimed “he looked like a Nazi,” and they attacked a white woman with pepper spray while giving an interview to the media. Berkeley reporter Malini Ramaiyer wrote: a “co-reporter was threatened as she recorded students marching down the street, and I was threatened when I took pictures of the vandalism, I myself became afraid and upset.”

Despite all of the violence, physical attacks, and firebombs, the University of California police department arrested only one individual for failure to disperse. The February 2017 Anarchist terrorist would not be the last time that such Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists terrorist and rioting overcame the ability of law enforcement to control and contain the situation.

——————————

(19) The Washington Post Glamorizes Anarchist Violence (Again).

Despite this and a rash of other violent Anarchist terrorist attacks across the country, including violent riots and terrorism in Washington D.C., the washington Post choose to provide glowing and supporting coverage of those behind Anarchist attacks on American human rights.

On August 10, 2017, Washington Post writer Ms. Perry Stein wrote an article which recieved front page electronic media coverage: “What draws Americans to anarchy? It’s more than just smashing windows,” with a photo of young man with sunglasses carrying a baseball bat joined by a young woman with a black bandanna mask. They were both dressed in all black, with the man wearing stylistic black sunglasses and balancing his baseball bat weapon on his shoulder, taken in an idyllic park setting, as such support for public violence was “normal.”

The Washington Post writer describe such violent Anarchists as simply another form of form of civil responsibility: “[b]y day, they are graphic designers, legal assistants, nonprofit workers and students. But outside their 9-to-5 jobs, they call themselves anarchists — bucking the system, shunning the government and sometimes even rioting and smashing windows to make a point.” Ms. Stein sought to rationalize and legitimize such Anarchist criminal violence, stating that “[w]hat the court documents call ‘malicious’ and ‘violent’ acts, the anarchists see as a necessary way to draw attention to poverty, racism, educational inequality and other problems.”

Washington Post described violent Anarchists as sympathetic, including the Anarchist riot mob tactics of Black Blocs, writing that Anarchists felt “[y]ou can breathe easy at a black bloc. You know if one person gets demasked, they will have your back.” The Washington Post went on to address that many new violent Anarchists were formed around the DisruptJ20 meetings, “many people leading the meetings were anarchists.” After the Washington Post writer giving one of the women Anarchists (who is a legal assistant) an unchallenged opportunity to defend her violence “of course they’re breaking windows, they’re mad,” she concludes that such violent Anarchism promotes meeting the public’s needs: “People assume that anarchism is so extreme. But I associate it with wanting everyone’s needs to be met.”

Washington Post reporter Ms. Stein neglected to report that one of the Anarchists that she interviewed who wants “everyone’s needs to be met,” had been recently leading protest chants to have the DC Superior Court burned down. This Anarchist leader protested, along with local members of IWW, outside DC Superior Court, at its Indiana Avenue entrance, on May 1, 2017. The Anarchist and IWW protested jointly called for the dropping of all criminal charges against the Anarchists for the J20 riots in Washington, D.C., or they chanted “if we don’t get it, burn it down.”
——————–

(20) Women’s Rights Activists Must Denounce Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist Terrorism and Violence by Women.

R.E.A.L. has seen the growth of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence across the United States to see a broad range of women Anarchist leaders in violence and terrorism. While the majority of such terrorists and violent rioters remain men, a significant portion of such terrorist are women, especially young women. In 2017, R.E.A.L. has seen a staggering number of women arrested as part of violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist riots, and a sizable number calling for violence against the U.S. Government, bombing of U.S. courts and other government buildings, and associated with advocating and participating in acts of violence and firebombing. Anarchist terrorism has long had a history of unfortunate involvement of women among those promoting and participating in acts of terror.

Americans have a preconceived notion that terrorist leaders must be men. However, over the past 100 years, when it has come to Anarchist terrorism, women have played a growing role as terrorist ideological, logistical leaders, and more recently in active participants in bombings and mob violence. Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence provides a gender neutral opportunity for leadership roles by women, an aspect that may not be fully appreciated by American law enforcement and human rights activists. One of the earliest victims of Anarchist terrorist bombings in America was a working woman.

Emma Goldman was one of the first American Anarchist terrorist advocates, promoting such Anarchist terrorist violence on behalf of her ideological mentor Johann Most. Court filings claimed that she was a significant influence on the Anarchist assassin of President McKinley, where Anarchist Leon Czolgosz viewed himself as a “monster-slayer” of the Union Civil War hero president. Ms. Goldman had met with the terrorist Leon Czolgosz twice before the presidential assassination (May 5 and July 12, 1901). Regardless of her role, Ms. Goldman regularly promoted the ideology of Anarchist terrorist violence in the United States, before she was deported to the USSR.

In the mid-20th century, Bernardine Rae Ohrnstein (aka Bernardine Dohrn) led the Anarchist terrorist group Weather Underground Organization (WUO), which was responsible for terrorist bombings across the United States, including bombings in the U.S. Capital and the U.S. Pentagon. Of the most widely known 18 members of the Anarchist WUO terrorist group, nine (50%) were women. This represents a very different perspective on Anarchist terrorism, in terms of American pre-conceived notions, as to terrorist actors. WUO terrorist members Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson, Kathy Boudin, Diana Oughton, were all at the WUO terrorist site when a nail bomb intended to kill 100 at U.S. Army Fort Dix prematurely exploded. Ms. Oughton was killed; Wilkerson and Boudin escaped. Boudin was convicted as part of an armed bank robbery, where two police officers were killed. Wilkerson is a teacher and Boudin is a professor.

In the later 20th century, other Anarchist terrorist leaders were discovered to be American women, including Cincinnati’s Marie Mason, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for firebombings. In another notorious pattern of firebombing in California, the majority of an Anarchist terrorist group was women, led by the Holland sisters in California.

The Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist use of “Black Bloc” tactics with individuals hiding behind black bandannas, masks, black hoods, and all black clothing has also attracted an increasing number of American women to be involved in such Anarchist violence. R.E.A.L. has seen such Anarchist women involved with firebombing activities and other violence promoted by Anarchist groups on social media. At the January 20, 2017 Anarchist riots, of the 213 arrested and charged with felony riot charges, at least 80 to 90 of those are women.

As Anarchist ideologue Mark Bray wrote in the Washington Post in August 2017 regarding the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign, “[b]ehind the masks, antifa are nurses, teachers, neighbors, and relatives.” Historical fact and current history shows that women are actively involved in Anarcho-Communist terrorism and violence. This presents a news and troubling component in Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence in the 21st century. When not tens, but hundreds of women are engaged in fringe Anarcho-Communist violence, it presents a different challenge for human rights, security, and those we entrust in critical areas of protecting vulnerable Americas often in areas of social services.

In repeated Anarchist infiltration of U.S. protest activities, R.E.A.L. has also noticed a significant number of women involved with riots, firebombs, and other other acts of violence. This is not a popular topic for discussion among the U.S. liberal and political media, but it should be a serious concern for those legitimately concerned with women’s rights. We cannot improve human rights, by violently abandoning such rights in the street, and against those with who we disagree. This does not and will not progress women’s equality in society. We do not promote justice by Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / Antifa women calling for the D.C. Superior Court to be burned down, or promoting acts of violence which impact women and men alike. The U.S. political media promoting women who attack human rights, democracy, and our shared human rights does not help women’s rights or women’s equality.

R.E.A.L. sees once again in the early 21st century that Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist ideologues among women speaking against human rights, freedom, and liberty, using Antifa campaign tactics as justification against shared human rights. Antifa activist and media writer Natasha Lennard repeatedly writes that Antifa does not act out of “a rights framework,” and “[t]his is not a question of rights, it’s a question of justice.” It does grave damage to women’s rights, equality, and equity to promote campaigns that rejected our shared rights, and that “justice” can be achieved by mob violence without a defense of our shared human rights. Isn’t rejecting equality of human rights the same argument that misogynists have repeated made to repress and deny women’s equality?

R.E.A.L. believes that acts of violence and destruction do not further women’s rights, women’s equality, or support for human rights for any women or feminist causes. On the contrary, such acts of violence, with increasing involvement by women, will only work to stigmatize legimitate and peaceful activists and protesters for such women’s equality and feminist causes. R.E.A.L. urges major women’s rights and feminist organizations to disavow the increasing acts of Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, and “Antifa” violence that we are seeing from women, as counter-productive to the very important work being done for women’s equality and dignity.

——————–

(21) Charlottesville Riots and the Failure to Stop Violence.

On August 11, 2017, the American people saw a deeply troubling site in Charlottesville, Virginia – a mob of 250 people marching with fire-light torches in the night as part of a two day protest, reportedly regarding the statue of Robert E. Lee. The statue of the former Confederate States of America (CSA) general on a horse was centered in Emanicipation Park, Charlottesville, where the protest was to take place the next day on August 12. The statue was erected in 1924 in the Emancipation Park area of Charlottesville, 59 years after the end of the U.S. Civil War; the park was originally called Lee Park, but the name had been changed. It had been there for 93 years. But continuing debate across America on the appropriateness of having such statues for Civil War figures had been intensely debated in the past decade, especially after the Charleston, South Carolina white supremacist terrorist attack on a church of African-Americans on June 17, 2015. For two years across the U.S., CSA flags were being taken down and a number of CSA statues were debated by public with some being removed.

R.E.A.L.’s position on this matter is public knowledge. Since 2009, R.E.A.L. has publicly demonstrated and called for the state governments, local governments, and federal government to reassess its position on the many Confederate statues (over 700) across the nation, and we have held peaceful demonstrations outside Robert E. Lee’s main Arlington House, calling for the public and its representative government to consider replacing some of the many symbols of Civil War division with symbols of healing and unity. At that speaking event, R.E.A.L. had careful discussions with the U.S. Park Police in advance to ensure that it would be a peaceful and respectful event (and it was). R.E.A.L. was warned to watch out for those groups that use large sticks with signs or banners, that they would turn into clubs. R.E.A.L.’s peaceful speaking event remains available for the public to see today.

Extremists of every kind who want to incite and encourage trouble have no interest in peaceful and calm speaking. They seek to agitate, to frighten, to disgust, and to incite violence. R.E.A.L. has always found such extremism objectionable and counterproductive to any progress in America. So it was that on August 11, 2017, an event led by former Occupy protester, now leading what he called an “Alt-Right” event, Jason Kessler organized a two day event in Charlottesville, VA. The first night was a march of “Unite The Right” demonstrators to a different site, onto the University of Virginia, near a statue of Thomas Jefferson, carrying fire-lit torches. It was symbolic of violence and incitement, and was the tactics that Americans have historically seen Nazi organizations use in the past. R.E.A.L. is well-aware that too many Americans, at every station in life, have a limited education on both American and European history, and recognizes that some may not have been aware of such connations. Regardless, the rest of America was aware of this.

As R.E.A.L. detailed on August 13, 2017 in our article “Charlottesville And Continuing Challenge Of Nazi Movements,” the demonstrators marching to the Lee statue were chanting the Nazi chant “Blood and Soil,” which was popularized by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany “Blut und Boden.” For those who still didn’t grasp the point, a number of the demonstrators made a “Heil Hitler” salute. America has and will have disagreements over immigration, racial unrest, and other challenges. But to those that promote such ideas as those expressed by Nazi Germany, responsible for the Holocaust of 6,000,000 Jews, there is only one word for this: “despicable.” R.E.A.L. is unconvinced that Jason Kessler did not know that the public would react this way, and these actions reframed the activites of the 250 marchers from an issue regarding the CSA statue to a more sinister and offensive message to America.

For the record, R.E.A.L. has been a long and dedicated challenger of Nazi and white supremacist views, which R.E.A.L. considers to be a disgusting and despicable rejection of our shared universal human rights. R.E.A.L. has received numerous threats and death threats from Nazis and white supremacists, who have made life difficult for our peaceful members. However, in the United States, we live in a nation of laws, not a nation of opinions. We may find the views of any one individual or group of individuals repellent, but as individuals, we and our personal views are not “the law.” We are not the “U.S. Constitution.” Our laws and our rights exist for all Americans, and we have representative law enforcement that is responsible to enforce those laws.

Let us be clear, while R.E.A.L. rejects the views, as we immediately reported, of those making hateful white supremacist and Nazi remarks, they too have freedom of speech, based on the laws of the nation. The individuals responsible for enforcing such laws are our duly-deputized law enforcement. On August 11 and August 12, law enforcement was not successful in effectively performing their responsibility, which has added to a growing public safety problem, not just for Charlottesville, but also the rest of the nation. Our law enforcement have a difficult job and we all respect that, but they have a job that it is their responsibility to perform. Such de-legitimization of law enforcement authority is precisely what anti-democracy extremists want. Ineffective public safety measures must not be allowed to encourage political violence.

The August 11 night torch-lit march to the Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Virginia (UVA) may not have required a permit, but with 250 individuals carrying flame-lit torches, it would be basic public safety to carefully control and moderate the activites, if not canceling them due to the obvious public safety threat. This is not just R.E.A.L.’s opinion, but this is UVA SEC-032: “Open Burn and Open Flame Operations at the University of Virginia.” According to UVA SEC-032, UVA specifically prohibits the use “open flame” tiki torches without approval of “Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) or the University of Virginia Medical Center Fire Protection Inspector’s Office.” Who from UVA or the Virginia State government inspected and authorized this incredibly dangerous event on August 11? This may seem like a minor “detail,” but these are the type of public safety details, which are essential to manage for public safety operations involving extremist groups, especialy violent exteremists. For the record, R.E.A.L. has probably completed at 100 permits for first amendment demonstrations, and we are vastly familiar with typical public safety concerns and questions of law enforcement involving such demonstrations. While there may not have been a permit required for this event, there would be basic public safety questions which anyone in law enforcement would be asking serious questions about. In any event, routine UVA Fire Safety questions would have been asked about any event of such an event of 250 people carrying flame torches onto the UVA campus.

On the night of August 11, a small group of counter-protesters circled the Jefferson statue, which resulted in scuffles between the protesters and counter-protesters. The Virginia State Police eventually came in to break up a fight at UVA among the protesters with flame-lit torches (incredibly there were no fatalities), but both the VSP and the Charlottesville Police needed to do a better job of managing public safety. It was the responsibility of the police to do their job. This situation never should have gotten out of hand to begin with. Dependence on luck is not a strategy for public safety and law enforcement. The failure to get the August 11 demonstration under control set the stage for a disaster the following day, August 12, 2017, when significantly larger crowds appeared with participants from diverse groups and attendees. To the extent that the Charlottesville police were outmanned, the Virginia State Police should have a much larger presence to help keep this situation under control. Being polite and friendly with our law enforcement should not keep citizens from expecting them to do their job. It should be very clear that was not effectively done on August 11 and 12.

R.E.A.L. has faced other Nazi and white supremacist events in the past. In our members’ lifetime, we have not witnessed any that demonstrations that have so quickly gotten totally out of control as the one in Charlottesville, VA on August 12, 2017. The next day, August 12, 2017, the number of “UniteTheRight” demonstrators had doubled from 250 to 500. The stated cause of the demonstration was regarding the Lee statue. There has been much discussion about who such individuals in the demonstrations represented. Those in the “Unite The Right” who were not affiliated with white nationalist, white supremacist, and Nazi causes are certainly very short-sighted. They may have driven a long distance and hoped to make some particular political statement. But after the August 11, 2017 “Blood and Soil” torch-lit march, anyone who continued to be involved in the August 12, 2017 protests had to know that public opinion would have associated them with such extremism. But lacking common sense and intelligence is not a criminal offense, and they continued to have a right to their free speech on August 12, in the park where they had a permit for a demonstration.

R.E.A.L. has specific insight into some of the attendees from the “Unite The Right” group and some of them were white supremacists and Nazis that have challenged and disrupted R.E.A.L. events where we had permits in the past. Unlike too many of the counterprotesters, R.E.A.L.’s approach was to use patience and to offer prayers and hope for such extremists to find a conscience to direct them to better understand our shared human rights. When they screamed, we prayed. Then we moved on. This type of thinking is lost on Anarchists / Anarcho-Communists and their “Antifa” campaign. The “Antifa” extremists are not interested in the rights and laws of their fellow human beings, other than how they can bully, attack, and commit acts of violence as use of force to silence them. While R.E.A.L. offers an outstretched hand, “Antifa” extremists offer only an upraised fist. We know that does not and will not work.

Just as there were “Antifa” violent extremists, there were are also many non-violent counterprotesters as well. There were clearly non-violent protesters that got caught up in both sides. Certainly, with the knowledge of the history of such violence, mature individuals would have gained enough common sense to know not to associate with such violent individuals. Those non-violent protesters who saw individuals within both the protesters and counterprotesters with automatic rifles, other weapons, etc., had a civic duty to themselves, their community, and their families, to swallow their pride and get out of there. But once again, lacking common sense and intelligence is not a criminal offense, and all Americans have freedom of speech.

According to the armed Anarchist network “Redneck Revolt,” “Redneck Revolt members formed a unified skirmish line” against white supremacist on August 12. The armed Anarchists in the “Redneck Revolt” with “tactical weapons,” per their own posting urging white supremacists for a fight days before the event. Other Anarchists brought clubs, pepper spray, urine vials (which were used to hit the news media), and even a portable flamethrower. The white supremacists and Nazi extremist also had individuals armed with guns, pepper spray, smoke bombs, clubs, and shields. This included extremists from the Nazi “Vanguard America,” the KKK, and other extremists. It was clear from the beginning that the August 12 riots would be a disaster.

The August 12, 2017 “Unite The Right” demonstration in their park was to begin at 12 noon at Emancipation Park by the Robert E. Lee statue. At this point, the number of protesters were at least 500, and it would have appeared there were at least 1000 counterprotesters. But as soon as the protesters began leaving their cars and walking in the street, both the Nazi / white supremacists and the “Antifa” extremists began fighting. This is not speculation. Much of the event was live on television and social media, and millions could see this happening. By 11:00 AM, fighting had already begun, and there was fighting in the streets for over a half hour, with no control by the police to break up the violence. The public could see it happening live. So if we could see it happening live, how could the command centers for Charlottesville and Virginia State Police not see it happening? R.E.A.L. posted a video of such mob violence by both extremist groups at 11:34 AM on August 12 on Twitter “As #Americans have asked so many times, in so many #Mob #Riots across the nation, not just #Charlottesville, where are the #POLICE?”.

The crowded area, with so many agitated and armed individuals, lack of police control, lack of effective road blocks, was a disaster waiting to happen, as it would be not just in Charlottesville, but in any town or city in America. White supremacists attacked a professor in parking lot, The Hill journalist Taylor Lorenz said that she was punched by counterprotestors during the violence, but the streets of Charlottesville had turned into a slugfest by shortly after 11 AM. Incredibly, only three people were arrested. While the Virginia State Police finally declared the gathering an unlawful assembly by 11:40 AM, there still was poor organization in getting protesters and counterprotesters peacefully and safely outside of the park area. It was astounding to some watching that mobs of counterprotesters were being allowed near vehicles. Some on 4th street were shouting and pounding on vehicles, and some hit the vehicles. As previously reported by R.E.A.L., Nazi supporter James Alex Fields, Jr. drove his car into part of the crowd surrounding these vehicle, killing one woman and injuring 19. James Fields’ criminal act resulted in charges including second degree murder, and he will face the criminal consequences deserved for his act of terror. The Charlottesville riots resulted in 1 death and 34 injuries, yet only 11 were arrested including James Fields. As R.E.A.L. has previously written, R.E.A.L. condemns and deplores the acts of those among the Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists, not only for their hate, but also for their violence. But is simply not accurate that they were the only ones involved in such violence.

Americans that are legimitately supporting of peaceful anti-racist protest have historical lessons of how to deal with such violence. R.E.A.L. has painful experience in knowing how difficult it is to maintain order among agitated individuals from diverse, and sometimes unknown areas in a public demonstration. Like anything else important in life, maintaining such order is not always easy. But that does not mean it is not a responsibility. Americans only need to look to the example of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who when he found people had infiltrated protests who sought violence, he canceled the demonstration and LEFT. R.E.A.L. asks those who support legitimate peaceful anti-racist protests, do you really believe that your statements and your responsibility for human rights restraint should give you the need to reject the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Law enforcement lost control of public safety in Charlottesville. Basic public safety and common sense measures, traffic controls, barriers, etc., were not effectively utilized. While law enforcement spokepersons will issue defensive statements on this, privately they must have serious and sober meetings on lessons learned on what must change for the next such event. With the growing violence of both Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / Antifa, as well as white supremacist / Nazi extremists, law enforcement will need to take public safety measures more seriously, and work with courts to have ready measures to manage safety conditions to prevent them spirally into emergencies. From a public perspective, the American public needs to use common sense and stay away from unsafe, violent conditions. Our protests and demonstrations can be held peacefully and safely, but when violent individuals with weapons appear, we should be going to law enforcement for public safety and protection, not exacting our own violence. The Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / “Antifa” movement does not care about avoiding such violence, because the reality is they seek such violence as part of a larger objective of insurrection of all authority, law, and representative democracy. Rather than find a degree of humility for its role in promoting the out of control violence, the extremist “Antifa” sought more violence; the injured and killed in Charlottesville were not enough for them. Instead of realizing the consequences of their promotion of political violence, the “Antifa” extremist among the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists only seek more violence. The victims of such continuing promotion of violence are the American people and American law.

——————————

(22) Lost Opportunity to Clearly Define Ideological Threats Used by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists.

The U.S. President denounced the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, but efforts to condemn those involved in violence on both sides, led to outrage by the U.S. political media, numerous political leaders, and many in the public. By this point, the Anarcho-Communist effort to portray their “Antifa” campaign as simply “anti-racist” had been largely successful among those who had no interest or time in actually researching what they really represented. But just as the U.S. political media, including many which had been openly promoting and glamorizing Anarchist violence (as what it considered a “righteous” response to its own political frustration), had no interest in clarifying who and what happened in Charlottesville, an inexperienced White House and President also struggled in communications as well. Experienced individuals in the human rights, law enforcement, and security must assist in clarifying that the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist violent “Antifa” campaign also rejects our human and Constitutional rights.

To those who argue there is no “moral equality” between Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist and its violent “Antifa” campaign versus Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, this is certainly true. In the United States, white supremacy was a component of slavery of over 3 million African Americans. In Europe, Nazism led to the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. These anti-human rights ideologies must be rejected without question and without qualification. Communist totalitarian regimes have long been a source of mass murder, with millions killed in Communist China (4-40 million per various estimates) and millions killed in the former USSR alone (8-61 million per various estimates), and continuing killings and horrific repression in Communist nations today. Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism has been a plague for over a century, extensively throughout Europe (not discussed in this article), and also with 50+ bomb attacks across America, killings, assassination, and other violence in the United States. There is no “moral equality” between such anti-democracy ideologies of death, mass violence, and repression of our shared human rights. There is, however, an immoral equality of those anti-human rights ideologies, not based on “right versus left,” but based on “right versus wrong.” Wrong is wrong. This is the only equality that we need to understand for a human rights perspective. There is no “good wrong.”

To be clear, President Trump’s career in business was not focused on analysis of human rights and political extremism; no one realistically would expect that he would bring such skill sets and knowledge. Furthermore, those in the White House communications also seemed to have an intuitive knack at getting at such facts, in part, because of a defensive position from a constant position of being under attack by the U.S. political media. Individuals skilled in such matters should be providing the White House, DHS, and the FBI with insight and leadership, based on their experience and training. None of us, even the President, have experience and knowledge in everything, and can be expected to speak effectively on any topic at any moment. Donald Trump does not have a Political Science degree and years of experience on publicly speaking on topics about political science ideologies and racial/political extremists (this is not an “excuse” by non-partisan R.E.A.L., merely a statement of fact). The Charlottesville disaster was clearly unexpected and the opportunity for clarity on what the problems were was not effectively seized. The White House attempted to convey what they understood to be the issue, but the entire issue of Anarcho-Communist infiltration of such events was viewed as either too complex for the general public to understand, or there was limited availability of specialists to clearly explain this.

Either way, the White House efforts to describe the problem did not address the challenges of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence that is the root of its “Antifa” campaign, and whose ideological name and values remained completely outside of the official discussion of the Charlottesville disaster.

Slang political terms such as “Alt-Left” are unhelpful and counterproductive in defining the significant and serious security and human rights threats of violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist ideologies. We need a serious focus by law enforcement and homeland security on such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence which has plagued the United States for over 100 years, and once again, in Charlottesville managed to infiltrate public protests for the express purpose of violence with a singular goal of national insurrection. It is unfair and unreasonable to legitimate and peaceful protesters who reject racist and Nazi views, but respect our shared Constitutional and human rights, to allow such violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist campaigners to infiltrate public events and not call out exactly what they truly represent.

The mistake in not addressing all of the anti-human rights ideologies involved in the Charlottesville violence provided a propaganda victory for the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communists, who used their spin of the comments to further rationalize the need for their “Anti-Fascist” (“Antifa”) campaign. This assisted the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist campaign to de-legitimize the U.S. Government credibility. The U.S. political media gave the Anarcho-Communist campaign more credibility, by repeatedly arguing that the White House was “taking the side of fascists” and giving a “moral equivalence” to “Anti-Fascists working against racism” and “Nazis and white supremacists.”

Days after the Charlottesville riots and debacle, the U.S. political media, which largely does include many issues with significant training on U.S./world history and extremist issues, continued to provide article after article and additional media glamorizing the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign, as well as giving sympathetic coverage to such spokespersons. Regardless of their depth of knowledge, the U.S. political media needs to recognize the basic mathematical truth in human rights that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

——————————

(23) Increased Calls and Support for “Antifa” Violence.

After the Charlottesville riots, in the Nation magazine pro-Anarachist media writer Natasha Lennard argued that American human rights were expendable when dealing with those we disagree with. In her August 16, 2017 article, “Not Rights but Justice: It’s Time to Make Nazis Afraid Again,” Natasha Lennard condemns those supporting human rights for condemning violence, when they need to “embrace a diversity of tactics” to challenge Nazi and white supremacist hate.

Natasha Lennard rejects the priority of respecting the liberties of human rights, and argues that the “Antifa” campaign of violence and threats against those the disagree with is a more important end of “social justice,” which justifies the mean. She writes in The Nation: “The mistake is to conflate the defense of liberties with the struggle for social justice. They are not the same thing, and we stymie our efforts to crush the racist far right—which we must—if we remain confined to a rights discourse.” Natasha Lennard dismissed the “paranoiac reactions from liberal centrists, citing low-level property damage and a few neo-Nazi black eyes as a rise in leftist terror.” To Antifa activist and media writer Natasha Lennard, “This is not a question of rights, it’s a question of justice,” but it is the type of “justice” where Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists, and Antifa have decided to make their own “laws” and be their own judge, jury, and punishers.

But, of course, educated Americans know that the history of such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence and terrorism is more than that. It includes nationwide bombings, nail bombs, suicide bombing, cyanide, firebombs, killing and maiming Americans, bombing the U.S. Capital, bombing the Pentagon, plots to bomb bridges and buildings, and assassination of a U.S. president. The history of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence and terrorism is more than a “few black eyes.”

In describing herself as part of the Antifa campaign, Natasha Lennard argues that while there is no “right” to use acts of violence, she considers that physical violence is a key responsibility of the Antifa campaign, which rejects “the good faith of state power,” and instead calls for “direct and confrontational intervention—the sort of which is itself often not protected by a rights framework.”

Too many in the media, including extremist Natasha Lennard, called for “scum” to be removed. On August 18, 2017, media writer Natasha Lennard commented on social media regarding 20 individuals who had been identified by “New York City Antifa” in the New York City area at the Charlottesville riots. Natasha Lennard replied: “some NY scum in need of removal… exposing fascists in our midst is central antifa work – physical confrontation is just a fraction of it.”

——————————

(24) Violent Anarchist Get Media Legitimization for Violence as “Antifa”.

The Washington Post, once again, legitmized Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / “Antifa” violence on August 16, 2017, in an article written by Anarchist activist and Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray. Mark Bray lectures on history, but unfortunately he has neglected the history of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence in America as part of his promotion of such ideologies, and their co-opting of anti-racist views for what they call an “Antifa” campaign. (Notably, the Washington Post kept Mark Bray’s article outside of its paywall.)

While Mark Bray glamorized Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist / “Antifa” violence on his Twitter account, with a prominent image of masked men carrying baseball balls in his profile, he wrote in the Washington Post that such an “Antifa” campaign was merely “popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville.”

Mark Bray neglected to describe the 100 years of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism in the United States, its efforts to infiltrate and twist peaceful protest efforts to spawn insurrection and violence. He counted on the power of the U.S. political media to set a narrative that ignored all the historical fact, and what the American people could see with their own eyes, to further a campaign to assist the Anarcho-Communist goals of ultimate destrucion of democracy. So to the Washington Post audience, Anarchist activist Mark Bray wrote about the efforts by the Anarcho-Communist in “Antifa” simply “demands that we take seriously the violence of white supremacists,”and that the “vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent,” while “physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.” Using sympathetic mainstream political media, Mark Bray sought to reinvent “Antifa” violence as merely “anti-racist.” But the truth is that American history has shown us that anti-racist causes are NOT forwarded by the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist violence and insurrection, but by cooperative efforts by all Americans to achieve social and legal change, based on a commitment to our shared Constitutional human rights that Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist community does not have. Anarchist publications, such as Anarchist Action, publicized Mark Bray’s use of the Washington Post to glamorize their “Antifa” campaign.

Later on to a more narrow audience to a Vox reporter, Washington Post author Mark Bray would admit that “Antifa” Anarcho-Communists had “no allegiance to liberal democracy,” and that “antifa isn’t concerned with free speech or other liberal democratic values.”

Anarchist Mark Bray went on to NBC Television to defend “Antifa” violence. According to Mark Bray, violence is both ethically responsible when it comes to the “fascists” that he designates, as well relative when it comes to property violence. Anarchist Mark Bray repeated defended the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” violence as “historically formed and ethically reasonable.” By portraying everyone who the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” attacks as “fascists,” he repeatedly defends the history of being “ethically reasonable” to deny their human rights and to use phyical violence against them. In terms or property damage, Anarchist Mark Bray waved that as being relative as to whether or not that constitued “violence.” For example, he told NBC that “property destruction is certainly part of the repertoire of what some of these groups will do to achieve their goals. Some say it’s violence, some say it’s not because it’s not against human beings, that’s a matter of opinion.” Actually, Mark Bray, it is not “a matter of opinion,” it is a matter of LAW, but Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists have no respect for American law.

Without any working history or familiarization of the century of Anarcho-Communist terrorism and violence in America, his U.S. political media interviewers fail to ask why bombings of homes, newspapers, restaurants, plots to destroy bridges, hospitals, cyanide plots on subways, in America are part of Mark Bray’s “relative” view of Anarcho-Communist “violence,” as merely “property destruction.” No one in the U.S. political media challenged Mark Bray on the role of Anarcho-Communist terrorist murders, mutilation, and injuries, as to how this pursued “Antifa” goals. Did the assassination of Union Civil War hero U.S. President McKinley further “Antifa” challenges against racism? What was “anti-racist” about Anarchist bombings on public places, restaurants, homes, businesses, plots to attack bridges, hospitals?

This is why it is essential to have an informed and honest discussion on the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist history of violence and terrorism in America, and the real insurrectionist intent behind the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist commitment in its “Antifa” campaign, to hijack anti-racist concerns for the larger Anarcho-Communist goals of attacking American human rights and destruction of American representative democracy.

On August 21, 2017, Dartmouth college’s Office of the President made the following statement, titled “Statement on Lecturer in History Mark Bray,” as follows: “Recent statements made by Lecturer in History Mark Bray supporting violent protest do not represent the views of Dartmouth. As an institution, we condemn anything but civil discourse in the exchange of opinions and ideas. Dartmouth embraces free speech and open inquiry in all matters, and all on our campus enjoy the freedom to speak, write, listen and debate in pursuit of better learning and understanding; however, the endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values.”

Despite Dartmouth College’s statement, Mark Bray has continued to repeatedly use Dartmouth College symbols on the background wallpaper, during televised news broadcasts and interviews, giving the appear of the college’s legitimizing such calls for public violence and attacks on human rights. Dartmouth College needs to do more than issue a one paragraph statement.

——————————

(25) Emboldened Anarchists / Anarcho-Communist Use “Antifa” Target HOMES.

In August 2017, Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist continued to gain positive U.S. political media coverage for its acts of public violence using their “Antifa” campaign. This emboldened Anarcho-Communists and their supporters to take further public actions and gain more supporters.

Supporters of the Washington DC branch of the IWW decided to hold a march in Alexandria, Virginia to protest outside an apartment building where Nazi National Policy Institute (NPI) figure Richard Spencer lives. R.E.A.L. rejects and condemns the views of the NPI, and R.E.A.L. has also challenged Richard Spencer’s views since 2009. But there is a very significant difference with peaceful protest and ideological disagreement, and the practices of the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” in violently assaulting Richard Spencer in the street. There is a difference between our peaceful use of free speech and violent criminal acts done on behalf anti-human rights movements.

But with the U.S. political media praising the violent attacks on Richard Spencer on January 20, 2017, and the flood of positive U.S. political media support for the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” based on the disaster in Charlottesville, more “Antifa” activists felt emboldened to take further action.

So on August 13, 2017, we saw an “Antifa” activist and IWW supporter, sharing a video of the mob protests outside of this apartment building, writing “Marching through the streets of Old Alexandria to protest Richard Spencer’s residence and his general existence in the world.” One response to the “Antifa” activist wrote on August 14, “How has somebody not burned down his house yet?” The national and the DC IWW union branches published images of the protests outside the apartment building to their social media account, and IWW member flying red “IWW” flags along with “Antifa” members were active participants.

To anyone paying close attention, there would be a very real question as exactly who was the “fascist” in this situation.

To those who reject the views of Richard Spencer, as R.E.A.L does, there may be some that believe that he deserves to be protested tenaciously. But there is a different question here. When the “Antifa” start targeting the homes of those they consider “fascists,” who and what is next? Did all of those in the Alexandria apartment building deserve this? And at what point will mob threats outside of homes become a clear and present danger to public safety, especially in Virginia, which has had such serious law enforcement struggles with maintaining law and order?

If they disagree with you, me, or anyone else, will this newly empowered Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist extremist mob feel justified to go after where you live? As one Anarchist activist wrote, why hadn’t “somebody not burned down his house,” and certainly with this 100 years of commitment to acts of violence, why wouldn’t this be next for such Anarchists? After all, attacking the homes and murdering innocent Americans is PRECISELY how such Anarchist terrorists got their start, with Anarchist terrorist nail bombs across the United States, as well as a suicide bomb attack to try to murder the Attorney General of the United States.

What level of violent attacks on the American public will it take for American law enforcement to arrest criminals making threats, and when will the U.S. media recognize the true violent threat to American democracy behind the Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign?

——————————

(26) Anarchists / Anarcho-Communists Defeat Police in Berkeley, Beat People in Streets.

On August 26 and August 27, 2017, renewed Anarchist / Anarcho-Communists / “Antifa” terrorists conducted mob violence in the streets, beating people at random, and feeling empowered as a mob force to attack the public at will in total defiance and contempt for law enforcement.

At Berkeley’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Civic Center Park’s Crescent lawn, two protests had been scheduled, one “No to Marxism in America,” which was canceled and had few attendees, and another “Bay Area Rally Against Hate.” This was again a case of dual protests at the same location. In the morning, a reported “thousands” of demonstrators showed up for the “Bay Area Rally.”

However, only a few showed up for the “No to Marxism in America” demonstration, primarily a single right-wing individual, Joey Gibson, who attempted to speak in the park, after canceling his own demonstration after threats in San Francisco. Once again, from a pragmatic view, R.E.A.L. urges peaceful activists to combine common sense with their activism in terms of timing and locations, but we respect and defend our shared Constitutional and human rights of free speech. As we see yet again, the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” violent campaign used such protests for mob violence and hate.

By the early afternoon, “hundreds” of the “Antifa” violent mob hijacked yet another demonstration and Gibson was immediatedly mobbed, attacked, and shot with pepper spray by Anarchists / Anarcho-Communists supporting their “Antifa’ campaign of physical criminal violence. Gibson was not the only one attacked. The “Antifa” violent mob inspired others, including many of the “thousands” of otherwise “peaceful” demmonstrators to rush over the police barricades to take control of MLK Civic Center Park for their mob violence. After taking control the MLK Park, the “Antifa” mob continued their violence in the streets and moved to celebrate their violence to attack others at Ohlone Park. Berkelyside news reporter Cliff Magnes stated on August 28, 2017: “Watching them try to take over a peaceful crowd and turn that crowd into a mob is a deeply troubling experience.”

ABC News Channel 10 reported that there were “hundreds” of the Anarchist / Anarcho-Communist “Antifa,” many of which were obviously attired in the Black Bloc gear to conceal their identities when they commit acts of criminal violence.

Berkeley news helicopters showed mobs of Anarchist Black Bloc “Antifa” running down the streets, spraying individuals with pepper spray, chasing people down the street to assault them, knock to the ground, and beat and kick them. Those remaining in the park and the nearby streets were abanadoned by the Berkeley law enforcement, who withdrew and allowed the criminal “Antifa” mob violence to go on without consequence. ABC 10 News reported that: “Berkeley Police Chief Andrew Greenwood said he ordered officers to abandon the park when the black-clad activists arrived. Confronting them would have risked escalating the violence and jeopardizing the safety of the peaceful protesters, Greenwood said.” Berkeleyside news reported that 400 police had been assigned to maintain order.

That is not the perspective that the public could see with “Antifa” violent criminals beating and threatening people at random, while the Berkeley police did nothing. Six people were badly enough by the “Antifa” rioters that they required paramedic treatment, and two had to be hospitalized.

One California journalist, Lizzie Johnson, described how the “Antifa” was completely overcoming the Berkeley police: “The park has been completely taken over by the Antifa. Berkeley police struggling to figure out what to do. Tear gas didn’t work. The police are firing rubber bullets in Berkeley. Blocks away a couple with a youn daughter were walking toward it. Stay away. Massive militant anarchist showing in Berkeley today. The group is dangerous and destructive.” She wrote: “The Berkeley police have stood down. A sea of black masks as far as I can see. This is what WAS NOT supposed to happen.” She described the violence: “Everyone is fighting. Clouds of pepper spray from the fray. Hundreds of men and women dressed in all black. Antifa. Out of sea of black is a single flag, red with an A in a circle.” That is the symbol of Anarcho-Communism, with the “A” for Anarchism.

Journalists reported being threatened and attacked, who were trying to cover the news on the mob of narchists / Anarcho-Communists gathering on behalf of their violent “Antifa” campaign at Berkeley’s Crescent Park. Journalist Lizzie Johnson reported: ” ‘Take his camera, take his phone,’ they are shouting at a journalist,” as the public could see a journalist running from Anarchist Black Bloc “Antifa” terrorists in the park, chasing after him with an “Antifa” flag as he tried to escape in the crowd.

The Berkleyside News reported that a “freelance photographer, who asked not to be named, said he was attacked by an antifa member at Ohlone Park toward the end of the march. ‘I was punched in the face and struck to the ground after asking him to please stop hurting a lady with a camera that they were assaulting,’ he said.” It also reported: “Two Berkeleyside contributing photographers felt the effects in their eyes of pepper spray used by protesters. Another said she saw at least four cameras get smashed.” KTVU reported: “A KTVU reporter had her camera shoved out of her hand by people dressed in black.”

One left-wing Mexican-American writer, using a pseudonym, due to fear of mob attacks, reported how the Anarchist-led violent “Antifa” questioned who he was when he was taking photographs of the event, and then threatened him. He writes to the Berkleyside: “A young woman in her 20s, who had been deputized by undisclosed authorities to informally police and report on those who she found troublesome confronted me. In an aggressive tone she told me to stop taking pictures.I tried to reason with her. I did. I tried to establish a dialogue. I tried to explain to her that we were on the same side and that I was simply taking pictures. She was having no part of it. She quickly communicated to her confederates nearby that she needed help containing me.” His report continues that this extremist quickly was confronted by an “Antifa” mob who decide that he was a “Nazi” and needed to be threatened. He concluded that “As I was backing up, I bumped into a young man wearing a bandana across his face, black pants and combat boots, with his arms crossed on his chest. He couldn’t have been more than 20. ‘You should get out of here’ he said sternly, blocking my way…”

Video after video showed scenes of unrelenting mob Anarchist violence beating people, knocking them down, and then piling onto their victims, pummeling them and kicking in the street. While the Berkeley police, like the Charlottesville police, and like how many other law enforcement agencies will in the future (?), stood back and did nothing. The Anarchist reign of terrorist violence in the face of police unwilling to enforce the law was one of the more disturbing scenes of political terrorism we have seen in this nation.

After the Anarchists “Antifa” ability to take the law into its own hands for hours, eventually 13 out of the “hundreds” of “Antifa” were arrested, several for injuring police officers and news media individuals; four of the violent “Antifa” rioters arrested were women. It is impossible to know just how many in the mobs of Anarchist “Antifa” terrorists simply were allowed to commit violent crimes without consequence, but anyone watching the event could clearly see that there were many, many more criminals in the mob beating people, than merely the 13 who were arrested.

The Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” mob attacks in MLK Civic Center park, came nearly 54 years, after the speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “I have a dream” on August 28, 1963, calling for change through non-violence. There is no shame in such a travesty.

——————————

(27) Responsible Majority of Americans Must Defend Human Rights, Democracy, Law, and U.S. Constitution from Anarchist Violence.

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has provided this article to demonstrate the significant and historical problem of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence against Americans. Despite its length, it is hardly “comprehensive,” but is only a summary of some main points of violence, and certainly there are many, many other acts of violence that are not included in this report. The point of the historical perspective of this article is to help those Americans who are unfamiliar with the history of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism and violence, and to make it clear that such extreme ideologies do not seek to promote the “right” of people of color, women, or any identity group. As such Anarchists and Anacho-Communists have explained repeatedly, they are not supporting a “rights framework” nor do they support a “liberal democracy.”

The Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist campaign of violent “Antifa” is not “new,” as some in the U.S. political media would have Americans falsely believe. While it has borrowed the banner and name from late 20th century European “Antifa,” it did not begin such violence in the United States in the past year or two. It has been active in the U.S. since the early 21st century, with active “Antifa” operations since 2009. Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist terrorism and its “Antifa” campaign violence is not a “new” phenomenon. The U.S. political media and too many Americans simply haven’t paid attention to it. The legacy of Anarcho-Communist terrorism and violence in the U.S. is over 100 years long, as an ongoing threat to American human rights and security.

R.E.A.L. has direct experience with public violence by Anarcho-Communist extremists, which were the first of extremist groups to attack our human rights events at a June 2009 event condemning the Hamas terrorist group’s use of “human shields” of innocent civilians. R.E.A.L. public events have been disrupted by both Anarcho-Communists and white supremacist extremists. But Anarcho-Communists felt empowered to physically grabbed our volunteers in the public streets, disregarding nearby police, and our solution was to engage responsible law enforcement to ensure our safety. R.E.A.L. has seen this pattern over the past 8 years, and we know the critical importance of responsible law enforcement in protecting the public for lawless Anarcho-Communist violent individuals.

This is not a new problem.

An important difference in 2016 and 2017 has been the inconsistency in by too many in law enforcement in the face of such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist mob violence. As Anarchist activist and Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray has told the public, such Anarchists and “Antifa” campaign violent individuals are “anti-police,” and view America from what Bray calls a “police-abolitionist lens,” that is they want the END of American law enforcement. As we have seen, some black masked men and women Anarchists hold signs like “all my heroes kill cops.”

In the United States of America, or any democratic nation of shared laws, it is a disaster to be unwilling to seriously reject and defy any organization that makes one of its primary goals to be reject our shared Constitutional and human rights and to reject the very existence of law enforcement itself. But this is and has been the vision of the violent Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists, and its resurgent “Antifa” campaign.

American Human Rights, democracy, law, and the U.S. Constitution is greater than any Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, or “Antifa” violence. But we need to effectively engage a “Responsible Majority” of American citizens, organizations, leaders, government, media, and law to challenge this recent campaign of hate and violence.

Prominent American leaders, citizens, institutions, families, and our media may understandably “not want to get involved” in challenging such hidden and violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists and their “Antifa” campaign. Many way simply want to hope they will “go away.” But U.S. history has shown that such violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists feel empowered by the silence of law-abiding and responsible American citizens. Furthermore, due to the political divisions in America today, there may be those citizens, institutions, and U.S. political media that are uncomfortable, due to their political views or their views on racism, from challenging such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence.

But we must understand Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence is not only towards one political view or party – it is against ALL political views and parties in an American democracy, it is against our representative democracy itself. Furthermore, those who are responsibly against racism and fascist hate must recognize that the Anarachist and Anarcho-Communist use of an “Antifascist” violent campaign seeks to hijack, twist, and pervert the peaceful and responsible effort by citizens who don’t share their contempt towards our “rights framework.”

Violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists don’t just attack what they call “fascists” – they attack all Americans – of every identity group – that dares to stand for our law, our rights, and democracy in our nation. They are not any type of “anti-fascism,” but they represent their own form of authoritarian mob hate and violence, hidden behind black masks to menace the public.

But let us remember this fringe of thousands of violent Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists are NOTHING compared to the MILLIONS of Americans that respect the law and our shared human rights.

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) calls for a “Responsible Majority” of Americans to voice their rejection of violent Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist acts, and to reject their efforts to pervert human rights-based challenges to racism, fascism, and other hate, by using their Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign. These bullies in black who hide their face from accountability are nothing compared to the many millions of responsible men and women in America, who stand unequivocally for our shared Constitutional and human rights, our shared law, and our shared democracy. A “Responsible Majority” of Americans must not stand silent while such mobs of violence and terrorism are normalized, by a failure to speak and a failure to act. We must not accept that such fringe minorities of the American people are empowered to incite and commit public violence and crime, largely without consequences, in the streets of our cities.

with the sacrifices of so many in America for our freedoms, rights, laws, and security, a “Responsible Majority” of Americans at every level, in our homes, schools, institutions, and places of worship must stand publicly and equivocally to reject such attacks of mob violence and criminal acts by Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist mobs. This is not an issue of politics. This is an issue of human rights – all of our human rights.

As we call for the voices and action of the “Responsible Majority” of the American public, we also must call reform with the U.S. political media, a sense of focus and effectiveness by the U.S. federal government, and a new standard of determination of our law enforcement to perform their mission.

R.E.A.L. has been concerned for some time with the incendiary rhetoric of the U.S. political media. U.S. political candidates, political leaders, even political parties will come and go. But the consistent rhetoric of major arms of the U.S. political media calling some political leaders “fascist,” and those who support a political candidate “terrorist,” should be recognized as having gone too far. Some in the U.S. political media have migrated from reporting news to believing they have a role, not only to question, but to consistently agitate. Restraint is a necessary component in the American dialogue on our differences. The American public will and should passionately debate public concerns, political issues, and our differences. But our differences pale to those who reject democracy itself, who entirely reject our law, and who reject our shared Constitutional and human rights. The Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist leaders and their “Antifa” campaign have been very clear about rejecting our democracy, our law, and our rights. It is beyond irresponsible for those in the U.S. political media to continue to glamorize such violent extremists and their proponents. It is past time for the U.S. political media to re-discover restraint, tone down its incendiary rhetoric which has helped legitimize such extremism, and to work to undo the damage done by giving normalization and credibilty to Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violent groups.

The U.S. Federal Government plays an important and vital role in national public safety, law enforcement, and homeland security matters. The fate of nations in the rest of the world is also an important aspect to our representative government, but it must not overshadow vital issues of American rights and law at home. For the past two years, mob violence has become an increasing feature in the streets of American cities. As we call for the rest of the “Responsible Majority” to act on this, we must seek increased leadership from our U.S. Federal Government. Given the divisiveness we have seen in the nation, the time clearly has come for a greater commitment to inclusive and healing statements and acts, and a greater restraint in agitation with the U.S. political media. The challenge of Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence and terrorism is fed by a conviction that U.S. authority, government, law, and law enforcement is not legitimate. We must not give the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist campaigns any ammunition to attack our shared rights and democratic system. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal Government must work with clearly defined terms regarding Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist violence, and recognize the century of domestic terrorism by Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists as a legitimate and proven domestic terrorist threat. We need to clearly and unequivocally communicate the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist threats to our liberties and freedoms, and educate our public that this century of violence against the American people will not be tolerated. There has been a long and sustained focus on Foreign Terrorist Organizations, while domestic terrorist organizations have been gaining significant organization, resources, weapons, and followers. It is time for the U.S. Government to take a stronger stand on domestic terrorist threats from Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist organizations to defend our rights, our security, and the rule of law in America. This is the moment, right here, right now, where those of us who took a vow to defend the Constitution of the United States must act to protect this nation from the enemies of our shared rights and shared law.

America’s law enforcement is the front-line of the war on crime in cities and towns of America every day. Such struggle to defend our human and Constitutional rights codified into laws is the most singular essential effort in defending human rights in America. Without our laws and law enforcement, our human rights would quickly be destroyed by those who believe their use of force is greater than our rights. In 21st century America, this defense of the law and the accountability of those in our law enforcement is scrutinized like never before. Some view this as a challenge, but R.E.A.L. urges our law enforcement to use this as an opportunity to demonstrate to Americans the courage and integrity of those who chose to find careers in law enforcement. No one is and will be perfect, but our law enforcement only needs to be measured based its role in consistently and fairly enforcing the law. When our nation is being terrorized by “cop hating” Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists, who are infiltrating public events with their “Black Bloc” groups and “Antifa” violence, this is the time when Americans really need to see our law enforcement to step up. In city after city, we have seen local and state law enforcement overwhelmed by Anarchist and “Antifa” violence. Such ineffectiveness not only endangers the police and the rights in those cities, but it emboldens and encourages more and greater nationwide violence by Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, and “Antifa” movements across the country. Those law enforcement, particularly in California and New York state, that have stood by while such violent extremists engage in mob violence with impunity, must do serious soul-searching as to damage that they allowed not only locally, but also nationally to the integrity of all those committed to law enforcement. If those responsible for law enforcement are unwilling to stop those who openly seek the destruction of our law, then they need to find another role in our democracy. The American public must have confidence in our law enforcement. America cannot fight a war on crime, by too frequent and high-profile acts of police surrender against black-masked Anarchist mobs. America has 1,000,000 in our law enforcement careers, and many more in our National Guards to protect our nation. The idea that a few hundred in an Anarchist mob can terrorize our cities with impunity must be unacceptable to everyone who enforces and respects the laws of our land.

To those who are legitimately concerned about racism and fascism, and have been led to believe that the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” campaign will work, R.E.A.L. asks what can of racism and fascism can we fight without a commitment to our shared universal human rights? Anarchist suicide bomber nearly resulted in the murder of the chairperson of the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt. If she would have been an acceptable loss to such violent Anarchists, are you and your own families an acceptable sacrifice for such Anarcho-Communist violence? How can you fight “hate” by using “hate” of your own? You know better and historic American leaders have proven this is wrong. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took a clear stance on hate and violence: “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” The wisdom and knowledge of legitimate and responsible American challenge to racism is there for our shared understanding. We must choose to reject the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist forces of hate and violence, which will only do further damage to our nation and to ourselves.

R.E.A.L. also makes an appeal to the Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists who seek to promote violence and insurrection in the United States. R.E.A.L. will not speak to you about human rights and democracy, as it is clear that you have no interest in respecting these in your “Antifa” extremist lexicon. So R.E.A.L. will first speak to you in the language and values that you do understand, which is mob force. Today, as your numbers are an annoyance and embarrassment to many the American public, such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist “Antifa” violence is not being taken seriously – yet. But if you are more “successful” in the cause of insurrection against democracy and rights that is at the root of the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist campaign, what then? America is a different world than the days of the 1970s Weatherman Underground. The tolerance for terrorist attacks and violence in the 21st century is very different than what it was in 20th century America, despite your recent “Black Bloc” organized attacks. What happens if you “succeed” in your goals to any significant damage to the American public and its infrastructure? Your echo chambers of extremists, and rash actions of political partisans and political media, may give you the false impression that you have broad support that you do not actually have. You believe in mob violence and force. But you are working to engender massive public resistance against your own organizations, when the American public finally has had enough of your mob violence. Even Anarcho-Communist Noam Chomsky has now publicly denounced your current “Antifa” campaign’s acts of public violence. If a doctrinaire, life-long Anarcho-Communist such as Noam Chomsky cannot accept the violent path you seek, what makes you believe the American public will accept it? In fact, it is the restraint and tolerance of the “Responsible Majority” that allows the freedom of such Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist speech, but as such public violence and terrorism continues, that same “Responsible Majority” will end such “Antifa” acts of violence and terrorism in our streets.

Finally, R.E.A.L. offers outreach to the Anarchist and Anarcho-Communist community, including the extremists the seek violence and terrorism. We urge you to consider the consequences for yourselves, your neighbors, your loved ones, and your families. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s original “I Have a Dream” speech, included the “Golden Rule,” on November 27, 1962, “I have a dream tonight. One day men will do unto others as they would have others to do unto them.” We understand how deeply hate can lodge in the hearts of frustrated people. But hate is not the answer, anymore than hate can be the answer against any of us. If you are truly against hate, as you say you are, then you must abandon your own acts of hate and violence, before the American security situation escalates. We cannot succeed in any campaign in the promoting ideas to the public, if we destroy the marketplaces and venues for shared ideas themselves.

R.E.A.L. urges you to Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.

Charlottesville and Continuing Challenge of Nazi Hate & Terrorism – 1 Killed, 34 Injured

R.E.A.L. sends its sympathies and prayers for all of the victims of violence and hate in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12. R.E.A.L. calls for the American public to reject the forces of hate and violence, and condemn the ideologies of Nazi and white supremacist extremism.

R.E.A.L. has challenged Nazi anti-human rights extremist movement, since our founding, and has widely reported on the extremist views of these groups, including repeated acts of terrorism by some Nazi terrorist groups. R.E.A.L. has reported on the “war of ideas” with Nazis, as well as white and racial supremacist groups for many years. As a result, R.E.A.L. has regularly been the target of Nazi hate and death threats. To be specific, R.E.A.L. and its leadership has been the target of threats by members of National Vanguard Nazi Party, Stormfront, and other Nazi and white nationalist organiations for over a decade.

The Nazi slogans, images, that we have seen from attendees at a recent white nationalist movement in Charlottesville, Virginia event and subsequent riots have become normalized for too long, when they need to be viewed as unacceptable.

As we saw on the night of August 11 and then again on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, groups such as the Vanguard America (VA) white nationalists marched to the Nazi chant “Blood and Soil,” which was popularized by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany “Blut und Boden.” In Adolf Hitler’s time, this was ideology was linked to German racial purity and control over “its borders,” while at the same time Nazi Germany sought to take over the borders of other nations.

Blood-and-Soil-Campaign

In the case of the American group “Vanguard America (VA),” they seek to make the United States of America as an exclusively white nation. The Vanguard America movement seeks to create an America that “is to be a nation exclusively for the White American peoples who out of the barren hills, empty plains, and vast mountains forged the most powerful nation to ever have existed.” Vanguard America is a member of the multi-state “Nationalist Front (NF)” Neo-Nazi organization.  It is one of many other Nazi groups in the U.S., including the “National Vanguard” (formerly “National Alliance”) that is headquartered in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The Vanguard America group is not unlike other Nazi “Vanguard” groups, which have threatened R.E.A.L. for many years. The “Vanguard America” group also promotes vile anti-Semitic remarks and hate ideologies including posters titled “Beware the International Jew.”

In the United States of America, we have seen too many Nazi-inspired terrorist attacks over the past decade, including Washington, DC, Overland Park, Kansas, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Columbia, Tennessee, Lafayette, Louisiana, Bells, Tennessee, and links of the Charleston, South Carolina terrorist Dylann Roof to pro-Nazi ideology.

With the violence and the death of a counterprotester Heather Heyer, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it appears we now add it to this list of infamy. The police have charged James Alex Fields, Jr. of Ohio, who has been charged with held on suspicion of second-degree murder, and malicious wounding, and vehicular attack which led to one death and 19 injured.

Heather Heyer, Victim Killed in Nazi Supremacist Terror Automobile Attack in Charlottesville

Photographs in Charlottesville linked Mr. Fields to the Vanguard America group. The Charlottesville police chief indicated that the vehicle attack was “pre-meditated.” The FBI is investigating what many consider to be a terrorist attack. James Fields is scheduled to be arraigned on August 14, 2017.

James Alex Fields, Jr. (2nd from Left) with Vanguard America group - Charlottesville, Virginia
James Alex Fields, Jr. (2nd from Left) with Vanguard America group – Charlottesville, Virginia

Mulitiple independent archive images and reports of James Fields’ social media had images of Adolf Hitler, and also repeated images of the fascist National Vanguard (Avanguardia Nazionale) flag used in Italy. The fascist National Vanguard (Avanguardia Nazionale) flag uses a Nordic Rune symbol “othala,” which stands for “ancestral inheritence.” R.E.A.L. notes that the Avanguardia Nazionale was reportedly a branch of the “New Order” (Ordine Nuovo); Ordine Nuovo was linked to several terrorist attacks in the 1960s and 1970s.

At the Charlottesville riots, a total of 34 were injured in violence and riots by Nazis, Anarchists, and other members of the public. Violence must continue to be rejected by all of those legitimately in support of our shared Universal Human Rights.

For years, R.E.A.L. has challenged the normalization of Nazi images and rhetoric, which many media found years ago to a source of mockery, including the Washingtonian and Vox.  R.E.A.L. asked Benjamin Freed‏ with the Washingtonian, if he planned to revisit the impact of such normalization of Nazi imagery, in the context of the tragedy at Charlottesville, and was told “no.” Others in human rights have told me that challenging the normalization of Nazi slogans and normalization of Nazi hate symbols were “not their fight.” They continue to fail to grasp that the ormalization of Nazi images and hate are wrong. Those who claim Nazi slogans and Nazi images are “not their fight” have been and continue to be WRONG. We work to support Human Rights for all people, of every race, every religion, every gender, every identity group.

But unlike some foreign media, who claim that the hate and violence we saw by Nazis and Anarchists in “Charlottesville is America everywhere,” R.E.A.L. knows this is not true. Such marginal anti-human rights extremists are a threat, but we must never forget that they are a fringe minority of the American public, who live peacefully in a diverse nation, who respect law and order, and who respect the human rights and Constitutional rights of their fellow Americans.

We challenge this threat by condemning and rejecting the normalization of Nazi, fascist, and anti-Human Rights views and ideology. As we have stated with other terrorist threats, the “front line” to fighting such threats begins with a “war of ideas,” not adopting our OWN extremist violence tactics in the street (which we have seen too often).

Charlottesville, Virginia - August 12, 2017 Riots
Charlottesville, Virginia – August 12, 2017 Riots

We challenge this threat by continuing to use peaceful means to reject such ideologies of hate, not encourage public violence, and not empower such hate-mongers.

But most importantly, we work to promote SHARED human rights, not replacing one extremist view with another, and not believing a different shade of authoritarian hate and violence will achieve progress.

Don’t be deceived by those who think Hate and Violence will stop Hate and Violence.

Be smarter than that.

Lead with your HEART, not your Hate.

Lead

R.E.A.L. is not, and will not, be AFRAID of white supremacists, fascists, and Nazis. We reject the view that we can promote human rights through our own version of hate and violence. We call for all people to release the hate in their hearts.

As you see violence fail, don’t forget to remember you saw real courage succeed.

We don’t need an upraised fist.

We can challenge any extremist view. We don't need an upraised fist, but an outstretched hand.
We can challenge any extremist view. We don’t need an upraised fist, but an outstretched hand.

Choose Love, Not Hate, Love Wins.

choose-love-not-hate

Michigan – Terrorist Attack at Flint Bishop Airport

On June 21, 2017, Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi attacked uniformed airport police officer, Lt. Jeff Neville, with a 12 inch knife and stabbed him in the neck at the Flint Bishop International Airport. Amor M. Ftouhi, a Canadian citizen from Montreal, Quebec, has been in the U.S. legally since June 16, 2017.  The terrorist weapon was “green handle and a black serrated blade and was marked Amazon Jungle Survival Knife.”  The airport was evacuated shortly after the terrorist attack. The terrorist was subdued and Lt. Neville taken to the hospital for emergency treatment. The injured officer is in “satisfactory” condition, authorities said on the afternoon of June 21. The Detroit Free Press has been reporting that the “FBI says the stabbing of a police officer at a Flint airport Wednesday is being investigated as an ‘act of terror’.”

Terrorist-Knife-Attack2
Terrorist Amor M. Ftouhi from Canada (L) stabbed Michigan Flint Bishop Airport Police Officer Lt. Jeff Neville (R) with this 12 inch knife in the neck

According to Lt. Jeff Neville’s LinkedIn page, he has worked at the airport since 2001 and is a former Genesee County Sheriff’s lieutenant. “I am responsible for overseeing the operations of law enforcement on the day to day”, he wrote.

Michigan: Flint Bishop International Airport - Scene of June 21, 2017 Terrorist Attack
Michigan: Flint Bishop International Airport – Scene of June 21, 2017 Terrorist Attack

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal criminal complaint against a Amor M. Ftouhi today for the attack. The complaint states in part: “on the morning of June 21, 2017, an individual who was later identified as Amor M. Ftouhi used a large knife to stab a police officer at the airport. Specifically, the officer told me that Ftouhi walked up to a fully-uniformed police officer at a publicly accessible area of the airport, yelled ‘Allahu Akbar,’ pulled out a knife and stabbed the officer in the neck. After stabbing the police officer, Ftouhi continued to yell ‘Allah’ several times. He further exclaimed something similar to, ‘you have killed people in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and we are all going to die.’ The law enforcement officer was able to subdue Ftouhi, who asked the officer why he did not kill him. The officer also took all of Ftouhi’s possessions, which included identification documents for Amor M. Ftouhi.” “I have also spoken with another FBI agent who reviewed surveillance video of the airport premises, including the location of the stabbing. The agent informed me that at approximately 8:52 a.m., Ftouhi entered the first level of Bishop International Airport carrying a red duffle and a dark satchel bag. At approximately 9:10, Ftouhi went up an escalator to the second level of the airport. At the top of the escalator, Ftouhi turned left to go to a restaurant. At approximately 9:37:56, Ftouhi left the restaurant carrying both bags. Ftouhi entered a second-floor restroom at 9: 3 8: 15 and left at approximately 9:38:43 without either bag. At 9:38:48, Ftouhi attacked the officer and was subdued by other law enforcement shortly after.”

The Montreal edition of La Presse published a photograph of Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi with online reports about the terrorist attack.

Montreal edition of La Presse published a photograph of Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi with online reports about the terrorist attack.
Montreal edition of La Presse published a photograph of Canadian Amor M. Ftouhi with online reports about the terrorist attack.

It appears likely that terrorist Amor Ftouhi intended the attack as former of terrorist martyrdom, and was surprised that he was not killed by police.

The Canadian RCMP and the SPVM police officers also agreed to assist in the investigation to terrorist Amor Ftouhi, and investigated two women associated with him. La Press reported on June 21 that the RCMP and SPVM “entered an apartment building in the East of the city in connection with the suspect. A security perimeter is in place.” La Press also reported that “[a]ccording to our sources, the Quebec suspect was not known to Canadian law enforcement authorities.” La Press states that NBC reported Amor Ftouhi “tried to get a gun to fire, but in vain. Then, he would have bought the knife used in the attack.”

According to the La Press report, the FBI initial investigation indicates belief that Amor Ftouhi acted alone. La Press quoted FBI special agent David Gelios: “We do not believe that other individuals were involved. We have no information that suggests a broader terrorist conspiracy, but it is very early in the investigation. We request search warrants for electronic equipment, for his vehicle. Only time can tell us if other people were aware of the plan, but for now we see it as a lone wolf. […] Obviously, he has a hatred for the United States.”

Amor Ftouhi’s social media background stated that he was originally from Tunisia, and that he followed Tunisian organizations.  It also stated that he was previously a student at the Faculty at Humanities in Tunis.  His social media account stated that his last job was with Industrielle Alliance, an auto and home insurance company with offices in Montreal and throughout Quebec. Amor Ftouhi’s Facebook social media friends posted a variety of online videos, including one recently of the extremist cleric Zair Naik.

=============

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) rejects all terrorists attacks as an assault on the human safety and security, the human rights, of all of our fellow human beings.  We urge all people to reject the tactics of terrorism, and to reject ideologies of extremism that de-humanize our fellow human beings, and allow extremists to believe that acts of terror are justifiable.  They are never justifiable, and we call for all people to support our shared universal human rights, without qualification.

 

Alexandria Terrorist Attack and the Challenge of Political Extremism

We need to call the June 14, 2017 attack on U.S. Congressional representatives and the public in Alexandria, Virginia what it is: “Terrorism.”

There is a difference between a random lunatic shooting someone and a political terrorist targeting a group. The terrorist attack in Alexandria, Virginia was not only a “shooting,” it was also a deliberate, terrorist attack, intended for targeted mass-murder and a political statement. It was as close to definition of terrorism as we get: violence intended to intimidate and in pursuit of political aims.

While all sane people respecting human life and dignity condemned the terrorist attack in Alexandria, we must also recognize that there were many who publicly defended, praised, and applauded the act of terrorism today. There were many political extremists defending such acts of terrorism in actually shooting at representatives of the U.S. Congress, and many publicly expressing regrets that there were not deaths in this terrorist act. Such political extremists do not care about the 10 year old son of Congressional Representative Joe Barton, who had to hide under a car in Alexandria to keep from being shot by a crazed terrorist. Political extremists don’t care about the police woman shot, the non-government individual shot, and the other victims. Political extremists don’t care about the YMCA being shot at with bullets flying through windows and even landing inside the building and the pool.

Like any other deranged extremist ideologies promoting terrorism, such political extremists have de-humanized these victims, the public, the children, the families nearby as expendable to justify their “cause.” What type of cause thinks that terrorizing children, shooting to kill our government officials, shooting to kill our police, shooting to kill anyone in the way… is any type of political cause for “justice” or “freedom”?

The threat of political extremist ideologies are no different than adherents of any other extremist ideologies, when they encourage, defend, incite, and promote violence on the behalf of such extremist views.

Such political extremism, and in this case, political anti-government extremism, is not simply disagreement, even passionate disagreement on political views. Such political extremism defends, excuses, and promotes openly inciting violence; it is just as dangerous to public safety, as any other extremist ideology.

While our law enforcement agencies will no doubt investigate this specific attack, so that they can find the appropriate legal terms they consider appropriate to apply, the American public must recognize this as an act of Political Extremist Terrorism. As of the date of publishing this, the FBI is still investigating this. They have not “declared” this as a “terrorist act.”

But we know that the Alexandria terrorist attack was done by a political extremist who targeted and sought to mass-murder individuals of another political viewpoint. The social media postings of the political extremist terrorist James T. Hodgkinson have been publicly available all day for anyone to see. It is clear that this terrorist targeted and shot the known victims because of their political beliefs: Congressman Steve Scalise, aide Zach Barth, security detail David Bailey and Crystal Griner, and Matt Mika. It also clear that political extremist terrorist James Hodgkinson planned to murder them all, using his automatic rifle. It was only the quick response of those in Congressman Scalise’s security details that prevented a total massacre by this terrorist.

A political extremist terrorist attack on Congressional representatives is simply that – a terrorist attack. It does not matter if the terrorist attack is by a religious extremist, a racial extremist, or a political extremist. Of course, it does not matter if a terrorist attack is on Republicans, Democrats, or any other group. Terrorism is terrorism. Wrong is wrong.

We don’t want to be judgmental. But there is a difference between being judgmental and being willfully blind. A terrorist is not just a “shooter” like a bank robber or any other criminal. Terrorists with a gun or any other weapon don’t look to injure, maim, and kill simply for some monetary gain or personal vengeance, but to terrorize and intimidate people of a particular group.

Yet what this terrorist attack in Alexandria reveals today goes much further than the murderous plans of terrorist James Hodgkinson. It represents a milestone in time, where the American public can no longer be in denial about this political extremist terrorist threat as a major public safety threat in America. It is time to stop the denial, the excuses, and the evasion about the political extremist terrorist threat in the U.S. Such terrorists have now clearly shed blood in an intended mass-murder terrorist attack.

Many who are non-partisan, and many who want to do everything we can to be fair and balanced, don’t want to acknowledge political extremism as an ideology which can incite violence. But denial of the burgeoning and out of control political extremist movement problem that the U.S. has will not simply “go away.” We have political extremist terrorists who use fire bombs, stab, assault, and beat those who they don’t agree with. The “tolerance” of such political extremist acts of terrorism have only made the public less safe and the extremist problem more severe, because political extremists increasingly believe there will not be real consequences for their acts.

The world shook its head at the recent revelation that the United Kingdom reportedly has 23,000 “known” Islamist extremists as a potential terrorist threat.

How many political extremists defending, promoting, praising, and calling for acts of terrorism does the United States believe that it has right now? Surely not “just” 23,000. The United States wishes its political extremist number was so small. And how many are “known”?

The United States might have 23,000 political extremists publicly calling for acts of terrorism or threats against the U.S. Government and the President of the United States – EVERY DAY – on social media and in public demonstrations. How many actual arrests have been made by U.S. law enforcement authorities of such political extremists calling for acts of violence and terrorism?

The United States is a nation in denial that does not even want to admit it has a political extremist problem. The U.S. has simply gotten too “used” to it. People regularly make political death threats, with little to no consequences. These are not some anonymous figures, hiding in “dark Web” areas with secret names. Hardly. These are political extremists using their full names and in public. Celebrities join in, and there are no consequences. Celebrities can hold up a bloody “head” of a beheaded figure of the U.S. President, and there are no consequences. Celebrities can defend and praise calls for acts of violence and terrorism as somehow “patriotic” and “just.” Without consequences, political extremists are simply emboldened to have increasingly more extreme and dangerous threats, leading us to the terrorist attack today.

The United States has a vigorous history of freedom of speech, which all free people must surely defend.

But the concept that the U.S. freedom of speech grants its citizens the “right” to threaten to murder, threaten to kill, threaten to bomb, and threaten to injure one another is so absurd and outrageous that it is beyond all logical reason. The suicidal argument that death threats by extremists are tolerable because they “didn’t mean it” is nothing less than a total abandonment of public safety standards. What part of the U.S. Constitution grants American citizens the right to threaten to kill and injure one another? How are threats of murder and bombing somehow “protected rights”?

Not just in the United States of America, but in any non-totalitarian nation, who has such “rights”? The “right” to threaten to murder, threaten to bomb, threaten to injure your fellow human beings certainly is not part of our Universal Human Rights.

In any sane, rational, nation with laws, we have a name for such actions: “a crime.”

But for the past year and half, we have seen too many essentially look the other way at what any rational person would consider “a crime.” Not surprisingly, when a society and its legal system normalizes such unabashed calls for open violence, people no longer believe there is anything “wrong” with such actions. For rational people who respect human rights, however, such threats are recognized to be nothing less than criminal acts.

The American government officials and leaders have been holding meetings and expressing “deep concern” about the use of social media to promote extremist views of the ISIS terrorist movement. The many thousands using social media to incite ISIS extremist violence must be brought to an end, as our legitimately concerned and troubled leaders state.

But when it comes to the many thousands and thousands of Americans using social media to incite political extremist violence, well, that’s a different story to our concerned leaders. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend the public’s “free speech rights,” would we, as political extremists call for murder, beheading, bombings, you name it. If a foreign Muslim woman got on an American stage and called for bombing the White House, she would expect to be led away in handcuffs. But when an American celebrity woman does the same thing, she is widely applauded, put on the mainstream media, and called an activist champion. This public threat of bombing a U.S. Government building to kill the U.S. President was applauded in public, not by merely a handful of political extremists, but by THOUSANDS in broad daylight. Such extreme, blatant hypocrisy and double-standards on law, acceptable speech, and public safety standards MUST end.

In politics, we don’t have to agree, we have a right to criticism and passionate debate. But there has to be a line between “passionate debate” and political extremism. Support for violence and death threats, calls for beheadings, support and praise for acts of terrorism has to be a boundary between debate and extremism. We need to recognize that this boundary exists between political disagreement and political extremism. We need to condemn those on any side that cross that boundary to openly praise, defend, and incite political extremist violence. In terms of the public’s rejection of such political extremist views, does it matter if such political extremism comes from the left, the right, or any other political spectrum?

The American public, its representative government, and its representative law enforcement can no longer allow political extremists to normalize calls for and incitement of violence. Calls for terrorism are not protected free speech, and terrorist acts are not a human right.

The only surprise about the June 14 terrorist attack in Alexandria, Virginia is how limited the casualties were thanks to quick-acting security.

The American public will likely not be as lucky in the next political extremist terrorist attack. What we do know, given the massive public praise, support, and defense of this terrorist attack in Alexandria by too many Americans on social media, is that without consequences, without challenging political extremists (like we would any other extremist threat), there is likely to be a NEXT time. With blood on the ground, the political extremists in America still don’t think that there is anything wrong in such acts of terrorism.

In our war against terror, we must also challenge the terrorists among us, and we must deny that terrorism is no different than patriotism.

 

Gunshots - Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA - 6/14/2017 (1 of 3)
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (1 of 3)

 

 

Gunshots - Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA - 6/14/2017 (2 of 3)
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (2 of 3)

 

Gunshots - Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA - 6/14/2017 (3 of 3)
Gunshots – Political Extremist Terrorist Attack, Alexandria, VA – 6/14/2017 (3 of 3)

Political Extremist Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)

Political Extremist Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)

 

Anti-Government Political Extremist Group Supported by Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)
Anti-Government Political Extremist Group Supported by Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson (Facebook)

U.S. Law Enforcement “Leakers” Endanger Public Safety and Trust

U.S. law enforcement’s accomplishments are dependent on a shared law, shared mission of public safety and equal enforcement of the law, and dependent on the public trusting law enforcement organizations and agents. While in this case, the subject is about U.S. law enforcement, such basic standards apply in any free and democratic nation. A mission for public safety is dependent on public trust. Those that undermine public trust, don’t simply undermine trust in themselves or their agency, they undermine trust in all members of the law enforcement and justice community.

U.S. law enforcement communications with the news media must have the following primary objectives: (a) provide public and accountable reports on information essential to public safety, (b) provide public and accountable reports on progress on ongoing investigations and law enforcement activity without compromising sensitive and legal matters, (c) provide public awareness information on other general organizational information activities, such as meetings, events, facilities, etc. In a representative democratic nation, the law is enforced equally for all individuals, regardless of the political affiliation, identity group, or station in life.

We must expect our law enforcement, at every level, to be apolitical, just as we expect our military, our hospitals, and any other essential public safety organization.

Equality under the law is an essential art of public trust in law enforcement. Furthermore, that trust is dependent on public communications that confirm equality, fairness, and lack of bias in the values and standards shown by the law enforcement organization’s actions.

In a representative democratic nation, it is noticeable that none of the law enforcement communications objectives are: (1) spying, (2) planting rumors, (3) political targets, (4) seeking to undermine other government organizations or individuals. This is not the role of law enforcement in a representative democratic nation. The concept behind governance in a representative democratic nation is that our public officials and servants represent “the people,” not themselves, not their interests in shaping the nation to fit their views, not in political activism.

Those concerned about human rights regularly see such abuses of law enforcement authority with the news media in Communist totalitarian and other dictatorial nations, which have contempt and hate for representative democracy and public representation processes. In an anti-freedom, totalitarian nation the term “law enforcement” means “power enforcement” for the privileged and powerful. There is no intention of representing “the people,” but simply preserving power for the powerful, at any cost, and manipulating “the law” to read whatever the powerful want it to read. Those who care about human rights regularly protest such abusive forms of human persecution, and the persecutors use of “law enforcement” stage-actors abuse of law and justice to simply maintain, control, and manipulate power.

In the former Communist totalitarian East Germany, the East German secret police (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit aka “Stasi”) organization used a series of harassment tactics, or “Zersetzung” to infiltrate, spy, sabotage, and spread rumors about those they sought to prevent from gaining power. The Stasi tactics were part of late 20th century efforts to manipulate the public, up to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The massive 91,000 Stasi bureaucracy was three times the size of Adolf Hitler’s Gestapo. But given the post World War II environment, the Stasi needed to use subtler methods that concentration death camps for those that became “enemies of society.”

The Stasi police organization sought to psychologically isolate and trample its “enemies” using rumor, innuendo, and manipulating the minds of others. As researcher Max Hertzberg has written on Stasi Zersetzung tactics, its efforts at “intelligence from surveillance and the use of informants was rarely used to actually gain evidence for a prosecution.”

The Stasi “law enforcement” was not interested in actually prosecuting, but in spreading rumors through public and state-controlled media to undermine the credibility of individuals they opposed, and to create a sense of insecurity and paranoia in individuals they opposed. The Stasi tactics of “Zersetzung” method of spreading rumors would often use plausible untruths based on some real facts that would be difficult to refute.

In our world history, there is a good reason why in representative democracies, our law enforcement communications with news media focuses on verifiable facts that are specific to the law enforcement mission.

In my personal career, I worked many years ago with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This knowledge of respect and sensitivity by those using law enforcement authority was well-known among all employees, no matter what your role was. Responsible individuals in law enforcement, including the FBI, are well aware of the essential need for focus on public and media communications consistent with respect for the law enforcement mission.  They really don’t need to be told right from wrong, and what is appropriate in terms of media communications.  They KNOW.

So, this week as the United Kingdom announced that it was going to stop sharing information with the FBI after a leak on an ongoing counterterrorism investigation that had taken so many lives in the UK, all of us connected in any form with a history in law enforcement must have been stunned. A reminder to all – one of the victims in the Manchester terrorist attack was an off-duty police officer. The importance of protecting counterterrorism information during an investigation of a terrorist mass-murder, including a fellow member of law enforcement, should not have to be explained to anyone.  This breach of trust must be investigated.

There is no excuse for this, and unfortunately there has been no public statement by the Interim Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe on this subject. R.E.A.L. urges the Interim Director to make a clear statement how the FBI values and respects the law enforcement trust and the partner trust that it has with the citizens of the United States and our global partners.  What is really missing is a lack of outrage, anger, and frustration heard from leadership in the FBI and law enforcement regarding leaks abusing law enforcement authority.  I can tell you that, of the 30,000+ working for the FBI, they are chosen largely because of their commitment to integrity.  I want to provide a voice for those others who we must hope share such outrage on this abuse of authority by leakers.

Three years ago, the U.S. Directive on National Intelligence (DNI) signed Intelligence Community Directive 119, under which intelligence information was to be protected from unauthorized disclosure, excluding whistleblower information on fraud. Part of the idea behind ICD 119 was to protect intelligence service “leakers” from being used to spread information to news media for political manipulation and persecution of individuals.

There are reports that the FBI is now modifying its media contact policies to limit media contacts to field office managers and public relations employees.  Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have continued to see this problem with leaks. But even after the recently reported changes on media contact management, we are seeing increasing alleged reports from anonymous FBI individuals to the news media, including those making actual threats against other member of the U.S. government. In any representative democracy, a law enforcement agency whose members use the news media to make anonymous threats against anyone else – has to be completely unacceptable. The idea that law enforcement in any representative democracy can use such political tactics completely undermines the public trust and commitment to public safety, which is the mission of our law enforcement.

Let us also remind all members of law enforcement, yes, it is OUR law enforcement, not YOUR law enforcement. That is how a representative democracy works.

We are keenly aware of the dangers of politicizing law enforcement in a way that will undermine a consistent commitment to public safety and trust. But after this embarrassing disgrace involving the Manchester terrorist investigation and the very public statements by the U.K. that it would stop sharing counterterrorism information with the FBI, there needs to be a stronger position mandated and real action by the U.S. Attorney General on this issue.

We measure the value of our law enforcement in their commitment to equality and integrity to the law, not by cunning and political acumen.  That is the hallmark of a democratic society.

A representative democracy, in the U.S., or any other country depends on not only the fidelity and bravery of our law enforcement to equal treatment of all cases under the law, it also depends on the integrity of our law enforcement to put the interest of public safety and public trust as their priority, and leave their personal and political aspirations out of the performance of the authority we have given them to represent us all.

Terrorist Threats and Need for a Public Safety Accountability Act

In challenging the destruction of terrorist threats on society, we not only need accountability for defying extremist ideologies that inspire terrorists and those who commit and assist in terrorist acts, but we also need accountability on those who have information on terrorist threats to public safety, but choose to withhold that information or fail to act on it to defend the public. In the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and other nations of the world, we need a clear, unambiguous law which defines such public safety accountability, with concrete, criminal, consequences for those that withhold information or those with such information that fail to act to protect the public.

As we witness continuing terrorist acts around the world, the most horrible truth is that too many know about terrorist threats to the public, but maliciously choose to do nothing to protect the public. The silence prior to such terrorist attacks on an unsuspecting society needs to stop. We need more than friendly slogans, “see something, say something,” to inspire confidence in public to play in active role in providing information on terrorist threats. We need to migrate from the casual volunteerism of “see something, say something” to a more severe “see something, say something, because it’s the law.”

Our legal systems must accommodate a new law that mandates accountability for those who know, but maliciously conceal such information, and those who know, but consciously fail to act on such information. Certainly, failure to provide information and failing to act on terrorist threats to the public is one of the most gross violations of “obstruction of justice” that we could imagine. Yet such “obstruction of justice” when it comes to information and action on terrorist threats happens on a regular basis, every single day, and even worse, it has too often been defended as part of public government policy.

People of conscience, and those committed to our universal human rights (which includes human security), must find the continuing malicious silence and inaction on terrorist threats as completely unacceptable. We must have a public safety accountability act to set expectations of a legal responsibility to provide information on terrorist threats, and to also expect accountability of our government to act on such threats. The public is threatened by sociopath terrorists which have no respect for law, and no concern about death, even their own. The idea that we can continue to allow such anti-life figures to kill and injure with impunity, while we have no accountability for those who could have stopped such acts, is the absolute height of social lack of responsibility and contempt for human rights.

The public safety of our citizens, our children, our families, our neighbors, our communities also should not be an afterthought to government authorities more concerned about intelligence spy-games than the real and present danger that such terrorist actors pose to public safety and lives. They have no right to play chess with the lives of our families, our children, and our communities. A cohesive, competent, and just society must demand accountability and consequences for malicious, Machiavellian, manipulations by those who have lost sight that our society is composed of other living, breathing human beings with dreams and purpose of their own.

In the United Kingdom today, we see children and families who have suffered yet another terrorist loss from a terrorist bombing atrocity this week. Civilized societies must not just ask, but must demand that the public provide information known to it regarding terrorist threats. It is also yet another discouraging case, where we learn that “intelligence” agencies knew about this terrorist mass-murderer of children, who apparently traveled to Libya to gain training, but he was never arrested for his involvement with Libyan extremists. Less than a year ago, Washington D.C. had a similar case of a Libya-trained ISIS terrorist supporter walking the street, but working as a police officer with the Washington subway system that hundreds of thousands regularly use, while this was known to the FBI. Our society must expect more from our fellow citizens, and those who work on our behalf in our governments.

As described in January 2017, R.E.A.L. has also proposed protective acts for human rights safety from those who have been engaged in terrorist planning, with a specific recommendation for a “Terrorism Prevention and Public Protection Act.” But our legal system must recognize that terrorist plots and terrorist training constitute criminal behavior. Our law enforcement should not have to wait until our children and public are murdered in the street by such sociopath terrorist actors, any more than we would wait for an arsonist plotting to burn down a building, must actually burn our public to death, before he is arrested. In view of the continuing global terrorist threats, our legal system must adopt some common sense respect for the public’s human rights, security, and dignity, to allow our society to continue to have cohesion and respect for the law, our authorities, and one another.

The inhuman cruelty and total disregard for life and public safety by 21st century terrorist actors cannot be fought only by a legal system designed for a 19th and 20th century world and criminal activity. We must recognize that modern, rapid terrorist threats demand that our legal system must move beyond passive non-consequentialism, which has been accepted by too many who shield those who enable harm by their malicious non-actions. The massive threat to public safety by the 21st century global terrorist movement networks is unlike previous criminal organizations and campaigns. We cannot continue to ignore wrongful conduct in our 21st century by malicious failure to act in providing information or failing to act, regarding terrorist threats to our public society.

This must require a new public act which imposes a pre-existing legal duty to act to the public to provide information, and to the government to act, on issues of public safety due to modern terrorist threats. Continuing to allow such duties to be “optional” ignores the very real and present, not hypothetical, instances of how such non-action enables harm. Those who choose to conceal information regarding terrorist threats and those in authority who choose not to act on information regarding terrorist threats must face more than social condemnation; they must face legal responsibility for their choices, as malicious and public endangerment.

The “rationale” for such malicious public endangerment by those empowering terrorists to act with impunity, by choosing to conceal such information regarding threats because to reveal this would make someone uncomfortable, inconvenient, or in the case of government agents, that such public endangerment was to help achieve additional “intelligence” or further investigations, must face real and concrete legal consequences, for such public endangerment to society.

The behavior of those who maliciously refuse to provide information on terrorist threats and those in authority who refuse to act to protect the public from terrorist threats, must be seen as engaging in malicious behavior against society, regardless of their rationale or justification. This is not to suggest that every person’s information about but genuine failure to understand information regarding a terrorist threat is malicious. Certainly, everyone learns small pieces of information that they do not recognize or maliciously conceal. A public accountability act would NOT call for criminal prosecution for random knowledge unknown by the public to impact a terrorist threat to society.

But let us be clear, unintentional concealment of information on terrorist threats is not the real problem that is facing our society regarding modern terrorism today. The terrorist actors who commit atrocities on our children, our families, our public, are regularly not criminal masterminds and agents. Most modern terrorists leave a trail, a definable trail, with very clear information seen by too many in the public, and incredibly, by unscrupulous individuals in our government agencies responsible for our protection. Too often, we see terrorist actors who are “known” to “intelligence” agencies. If they are that obvious, the public rightfully should ask why isn’t anyone who knew about such terrorists’ actions held accountable? In our modern society, they must be held accountable, which has become all too rare. In the United States, unless some other crime is committed, most of those who concealed or failed to act on knowledge of a terrorist threat, face no consequences for their malicious behavior against society.

In the 2011 “The Moral Status of Enabling Harm,” regarding the assessment of enabling harm, University of California Professor Samuel C. Rickless states that “the agent whose actions enable the victim’s death is described as the victim’s enemy. Persons who are described as enemies of those whose death they bring about intentionally are generally understood to be acting with malicious intent.” Professor Rickless further states that “[o]ur intuitions therefore count as evidence for the claim that malicious harmful enabling is morally equivalent to harmful doing, but they do not suggest that non-malicious harmful enabling is morally equivalent to harmful doing.” When facing the modern global threat of rapid terrorist violence to our public, we cannot ignore the necessity to codify and provide concrete consequences for those whose malicious behavior against public safety includes concealing information on terrorist threats or failing to act on terrorist threats.

Reckless disregard for public safety regarding terrorist threats to our public must be condemned by those that maliciously conceal information and by those that deliberately fail to act on such information. This recklessness costs lives, over and over again.

As we demand more from the public in making it their responsibility not to conceal information on terrorist acts, so we must also make it our government agencies’ responsibility to act on information regarding terrorist threats to protect the public. We must not allow protected, comfortable offices and conference rooms, to shield senior representatives of government from public outrage and the consequences of deliberately failing to act to protect the public. They must set an example for every one of our citizens. If they refuse that responsibility, they must be as accountable as any other citizen.

In the United States alone, the last three terrorist attacks were all by individuals “known” to U.S. law enforcement and intelligence. In each of these cases, members of the public came, despite endangerment to themselves, and warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about these terrorists. The excuses on the failure to act to protect the public sound hollow, when the innocent public lie dead and injured in the street. If there was this much “known” that the FBI was actually informed about these individuals, what else was known that was concealed by others? And why do we have no consequences for the failure to protect the public from terrorists?

Orlando ISIS terrorist Omar Mateen was “known” to the FBI and U.S. authorities. Omar Mateen committed the June 12, 2016 terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 Americans.

New York terrorist Ahmad Khan Rahami was “known” to the FBI and U.S. authorities, even his own father contacted the FBI about the threat he represented. Ahmad Khan Rahami committed terrorist attacks in September 19 and 20, 2016 in New York and New Jersey, injuring 29 Americans.

Fort Lauderdale terrorist Esteban Santiago-Ruiz actually went and told the FBI office in November 2016, that he had been watching ISIS terrorist videos and was being driven to attack and kill the public for ISIS. He was let go. On January 6, 2017, Esteban Santiago-Ruiz killed 5 and injured 6 in a terrorist mass shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport, and an additional 36 were injured.

How can our authorities retain the confidence of our public to face the rapid, global terrorist network, if it fails to act to protect our public society from such known threats?

The most astounding story in 2016 in terms of terrorist threats was about the terrorist attack that did not happen, is about a known ISIS terrorist threat in Washington D.C., whose actions could have endangered the lives of many, many thousands of innocents. On August 2, 2016, the Washington D.C. news media announced the arrest of Nicholas Young, a Metro Police Department (MPD) police officer with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) subway system for providing material support to the ISIS terrorist movement. But there was no concern about the public’s safety to remove him from the MPD.

In the criminal complaint on ISIS support Nicholas Young, filed in court before federal Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan, with sworn testimony by an FBI Special Agent David Martinez, it is documented that ISIS terrorist movement supporter and MPD police officer Nicholas Young had been under investigation since 2010. It is documented that Young had an AK-47 out of his window looking to shoot law enforcement in 2011. It is documented in 2011 that Young threatened to behead anyone who “betrayed” him and was looking to blow up automobiles. It is documented in 2011 that Young sought to attack the FBI and smuggle guns into a courtroom. It is documented in 2011 that Young sought to kidnap and torture an FBI special agent. It is documented in 2011 that Young traveled with terrorists (aka “rebels”) to Libya with arms, body armor, to overthrow the government there. (Of note, it is also documented that our DHS Customs and Borders Protection waved Nicholas Young with his military items right on through to Libya on the outbound trip.) In 2011, it is documented that Young had been meeting with a terrorist Amine El Khalifi, and warned him how to avoid the police; Amine El Khalifi planned a January 2012 suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Capitol building, and was arrested. In 2012, it is documented that Young sought to get revenge on those who warned the authorities about the U.S. Capitol suicide bomb plot. Throughout 2014, it is documented that Young repeatedly made plans to seek to join the ISIS terrorist movement, not just as a supporter, but to join their terror activities overseas. In 2015, it is documented how Young praised terrorist attacks in France by ISIS. Not long after his messages of support for ISIS terror attacks, it is documented that Young took his AK-47 to join other MPD police officers to “train” in shooting. In November 2015, it is documented how Young praised the Paris terrorist attacks by ISIS and how the West deserved such death and violence. It was not until 2016, when Young purchased gift cards to send to ISIS to help provide financial support, that eventually by August of 2016 that Young was arrested.

During all of this time, as the FBI knew about this, and Young remained as MPD police officer, endangering the safety of untold thousands on the WMATA Metro subway. Young told his fellow ISIS terrorist supporters by 2016 that “I have enough flags on my name that I can’t even buy a plane ticket without little alert ending up in someone’s hands,” but Young could remain on the WMATA MPD as a police officer, in a system with an average daily ridership with hundreds of thousands of riders. At the time of Young’s arrest, an anonymous “source” told ABC News, there was “no pending threat to the D.C. transportation system,” but how do we know this? How could someone in authority consider it anything less than a wildly irresponsible, malicious abrogation of public safety responsibility to allow an ISIS terrorist supporter (with terror training in Libya) to continue as a police officer for a major subway mass transit system?

After reading this, you might ask yourself, what exactly does it take to get arrested? Judge Buchanan never asked, why did it take you six years to arrest this terrorist figure. After a few local stories, the Washington D.C. media shrugged, and it was back to “business as usual.”

But a legal system that allows the malicious endangerment of the public from global terrorist actors must not be considered acceptable.

The public deserves protection from such sociopath terrorist figures, who not only have no respect for law, but have no fear of death itself. For full disclosure, R.E.A.L. respects our legal system, our law enforcement, and certainly our FBI, which it has directly aided for many years. But we need consistency and credibility in dealing with information regarding terrorist threats to the public.

We need to hold our public accountable for coming forward about terrorist threats to society, and we need to hold our government accountable to making arrests to protect the public from such terrorist atrocities. Anything less makes a true mockery of our legal system and our shared commitment to universal human rights.

U.S. Journalist Arrested in Jewish Community Center Bomb Threats

The U.S. Department of Justice announced on March 3, 2017 that it had arrested Juan Thompson, from St. Louis, Missouri, for bomb threats against Jewish Community Center (JCC) offices across the country, against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and cyberstalking against a woman. Journalist Juan Thompson formerly was a reporter for DNAinfo, a reporter for The Intercept, and worked briefly for WBEZ public radio in Chicago. Juan Thompson was previously in the news when the public was informed that he had been falsifying news reports, creating fake email addresses, making up false quotes, and other fabrications, while reporting for The Intercept. On social media, Juan Thompson’s Twitter account included a number of hate-filled and racist attacks, including attacks on the woman who he was cyberstalking, including using her name in bomb threats against the JCC.

Juan-Thompson

In the March 1, 2017 federal criminal complaint against Juan Thompson, the U.S. Department of Justice accused him of acting “with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, and place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, and, and intimidate another person, used the mail, any interactive computer service and electronic communication service and electronic communication system of interstate commerce, and any other facility of interstate and foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that placed that person in reasonable fear of the death of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person.”

The federal criminal complaint provides some details of eight bomb threats against the Jewish centers, charged to Juan Thompson.  It links Juan Thompson to a threat of a “C-4” bomb explosive against the Anti-Defamation League headquarters in New York City.  The complaint links Juan Thompson to bomb threats against Jewish Community Center offices, including email statements that his cyberstalking victim “sought to kill as many Jews asap.”  The complaint documents links to Juan Thompson to bomb threats against Jewish facilities and museums in California, Texas, New York, Michigan.

The federal criminal complaint against journalist Juan Thompson also states that he used his fake email addresses to threat to kill his cyberstalking victim, and that he used his cyberstalking victim’s name in threats against the Jewish center.  The complaint also states that his cyberstalking including spreading false information about the victim, claiming the victim was engaging in child pornography, spreading nude images of the victim, and contacting the victim’s place of work and claiming that she was anti-Semitic.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Everyone deserves to be free from fear and discrimination based on religion, race, or ethnicity; that is fundamental to who we are as a nation.” U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara also stated: “Threats of violence targeting people and places based on religion or race – whatever the motivation – are unacceptable, un-American, and criminal. We are committed to pursuing and prosecuting those who foment fear and hate through such criminal threats.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Thompson’s alleged pattern of harassment not only involved the defamation of his female victim, but his threats intimidated an entire community. The FBI and our partners take these crimes seriously. I would also like to thank the NYPD and the New York State Police, who continue to work shoulder to shoulder with us as we investigate and track down every single threat and work together to achieve justice for our communities that have been victimized by these threats.”

Juan Thompson used his social media Twitter account to claim that he was first visited by the FBI on February 10, writing the police “are out for blood.”  But the threats reportedly not only continued, but actually accelerated after this, without any fear of consequences by the law.  Juan Thompson’s social media Twitter account spread hatred and contempt in many of its messages, promotion of Communism, and calls for violence against the police, white Americans, and others, promoting messages such as the “Only thing these Devils understand is bloodshed.”

As this criminal complaint only addresses eight threats to Jewish centers across the United States, R.E.A.L. expects that an ongoing investigation remains in process, and that other suspects will also be charged for their crimes. This arrest should at least show those who seek to make such threats against others that law enforcement does take such threats seriously, and that no one is above the law.

R.E.A.L. also calls upon other U.S. news media and journalist organizations to take serious consideration of their actions and employees over the past year. We have seen repeated death threats from various media reporters, such as Steven Borowiec reporting for the L.A. Times calling for the death of Donald Trump, unparalleled libelous and vicious attacks, and open calls and incitement for public violence.

lat-trump-e1478189081685

R.E.A.L. recently reported on a number of major news media outlets, with open calls for public violence in Newsweek, The Nation, The Independent, as well as incitement to violence in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian.

Media_Violence

The advocates of our shared universal human rights will find it increasingly difficult to defend a free press, when too many members of that press are using their free press protections to call for criminal violence, and incite criminal violence. Today, we now see a member of the press now arrested for violent bomb threats and death threats.

What exactly is it going to take for responsible members of the U.S. media to wake up and to police their fellow journalists to use their free press role to report the news, instead of being involved in criminal threats against the public?

The U.S. media and journalist organizations must make it clear that they understand criminal threats against the safety of others is wrong, against the law, and not acceptable – EVER – for any news or media organization – and for any journalist.

R.E.A.L. calls for the U.S. news media and other journalist organizations to condemn and denounce all those calls for violence, threats of violence, and now, bomb threats, made by members of the journalistic community. We need a voice of responsibility from the new media community that respects that no one, including themselves, is above the law or the responsibility of our shared universal human rights.

U.S. News Media Sources Openly Inciting Violence is Rejection of Human Rights

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) is deeply saddened by the growing degradation of respect for human rights, dignity, security, and freedoms from Establishment so-called “mainstream,” Media within the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Over the past year, R.E.A.L. has observed an increasing strident and extremist tone of “reporting” and acceptance of “opinion” voices which seek to attack and disparage our fellow human beings. It is a sad state of affairs that humanity has moved from the 15th century printing press, which once was used to print the Gutenberg Bible, to modern print and digital media which is being used too often to openly incite acts of violence against our fellow human beings.

R.E.A.L. noted a broad series of praise for public criminal violence in several media sources, and more “cagey” publications phrasing if such violence “was OK,” in response to an Anarchist violent attack on white supremacist activist Richard B. Spencer in Washington D.C. on January 20. Mr. Spencer was giving an interview on camera, and a masked individual from the violent Anarchist terrorists attack the city, jumped up and punched Mr. Spencer in the face, then escaped into the crowd.

Media_Violence

For the record, R.E.A.L. has publicly (and much more so privately) peacefully protested the white supremacist extremist views of Mr. Spencer since 2009. R.E.A.L. challenges all anti-human rights ideologies that reject human equality, such as white supremacist views, and R.E.A.L. has also actively protested Nazism, rhetoric, and Nazi symbols since our inception, often when it was not popular to do so. We have done so when this was not “popular,” in the rain, in the heat, in the snow, and faced significant abuse and threats for our peaceful protests, including white supremacist  and Nazi death threats. As R.E.A.L.’s founder, I have challenged white supremacy since the 1960s and this is a core mission of our human rights activism. When white supremacists have frequently disrupted R.E.A.L. human rights events, we offer an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, to encourage them to release the burden of anti-human rights hate from their hearts, and to join the community responsible for our shared human rights for all. R.E.A.L. does not view this as particularly “noble,” but what those who are committed to human rights must do.

But the concept that a criminal believes they have the right to punch someone in the face because they do not agree with what someone else has to see goes against everything we believe in our shared human rights, and our identity as Americans. Beyond the matter of rights and conscience, there is the simple fact that public assault is a CRIME, as it should be not just in the United States of America, but in any nation.

The criminal act and the following mockery of it (and mockery of the LAW) on social media was only the first aspect of a brutal attack on our freedoms. It was followed by a perverted use of the “mainstream” media to glamorize, incite, and wink at such criminal violence as somehow “justified” and “right,” because the media writers and editors (like myself) do not agree with Richard Spencer’s views.

What type of coherent, law-abiding, society openly allows the media to incite violence against our fellow human beings, no matter who they are and what they believe? Among them, today, January 24, Newsweek published an article by “cultural editor” Joe Viex titled: “The Infinite Joy of Watching a Nazi Get Punched to Music.” Newsweek editor Joe Viex described a video of criminal violent assault set to music was “like a work of Renaissance art.” Newsweek later deleted this article, and Newsweek stated this was because it failed to meet its “ethics.” But R.E.A.L. asks the IBT Media owners of Newsweek, when did public incitement of criminal violence merely become an “ethical” matter?

Newsweek was hardly alone.

The Nation published an article by Natasha Lennard, titled “Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer Got Punched—You Can Thank the Black Bloc.” In this article, The Nation’s Natasha Lennard praised the criminal violence by the Anarchist terrorists attacking Washington D.C. on January 20, which she praised as “pure kinetic beauty,” from part of “our” Anarchist terrorist “black bloc” that she had “joined.” In her The Nation article, after Natasha Lennard repeatedly praised violent attacks on Richard Spencer and violent property damage in Washington D.C., she repeatedly incited additional violence stating such actions would not “appear threatening unless followed up again and again with unrelenting force, in a multitude of directions.” The Nation notes that Natasha Lennard also “writes regularly for The Intercept, Al Jazeera America, and Fusion.” Since the Nation sees nothing wrong with such public incitement and praise of criminal violence, will the silence by these other media sources indicate an acceptance of such incitement and praise of violence as well?

In addition to these, the Independent published an article by “Commissioning Editor” Kirsty Major, titled “Yes, it is OK to punch a Nazi like Richard Spencer in the face.” Kirsty Major described the violent criminal assault of Mr. Spencer as “poetry in motion” and a “moment of Fibonacci perfection.” She justified using the major media to rationalize criminal violence because in her view, people she disagrees with are not “rational actors,” and therefore since they are not to be “reasoned” with, violence should be part of “tools in our political toolbox, and we need to use them all to bash neo-Nazis over the head with.” She wrote that “They can work symbiotically: radical acts of resistance, such as smacking fascists in the face, move policy-makers closer to more peaceful and widely accepted protest movements in an attempt to quell unrest. We need to come at them from all sides.” The Independent then deleted this article, I would hope due to public outrage, but there is no real rejection by the Independent of these bald-faced calls for criminal violence by someone who was not only a “writer,” but an “editor” for the Independent.

The New York Times sought to rationalize such a criminal violent assault by asking “is it O.K. to punch a Nazi?” which is the title of an article by New York Times’ Liam Stack. Mr. Stack then reported about a series of Internet postings rationalizing and justifying such criminal violence, with numerous photographs and images in the article to justify and defend such criminal violence, and then a handful of those who (what a shock) state that criminal violence is WRONG. This approving wink at criminal violent assault by the New York Times was then referenced in, of all places, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s Hatewatch, with no commentary and no criticism of the actual criminal assault. (Apparently SPLC’s Hatewatch is now in the business of only objecting to violent hate towards some Americans.)

The Guardian’s “staff” (omitting any names to avoid any responsibility) published a similar “winking” praise at such criminal violence in an article titled “Is punching Richard Spencer inciting violence or ‘American as apple pie’?”. The anonymous “Guardian staff” wrote that: “edited versions of the video of Spencer being punched were shared on Twitter, including videos set to songs such as Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA. Others compared the act of punching Spencer to punching Nazis, which occurred in Indiana Jones films and in Marvel Comics’ Captain America. The first issue of Captain America, in 1941, featured the red, white and blue-clad superhero punching Hitler in the face. On Twitter on Friday, writer Gerry Duggan said such punches were ‘as American as apple pie’; the blow that hit Spencer, he said, was actually an ‘alt-highfive’.’ ”

The Washington Post published an article by Abby Ohlheiser, titled “A step-by-step guide to a meme about punching a Nazi in the face,” on how Internet videos were being made on this criminal violent assault, making jokes about the criminal act, and publishing links to various videos of the criminal assault set to different types of music for the Washington Post readers to enjoy. Also throwing in a handful of references to those few who asked if it was somehow “wrong” to commit such a criminal act, the Washington Post’s Abby Ohlheiser then ends the article with a posting from someone called “Punch More Nazis,” with the Washington Post’s Abby Ohlheiser providing a link to someone selling “a T-shirt you can buy” with a photograph of the criminal assault and the words “Punch Nazis.”

When news media source after source comes out publicly in promoting criminal acts of violence, and inciting violent acts against others, surely there would be some conscientious journalism organization that would reject such calls for violence in the press. The National Press Club? Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)? Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ)? National Writers Union? NewsGuild-CWA?  International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)? Perhaps the public would have at least had the SPJ Ethics chairman speak up, when the very SPJ Code of Ethics specifically states a key objective to “minimize harm” to society, and to “support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

And the response to news media sources’ calls for public violence by these watchdogs and professional organizations is…..? Deafening Silence.

So we find private citizens and Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) offering the notably ABSENT call to conscience and responsibility for the mainstream news media.

Praise and incitement of violent attacks on others because of their views is against every ethic of journalism, even if major U.S. professional journalistic organizations have found it convenient to look the other way on this. Furthermore, such praise and incitement on violent attacks against others because we disagree with them, even when they have objectionable views, is not only an attack on U.S. Constitutional rights, it is also attack on our shared universal human rights.

Within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), our shared universal human rights include:
— “Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
— “Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”
— “Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

The UDHR also includes a basic expectation that: “Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

It may not be popular for Human Rights groups to support the human rights of Mr. Spencer and those who share his views. But we either support human rights or we do not. We do not simply support human rights for those like us and those we like. Human Rights activists need to decide whether they believe in such universal human rights or not.

Finally, let us be perfectly clear, this is more than a matter of only our conscience and ethics. Incitement of criminal violence is not simply objectionable and disgraceful, we must recognize such incitement as a criminal offense itself. When our news media has chosen to act so irresponsibly as to praise acts of criminal assault and further to actively incite additional acts of violence, there must be legal and law enforcement consequences, just as there would be for any other citizen. No one is above the law. We have freedom of speech and press. We also have responsibility and accountability for our free speech and press when it praises and openly incites criminal violence.

If this were any other country, the United States would be pointing its finger in condemnation on activity by a foreign media source which was inciting violence and praising violence against a group of its citizens. If this had been done by a Middle Eastern media sources, we would rightly be calling such media as “extremist” and even condemning such praise of such “political terrorist” actions as clearly showing a “link” between the media sources and “terrorist movements.” We cannot hold double standards to expect such ethical and legal behavior by foreign media, while expecting no accountability and responsibility for U.S. media. Wrong is wrong.

R.E.A.L. calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to take notice of this, with DoJ Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (until Senator Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General) and FBI Director James Comey to begin an investigation on this abuse of media, mostly in the United States, to praise and incite acts of violence against others. R.E.A.L. urges the Department of Justice and FBI to pay specific attention to the U.S. law under 18 U.S. Code § 2101. Under 18 U.S. Code § 2101, it is a criminal act to use communications and “any facility of interstate or foreign commerce,” “to incite a riot,” including both fines, a prison sentence of not more than five years, or both. If the U.S. federal legal and law enforcement agencies do not recognize a legal power to challenge those who are misusing public communications and the media to incite such criminal violence, then R.E.A.L. urges the U.S. Congress to pass a law where incitement of criminal violence is a crime for all Americans, not just the private public, but also those who would pervert our free press to be use for criminal violence in our street. We must say enough is enough on such incitement to criminal violence.

USA: Preventing Terrorism by Countering Extremism with New Solutions and Thinking

On September 9, 2008, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an audience of survivors of terrorist attacks that he recognized terrorism “can affect anyone, anywhere… It attacks humanity itself.” In the struggle to protect the public from terrorism, we need a broader perspective than only the tactical actions and organizations where most of focus remains. We must respect that terrorism is attack on our shared human rights. Too many activists who support human rights are almost exclusively concerned about terrorist actors, rather than their victims. This backwards perspective would be rejected in another area of rights activism. We would not defend women’s rights by a defense of rapists and those committing sexual assault, but when it comes to those plotting and committing acts of terror, too many are unwilling to “judge” their contempt and assault on human rights. We need to work to reverse this backwards perspective as we see the evolution of terrorists into de-centralized “terrorist movements” with a growing attack on humanity across the world. Especially in the United States of America, we need to defend the American people from violent extremist bullies, who believe they can threaten and commit acts of violence without consequences.

In the United States of America, there needs to be a renewed urgency to reassess the approach to addressing domestic terrorist plots and threats. In a list of 88 (updated) terrorist plots and attacks on the U.S. over the past 8 years (listed in this report), 50 percent of these have occurred in the past two years (2015 and 2016). This is despite the rigorous efforts by the establishment media to discontinue the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorist” in many reports. By failing to report on and address the evolving threat to the American homeland, members of the American public are at risk at being blind-sided by evolving, decentralized “terrorist movement” threat, coming 90 percent from U.S. citizens and residents, while the American government prioritizes a focus mostly on foreign terrorist threats and extremism. Furthermore, in the law of the U.S. Code, the overwhelming majority of the U.S. Code references are oriented towards “international terrorism” (144 references), rather than “domestic terrorism” (12 references).

The American public and its representative government need to also recognize that as time and the world changes, so do the types and organization of threats to our human rights, which include our safety. The American counterterrorist establishment and its community was largely expanded, as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 15 years ago. In the blur of a fast-moving world, it is easy to lose track on how much has changed in 15 years. The development of de-centralized “terrorist movements” with a majority of attacks from “lone wolf” or “inspired” individuals utilize tools for recruitment and planning that didn’t exist: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, iPhones, ubiquitous video and encrypted global communications. While the world has changed, our establishment community has largely sought to fight only the “last war,” while offering only a dismissive and defeatist response to new terror threats as “inevitable.” Imagine, if America’s leadership stood at the smoking remains of the World Trade Center towers after 9/11, with such a shrug-should commitment to public, by telling them to just expect such attacks as “inevitable.” But this is the defeatist position where America finds itself today. Would this be our position on any other violation of human rights? That rape, murder, torture, child abuse, etc. are all just “inevitable”? Yet too many find such defeatist views acceptable on terrorism.

America also needs to reflect on commitment of resources used in fighting structured Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) abroad versus the need to protect its own citizens from “lone wolf” and terrorist movements in the U.S. homeland. Long-term American public confidence in counterterror and public safety organizations cannot be retained, while decentralized actors of “terrorist movements” and extremist ideologies act on a regular basis, and our massive FTO-based counterterrorism investment is helpless to prevent or discourage such attacks. As I will detail below, based on open source information in compiling a list of 88 terrorist attacks and plots on the United States homeland, 9 out of 10 terror plots/attacks are performed and planned by American citizens and residents, many with tenuous links to FTOs, such as ISIS – certainly not enough to get them regularly prosecuted for the attack/plot alone based on FTO-centric laws. Furthermore, over the past 2-3 years, such decentralized terrorist “movement” attacks by Americans has significantly increased, with 50 percent of terror attacks/plots in this reports’ listing over the past 2 years.

Furthermore, we need to clarify what “domestic terrorism” is, when such acts of terror by U.S. citizens are “inspired” by terrorist movement ideologies. If terrorist movement ideologies are global, does that make them “foreign terrorist” acts or “domestic terrorist” acts? For the United States in actually stopping terrorist attacks, this requires a documented link to a known “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO), such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Without such a link, the public safety imperative then falls back to carefully defined weapons and arms criminal violations, which don’t always result in convictions.

Challenging extremist ideologies which inspire violent terrorist acts must not only be a “major foreign policy goal of the United States,” it also must be a priority for American domestic public safety. While the U.S. government is and should be concerned about extremists in other parts of the world, we must not ignore the extremist threats that we face today in the United States right now. U.S. government representatives are more comfortable with addressing extremist challenges in other nations, where such representatives don’t face a pushback that extremists are merely exercising their “civil liberties.” We must reject the view that “difficult” balances and challenges to achieve consistency on domestic extremist and terrorist movements are “impossible.” Difficult challenges are often the most important challenges.

As terrorist movement capabilities and ability to act in the 21st century becomes a greater threat, so we must have thinking, processes, organizations, personnel, and laws, which will protect the public safety and security of the innocent public from their anti-human rights agenda of death and mayhem. From that perspective, I have drafted a series of concepts for review and discussion to consider changes to meet this urgent public threat. The focus here is on changes within the United States of America, but the ideas have applicability to any free state, which respects all of the human rights of our public. As we do with any major threat to human rights, our thinking and our solutions must by holistic and dynamic. U.S. government organizations must also make American public safety a continued priority, with a primary focus on U.S. threats. We cannot address significant challenges only with piecemeal and short-term tactical solutions which do not consider that things can change.

To protect our fellow Americans and these rights, we need to do more than reactively respond, after these rights are taken away and our citizens are killed or injured. We need to proactively prepare and protect our communities from those who brazenly seek to commit acts of terrorism. We need to show such movements of violence and hate that our defense of liberty and security can be as quick, nimble, and creative, as their determination to steal the rights, lives, and security of our citizens.

To focus the United States of America’s resources and energy on protecting Americans in the U.S. homeland with long-term strategies, I will recommend the following:
(a) New focus on human rights-based challenge extremist ideologies which inspire terrorism
(b) Reform of U.S. Code to provide additional definitions and laws regarding domestic “extremist and terrorist movements”
(c) Creation of a new commission to study the ISIS “terrorist movement” and other methods of decentralized terrorism, largely using local terrorists, as we have seen in America and 30 other countries
(d) Rejection of “acceptable losses” and “inevitability” of terrorism as a cruel and defeatist policy, which has no place in counterterrorism
(e) Re-assessment as to the number of actual U.S. citizens and U.S. residents which appear to represent the overwhelming number of real terrorist threats on U.S. homeland
(f) Candid assessment and solutions for dealing with gaps in America’s capabilities to deal with 21st century, terrorist movement-based terror threats and extremist ideology inspirations
(g) Creation of a new “Public Safety Act” to make it against the law for members of American law enforcement, public safety, military, or private security organizations to be supporters of violent extremist or terrorist organizations
(h) Reform of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B to ensure more laws which allow criminal prosecution for supporting domestic terrorist movements, as they do today for Foreign Terrorist Movements
(i) Creation of a new “Terrorism Prevention and Public Protection Act” to allow preventive measures to protect the American public from suspected terrorists, just like we have protective and restraining orders to protect the public from other threats
(j) Commitment to a U.S.-based “War of Ideas” to challenge extremist ideologies used to inspire terrorist movements and acts in the U.S.
(k) Re-Assessment of strategy, policy, and resources, to ensure that U.S. efforts are focused on protecting Americans first from terrorist and extremist threats
(l) Creation of a new American Counter-Extremist Service (ACES) to spearhead a U.S.-based “war of ideas” to challenge extremist ideologies, to de-radicalize individuals and communities, to promote a human rights-based respect for the safety and dignity of Americans, to leverage intelligence research and tips on terrorist threats from volunteers among the 300,000,000 American people — and give American citizens a chance to participate in defending their nation from extremists and terrorism, and set new standards of human rights in defying extremist ideologies of hate and violence against the United States of America. American history shows that the past “wars on extremism” have largely been won by getting the American public, at every level, enlisted to help in the “war of ideas” for human rights and human dignity. Where the American government cannot or is unable to act, the American public must challenge extremist views that threaten society, as we have done for centuries. But we need a new government perspective to share the concerns of the American people in defiance of violent extremism.

Certainly there is no question that we must challenge, defy, and destroy Foreign Terrorist Organizations, but we need to reevaluate our counterterror assumptions that the defeat of FTOs will stop domestic terrorist threats. We cannot be so convinced that we will defeat terrorist threats to the United States in foreign countries, while increasing numbers of terrorist plots and attacks are performed by U.S. citizens and residents. We cannot be prepared to fight and challenge extremists and terrorists anywhere in the world – other than the United States of America.

Americans should be confident the U.S. organizations and individuals from U.S. counterterrorism, homeland security, law enforcement, intelligence, and the military are selflessly sacrificing and dedicated to preventing terrorist attacks in the United States. But as the threat changes from “terrorist movements” and decentralized individual terrorists become a rapidly increasing threat to the American public, we must also consider change on the processes, thinking, resources, and approach to preventing extremist terrorism in the United States.

We must recognize that the “long war” with terrorism is focused on prevention, and discouraging growth of anti-human rights extremism. A tactical solution seeks to “buy time,” but as American has seen over the past 15 years, only using domestic law enforcement and foreign military tactics have very real limits, and in some cases, can be counterproductive. The anti-human rights ideologies of extremism are not “disenfranchised minorities” as some will argue, but anti-human rights minorities that reject basic standards for shared, cohesive, and most importantly SAFE societies. We have a social responsibility to protect the human rights of the victims targeted by such purveyors of terrorist hate, crime, and violence, just as we would consider the rights of any other type of hate, crime, and violence.

For example, in the United States, rational people would not be more concerned about the rights of Neo-Nazi terrorist bombers of those in the Neo-Nazi hate movement over the rights of victims which they seek to target. For certain, such Neo-Nazis are a minority, and as Americans, they have rights like others, but they do not have more rights and greater privilege of protection than their targets and victims. Sane and rational people will understand this. But this logic is reversed by some who seek to prioritize human rights protections for other extremist groups over their victims. We must not invert sanity in human rights and make the avowed enemies of human rights as a special protected “victim” class, while ignoring the very real victims of their terrorist acts. Such a backwards defense of “terrorists first” is a failure of consistency in respecting and in understanding human rights, and responsible members of American society much challenge and change such perversions of human rights standards.

These recommendations are offered as a starting point for a more comprehensive analysis; they do not suggest that the foreign terrorist threat has become less of a threat for the American people, as this information all comes from public open source records, which would not reflect classified threat information. However, it is clear that a more consistent approach to dealing with U.S.-based extremist and terrorist threat is needed, which is not dependent on the FTO-centric counterterrorism establishment. But what these recommendations seek to offer is a more coherent, holistic approach to dealing with the specific in-country extremist and terrorist threats, which case history shows is overwhelming from U.S. citizens and residents. It offers a human rights-based way to challenge those extremist ideas which continue to inspire terrorists, after our law enforcement makes arrests.

(1) The Terrorist Threat to Human Rights – Reclaiming Societal Understanding of Right vs. Wrong

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) does not give us a right to murder, to maim, to plot violence, and to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the UDHR was created largely in response to the “barbarous acts” of state-sponsored terrorism by Nazi Germany, during World War II. Rather than a barrier to stopping such “barbarous acts” against our fellow human beings, the UDHR had a goal to promote “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The UDHR recognizes everyone “has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Life, liberty, and security are not viewed as separate and competing concepts, but as a holistic foundation to allow us to exercise our rights in a free society.

In defending our shared human rights, even more fundamental than life, liberty, and security, is the necessary competence in society to understand the difference between right and wrong. Too many cultural analysts will argue that right and wrong are entirely dependent on the individual national culture where you live, that you belong to, or relate to. Such ethical relativism prevents “judgment” of those, who relativists argue simply have a “different culture” than ours. We face a quandary where we have those too many establishment groups claiming to represent “human rights,” which really only represent human rights for selected groups they believe deserve special sympathy. While it is practical to focus on specific campaigns, the challenge when it comes to extremist and terrorist threats comes when we see those who defend threats against the public as merely expressing relativist views on “religious and political debate.” Too often, we have seen those expressing defense of misogynist extremist defending cultural “relativity” that we need to “understand” abuse, rape, and even murder of some women, because of the cultural differences, the dress of women, etc. Cultural relativism actively works to undermine a consensus on human rights competence (right versus wrong) and consistency on extremist views. The selected arguments of cultural relativists are that there is no one standard on human rights, but there are multiple standards based on every different culture. This relativist argument leads to a conclusion that we cannot “judge” any extremist views as “right” and “wrong” are a relative illusion, framed only by our own culture and experiences.

Such relativism is a corrosive acid which works to destroy the foundation of a cohesive society. Members of society must trust that no matter how diverse and individual we may be, we have some basic societal shared values of right and wrong. We need more than simply “the law” to enforce every aspect of this. We are dependent on trust every day. Drivers need to believe that others will stop at red lights. Consumers need to trust that the food they purchase at the market is safe to eat. Investors need to believe that when they put money in a bank, it will still be there to withdraw when they need it. We have seen violations of all these “trusts,” and we do have some basic methods to protect the public. But in daily life, we depend on such trust, not that this trust is somehow “relative” depending on the particular views of other members of society, based on their politics or identity group. Such responsibility and dependence on TRUST is a great force of equality in a cohesive, free society.

So it is in trusting in the public safety from terrorist acts. Terrorism is the ultimate violation of societal trust. Private individuals may have extremist thoughts, but when they advocate and plan acts of extremist violence against other members of society, their private thoughts translate into public threats. Cultural relativists cannot debate away such advocacy, planning, and actions of extremist violence, as merely relative difference in political, religious, or other identity group values on human rights. Those genuinely supporting human rights must accept that extremist advocacy, planning, and actions of violence – is not only criminal, but also an attack on our shared universal human rights. We need more than law enforcement and lawyers debating over the “intent” of those planning, threatening, and acting on terrorism against the public. We also need the shared community of every identity group, as well as human rights activists sharing a common competence on public safety – and understanding the “right” versus “wrong” in extremist views and behavior. We need to agree that threatening the public is wrong – all the time – no matter what the frustrations or perceived rationale of the individual may be.

For too long, there has been the perspective that the only “human rights” we need to care about are for a narrow group of perceived persecuted individuals among selected identity groups in America. But human rights matter for all human beings, and U.S. Constitutional rights matter for all Americans, including their security and liberty. Americans are on the cusp of facing a growing number of violent terrorist movements and ideologies that want to kill and injure our fellow citizens, attack our children and families, and prevent us from exercising our rights. Those who plot and seek to commit such violent acts of terrorism do not share this commitment to human rights and human dignity.

We must have a narrative of judgment which shames and disgraces those involved in extremist groups and involved in terrorist acts. Anti-human rights extremists and terrorists are too infrequently shamed, and too often glamorized. One of the grave mistakes that the current practices make is the failure to shame and disgrace the anti-human rights extremists over their actions. In too much of the “media,” such extremist-inspired terrorists are built up with narratives showing them as powerful, clever, dangerous. The narrative of judgment, which those committed to human rights MUST have, is too often absent, the damage they do to families, the disgrace they bring to their families, the shame they provide to their identity group, is too often absent. In our worthy zeal to protect the privacy of victims and their families, there is not enough effort to sympathize with the victim’s loss and injury. Our “media” often only measures the damage to human rights by terrorist attacks based on the “body count,” has led to de-sensitized viewers who start to be numb to the tragedy of death and destruction by acts of terror. To work to defeat extremism, we need to recapture the hearts and souls of the public in recognizing the shame and disgrace of the terrorist’s actions. Furthermore, those twisted souls in the “media” who seek to make terrorists themselves into victims undermine our defense of human rights. Where else do we defend such criminals as victims, would these same “media” defend rapists and other contemptible, anti-human rights criminals as “victims”? We need to fight back against an amoral relativism, and reclaim a social conscience in human rights that recognizes “right” and “wrong” – without this we continue to lose “competence” in our society to interact with one another.

(2) Need for U.S. Code Reform on Domestic Extremist and Terrorist Movement Threats

Today, the U.S. law and government organizations maintain a predominantly foreign-based position and commitment of resources on terrorist threats. This is dramatically shown in the U.S. Code for federal law. Unlike “international terrorism” which has 144 references in the U.S. Code law, “domestic terrorism” is referenced only 12 times in the U.S. Code law. Continuing a largely 20th century thinking on counterterror (CT) measures, the CT establishment is not regularly pushing for changes to the U.S. Code, assuming that many of the U.S. domestic terrorists can be found to have some “link” to foreign terrorists organizations (FTOs). But for those mostly U.S. citizen/resident terror suspects without a well-documented “material support” to an FTO, the U.S. Code has very little in the way of actual domestic terrorist criminal charges, primarily because domestic terrorism itself has very limited references in the U.S. Code at all.

The primary legal reference specific to “domestic terrorism” is in 18 U.S. Code § 2331, which also provides the majority of its 20th century-based language in defining “international terrorism,” but in 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5), we finally have a starting point for defining “domestic terrorism.” Under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B, 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) defines the “term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended—(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

In addition to the basic definition in 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5), the 12 references to “domestic terrorism” in the U.S. code law are for areas regarding grants for threat assessment, port security, chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives response team, obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, BATF reorganization, fraud of identification documents, authority to use available funds, and similar topics.

18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) provides us with a starting point to move forward with legal and organizational changes to address the evolving domestic-centered and growing extremist “terrorist movements,” which are the basis for many “lone wolf” and small group attacks. The current U.S. Code, however, lacks a structure to deal with domestic “extremists” and “terrorist movements.” This 20th century thinking of terrorism as performed only by a structure group is contrary to the reality that we see with the overwhelming majority of terrorist threats (as documented in open source data) today. In the current U.S. Code, the law acknowledges “extremist” groups, but mostly associates them with foreign nations. Even in 50 U.S. Code § 2301 – Findings (on weapons of mass destruction), where the law acknowledges the existence of “extremist movements” and “terrorist movements,” it links this with dealing with weapons of mass destruction basically from foreign sources. 50 U.S. Code § 2301 (8) is a Congressional finding stating that: “The acquisition or the development and use of weapons of mass destruction is well within the capability of many extremist and terrorist movements, acting independently or as proxies for foreign states.”

America needs reform and modification of 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) or other appropriate statute to recognize the existence of “extremist movement” and “terrorist movement” threats to the United States homeland. Other parts of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B may apply to “domestic terrorism” as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5). But the challenge of lack of domestic focus on legal measures to address extremist and terrorist movements, which are different than the 20th century based “terrorist group” thinking and laws, can represent a real hurdle to responsive and effective protection of the American public from this evolving “movement-based” domestic threats.

Consistently throughout the U.S. Code, we see an 20th century-based thinking on structured “terrorist groups,” rather than decentralized “terrorist movements.” One of the primary definition frequently used by intelligence community members (which also predominantly focus on foreign-facing threats) is found in 22 U.S. Code § 2656f(d)(2), under the Department of State’s regulations, which states: “the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” This definition of “terrorism” is provided in this part of the U.S. Code to clarify the previous term in its definitions, which is “international terrorism.” Here we see the legal understanding of terrorism as perpetrated by “groups,” a phrase that is repeatedly referenced in other parts of this U.S. code, including 22 U.S. Code § 2656f(d)(3): “the term ‘terrorist group’ means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.”

We can also see this in 8 U.S. Code § 1189- Designation of foreign terrorist organizations, which defines terrorist organizations based on foreign organizations. We see this in 18 U.S. Code § 2339D – Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization, which defines terrorists as “the term ‘foreign terrorist organization’ means an organization designated as a terrorist organization under section 219(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

As the American public could see by an organized review of the evolving terrorist plots and attacks on the U.S. homeland, a growing threat to America comes from decentralized extremists acting within “terrorist movements,” rather than in the structured “foreign terrorist organizations,” which current American law, organizations, and resources are predominantly oriented to support. Our law and our thinking must change to meet the new challenges of this growing 21st century threat to America.

Specifically, I recommend the creation of a “Domestic Terrorist and Extremist Act of 2017” in Congress, which provides definitions for “extremist movement” and “terrorist movement” threats in the United States, just like the U.S. Congress is willing to recognize exists in foreign nations. The recommendation here would be to amend 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B to include specific legal definitions that “terrorist” threats may include those within decentralized “terrorist movements,” and such terrorist acts may be inspired by “extremist movements.” To make other changes, we need to recognize the reality of today’s world, beyond the terrorist threats mostly perceived from the 20th century and in the immediate post-9/11 environment.

(3) Intelligence Means Thinking.

Depraved terrorist movement supporters are not smarter than the defenders of our shared rights, liberty, and security. They have come to believe they are. We must change that, and we need a new approach and commitment to harnessing domestic intelligence to challenge these threats to human rights and security. We need to re-imagine the word “intelligence” as “thinking” rather than “intrusive spying.” Let us remember that “intelligence” instead means the ability to THINK, to use strategy, to be creative, and to use and make judgment. We need to re-imagine the word “intelligence” to include “competence,” demonstrating an ability to understand “right” from “wrong.” We need to re-imagine the word “intelligence” to be more than the ability to process tactical check-off lists, a laundry list of acronyms, and threatening groups, but to also have the subjective ability to imagine new patterns, new tactics, and changes from what we have seen before.

To defy terrorist movements, we need to use our intelligence to actively protect the human rights of liberty and security, which are both part of the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Americans cannot exercise their rights, freedom of speech, travel, employment, education, social life, worship, and every aspect of their daily lives, when the anti-human rights forces of terrorism seek to deprive them of their life, liberty, security, and other rights.

The American current approach to intelligence on terrorist and extremist threats is largely centered on government and official sources. Certainly, these sources do receive tips from private citizens, but the overarching message to the American people is that the U.S. government is the primary stakeholder for all matters dealing with extremists and terrorists. Selected university organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and some private individuals are welcome to provide input, but the perspective most Americans have is that our “Intelligence Community” (IC) and law enforcement are the ones completely in charge of extremist and terrorist issues. While the public may have concerns on extremism and terrorism, the Obama administration predominantly was uninterested in public views on this subject as not being “specialists.”

But the increasing number of American victims of terrorist and extremist attacks should have a say in our national public safety policies, resources, and processes. The threat to Americans is not merely a threat to a relative handful of establishment counterterror “specialists,” too many of which spent 9/11/2016 describing how terrorist attacks were “inevitable” with “lottery-winning” chances. In addition to the “experts,” American citizens have a right to their views on policies, practices, and resources to be used to challenge extremists and terrorists. The counterterror establishment community would be wrong to dismiss the intelligence and creativity of the 300,000,000 American people. Our intelligence in challenging extremist threats to the United States in the past, such as white supremacist terrorist threats, has not been dependent on a “counterterror specialist,” but based on the intelligence of American public understanding the difference between right and wrong, fair and unfair, and working together to challenge those who publicly held such extremist views to change.

I have seen too many in the counterterror establishment community wave off the interest and concerns of the American public too often on such matters. Let us not tie our entire “intelligence” to challenge extremism and terrorism to only the smallest fraction of “specialists” within the American society, but let us get the rest of our society involved in developing “intelligence” solutions on extremism and terrorism, for the overall benefit for all Americans.

(4) We Must Fight Today’s Terrorist Threat.

Our counterterrorist research groups, processes, personnel, laws, and government organizations are largely based on a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, over 15 years ago, and the 9/11 Commission Report published on July 22, 2004. The assessment and decisions were based on an understanding of “terrorist groups,” resources, and technology of 15 years ago. We still need to defy those threats, but also much has changed during those 15 years, which has blindsided even those at our highest executive office. President Obama infamously made the remarks in 2014 that the ISIS terrorist movement was simply a “JayVee” (“junior varsity”) league of terrorism, and certainly did not represent a serious threat to the nation. Lax thinking allowed a global terrorist movement to spread and represent a significant danger to the public.

15 years ago, we did not have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, iPhones, and ready encryption sources for global mobile communications. 15 years ago, we didn’t have ubiquitous mobile video capture and storage for instant communication anywhere in the world. In the 21st century, a gap of 15 years to assess critical business policies and practices would be unthinkable, but when it comes to life and death matters of fighting terrorism, our establishment government leaders don’t see anything wrong with this. 15 years ago, much of the world was a significantly differently place, and certainly the terrorist threats and resources are vastly different.

We had thoughtful and considered studies on the terrorist problem – 15 years ago – which we have not significantly revisited, other than the occasional conference or debate. We have no corollary to the 9/11 Commission Report for this stage of the 21st century terrorist movement threats and challenges.

(5) ISIS Commission Needed to Assess Nationwide, Worldwide ISIS Threat.

Over the past 9 years, with the creation of the ISIS from the remnants of Al Qaeda Iraq and other groups, along with various new empowered extremist and terrorist groups, the terrorist threat and the problem of protecting the public has dramatically changed. The ISIS terrorist group acquired territory in multiple countries, which it called a caliphate, as well as a worldwide following of supporters. Some went to Syria, Iraq, Libya, but many, many more remained in their home countries. The strategies discussed about how to “defeat ISIS,” focused on military tactics that were necessary years ago. But years ago, ISIS evolved from a terrorist group to a “terrorist movement.” The tactics of counterterrorism might stop some activity of a “terrorist movement,” but were more based on “luck,” rather than a plan to actually address the evolved threat of terrorist movements.

While our thinking failed to evolve, the ISIS terrorist movement has used modern technology to become a global phenomenon, in the same way that other extremist terrorist movements have grown. Over a year ago, in December 2015, the FBI Director acknowledged that the ISIS terrorist movement was in every one of the 50 states of the United States. As of September 2016, the ISIS terrorist movement has had actual terrorist attacks in over 30 countries, and it continues to spread with limited strategies to stop it. Given the growing trend of ISIS terrorist movement attacks in countries other than Syria and Iraq, it is highly likely we will see a significant growth of such ISIS terrorist movement attacks in the United States of America and other western nations in 2017 and the years to come.

Despite this threat, there is no comparable “ISIS Commission Report,” or even an “ISIS Commission” to re-evaluate how to address a “terrorist movement” versus a “terrorist group.” It is at least four years too late to have such a study on the problem of ISIS, and the issue of terrorist “movements,” but an ISIS and Terrorist Movements Commission study could still provide valuable guidance in 2017. To date, our leaders have continued mostly, based on the rules and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission based on an attack 15 years ago for the threats that we have today. What part of our government, business, or our lives could we continue to perform – just like we did 15 years ago, without recognizing the need for significant change? Much of the world we know today was different 15 years ago. But when it comes to the life and death matter of challenging terrorist movements, our establishment counterterrorism community believes we don’t need to consider “change.”

(6) Challenging Terrorist Movements Begins with Rejecting Terrorism as “Inevitable.”

Too many in the establishment counterterrorism community now believe that terrorism should be “normalized” as something that we simply cannot “stop” and we “should just accept the inevitability” of terrorist attacks, as Tom Ridge stated on 9/11/2016, and which the West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel echoed on September 11, 2016. On the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the West Point CTC published a reckless article that American threats from terrorism are simply “lottery-winning odds,” and that the need for urgent concern over growing terrorist attacks was unnecessary. America has gone from a nation fighting global wars against terrorism, to a shrug-shoulder “acceptable losses” policy that terrorism is “inevitable.” The nation needs both a sense of urgency and a focus on effectiveness when seeking to defy terrorist threats. Such defeatist views of “acceptable losses” to terrorists is a betrayal of the American government’s responsibility and accountability to protect the American public, defend their human rights, and preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. We cannot think creatively, develop new strategies, and find methods to effectively combat terrorist movements, when our “experts” have given up the fight.

Our structures and tactics must recognize that defending against a “terrorist movement” is entirely different than defending against a structured “terrorist group.” Those concerned about the safety of America need to recognize that too many in the Obama administration simply have failed to grasp this vital distinction. We see those entrusted to public safety letting terrorists out on the street, with no follow-up, simply because they could not connect them to a specific “terrorist group,” despite their avowed and obvious support for “terrorist movement” views. Such tactical blindness allowed the recent terrorist attack in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from an ISIS supporter that was known to the FBI (who originally planned an attack in New York City on New Year’s Eve).

Allowing a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness in combatting terrorist movement attacks as “inevitable” invites lax thinking, processes, and practices. In what other profession would we accept such thinking? Would we accept thinking and statements by doctors to treat our sick who view that the death of patients was just “inevitable”? Would we accept thinking and statements by automobile mechanics to repair our vehicles who view that the crashing and accidents of cars was simply “inevitable”? We would not. But when it comes such matters of public safety as terrorism, too many in the public tolerate such thinking and statements from defeatist tacticians in the counterterror establishment.

In the case of the January 6, 2017 terrorist attack on the Fort Lauderdale airport, we had numerous “experts” from the establishment media as well as those commenting from the FBI, who could not possibly imagine what the motivation of Esteban Santiago was in shooting 5 Americans to death, and shooting another 6 of our citizens. Moments after his identity was discovered, many on social media quickly identified him. Using public background check tools, such as BeenVerified.com, within five minutes, I was able to pull up a social media photo of Esteban Santiago wearing a keffiyeh and making the ISIS finger gesture. For full disclosure, it really only took so long, because I had to set up a BeenVerified account, otherwise it might have not more than a minute. Before the FBI Anchorage office released Mr. Santiago, they could have done this. This was not a “long time ago” – this was in November that he was in their office talking about watching ISIS videos and being driven to plan attacks. If there was nothing there, they could have followed up in a few weeks. Even without this information, there should have at least been enough suspicion by the FBI Anchorage office to place Mr. Santiago on a No-Fly List, while they investigated. They could have made greater efforts on this. But they didn’t, and five Americans paid the price with their lives. FBI Director Comey has recognized that the FBI has had a “tough year,” but the toughest year has been had but those who have had to pay the price because of those in authority with a lack of vigilance and sense of urgency in stopping terrorists. If we have learned anything, let us commit to not one more American death, simply because we allowed ourselves to accept the defeatist fiction that terrorist attacks are “inevitable.”

When we start from a place that terrorist attacks are “inevitable,” then a sense of urgency to prevent them from happening is gone. Allowing this attitude to grow within the counterterror establishment has been reckless and irresponsible. How many lives will this recklessness end up claiming? Responsible Americans must reject such thinking and attitudes. We need new thinking, new resources, and new organizations for change to deal with the growing terrorist movement threats ahead.

(7) Terrorist Enemy Already Here in the United States.

There is significant discussion and solutions discussed about Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) and the influence of foreign-headquartered terrorist such as ISIS. But along the way, especially over the past 10 years, a significant number of radicals found their way into the United States, and changes in technology evolved “traditional terrorist groups” into more de-centralized “terrorist movements.” We are on the cusp of yet another wave in the evolution of terrorism, where the decentralized “terrorist movement” using global technology and social media gains sufficient ideological guidance, inspiration, and terrorist training from international Internet sources, allowing them to be self-guiding and self-starting.

The United States must continue to defy terrorist threats from foreign countries, with terrorist movement leadership (in some cases today) in some foreign countries, and maintain secure borders and effective immigration screening to protect us from terrorist threats. We do need all of this. We must also never forget that Al Qaeda is far from gone, and the threat of mass casualty terror remains a challenge. Furthermore, as there are no doubt a number of American (and other nationality) ISIS and other extremist terrorist supporters in Syria, Iraq, and other countries, who will continue to provide some “command and control” for ISIS terrorist movement efforts, we cannot disregard foreign terrorist threats. For example, the ISIS Cyber Caliphate Army regularly issues personal details, addresses, and specifics on individuals in the U.S. targeted for “kill lists,” including law enforcement and military. But with a decentralized movement, for all we know, members of the Cyber Caliphate Army could already be operating here in the United States. Unlike a traditional, “disciplined” terrorist “group,” a decentralized terrorist movement is fighting a global war of ideas, and will find both terrorist actors and leaders in every individual nation.

In the 21st century, as the ISIS terrorist movement has proven by having decentralized terrorist attacks in 31 countries, terror supporters do not have to travel, be transported, or face the organizational risk of detection and capture that previous centralized terrorist groups faced. In fact, the primary lesson learned of the ISIS terrorist movement must be that it is a totally different evolution from the approach to past FTO-type terrorism and it increasingly reflects the approach to terrorist attacks previously used by less-determined white supremacist, Nazi, and other domestic extremist terrorist movements.

By using a terrorist movement with “nationals” inside a country, all of the risk points in organizing and planning attacks associated with travel are eliminated. The trade-off to terrorist movements is that they with more decentralized terrorist approaches is that they have less complex and less focused on mass casualties. But as we saw in Nice, France, a French ISIS terrorist was able to use a simple truck to murder masses of the public, a tactic which was later repeated in Berlin in December 2016. The idea of simply controlling traditional terrorist “weapons of mass destruction” do not stop terrorists with axes, knives, guns, trucks, etc. The idea of simply controlling traditional terrorist travel between countries does not prevent the many terrorists which are already radicalized and in-place within a country. In the United States, we must face the reality that many of the likely future terrorists will continue to be American citizens or residents.

(8) U.S.: Notable Terrorist Attacks/Plots Over Past 8 Years

The following provides a summary of 88 notable terrorist attacks and plots on the United States during the past 8 years. The overwhelming majority of these attacks and plots were from small organizations, members of “movements,” and “lone wolf” terrorists, rather than “traditional terrorist” FTO-organized and led terror group plots. This listing does not include all of the many arrested in the U.S. for plans to provide “material support” to ISIS or traveling to another country to support ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. For example, although former Metro Transit Authority Police Department Officer Nicholas Young (and ISIS terrorist movement supporter) had met with one of Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to bomb the U.S. Capitol building in 2012, this following list will only include Moroccan citizen Amine El Khalifi and will not include U.S. citizen and former police officer Nicholas Young, because there is no open source information on a specific terror plot by Nicholas Young within the United States. There have been many other U.S. residents and U.S. citizens associated with supporting ISIS operations in Syria/Iraq, and planning to travel there – with at least 43 U.S. residents in 2016 linked to Islamist extremist terror and FTOs.

This following list, based on open source information, is those terrorists committing or plotting known attacks on the United States. One of the major challenges in informing the public is the establishment media’s decision to very rarely use the term “terrorism” or “terrorist,” except for mostly FTO-oriented attacks and plots. Therefore, the ability to capture the threads of terrorist movement challenges grows increasingly difficult, when counterterror establishment groups are relatively mum on such issues, and the media will not attempt to accurately report on them.

Among these 88 terrorist extremist attacks and plots on the U.S. (in this open source-based listing), the overwhelming majority of these are led and performed by U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. This listing shows 6 out of 88 terrorist attacks and plots led/performed by non-U.S. citizen/residents. A seventh plot included a Haitian immigrant among its other plotters. But the vast majority of 88 plots are led and performed by U.S. citizens and U.S. residents (based on open source data) on the U.S. homeland by American citizens and legal U.S. residents, with only a few of those U.S. citizen/resident-led 88 terror attacks/plots only including a U.S. resident, showing the overwhelming majority of terrorist plots led or supported by U.S. citizens. Yet a very significant amount of U.S. resources, personnel, and focus on terror-prevention is foreign focused. When essentially 9 out of 10 terrorist plots and attacks come from American citizens and residents, this approach and formula requires a further assessment. It is also notable that, of these 88 terror plots/attacks over 8 years, nearly 40 of these have been in the past TWO YEARS – 50 percent of the total. Clearly, we are seeing an evolution and dramatic increase in terrorist attacks and plots, despite determined efforts by the establishment media increasing not to refer to the word “terrorism” in news reports.

— Notable Terrorist Attacks/Plots on U.S. Homeland Over Past 8 Years (Open Source Data) —
1. 2009 New York City/Bronx bomb plot on Riverdale Jewish centers- James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams – U.S. citizens, and Laguerre Payen – Haiti immigrant (Islamist extremists) **
2. 2009 Arkansas recruiting office attack: Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad – U.S. citizen (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – FTO)
3. 2009 Maine – Dirty bomb parts found in slain man’s home – James Cummings (white supremacist, Nazi)
4. 2009 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum attack: James Von Brunn – U.S. citizen (white supremacist/Nazi)
5. 2009 – New York City Subway bomb plot – Najibullah Zazi (Afghanistan national), Zarein Ahmedzay and Adis Medunjanin (U.S. citizens) – Al Qaeda — U.S. citizen Adis Medunjanin also attempted a suicide attack in January 2010 at NYC Whitestone bridge with his car *
6. 2009 Marine Corps Quantico Base plot – William Boyd (U.S. citizen) and Hysen Sherifi (U.S. permanent resident – Kosovo native) – part of “Raleigh jihad group”
7. 2009 Springfield, Illinois Federal Building car bomb plot – Michael Finton (Talib Islam) – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
8. 2009 Fort Hood attack: Nidal Malik Hasan – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist; I happened to see him at a Washington DC counterterrorism event at GWU)
9. 2009 Dallas Fountain Place bomb plot: Hosam Maher Husein Smadi – illegal immigrant from Jordan (Islamist extremist) *
10. 2009 Detroit Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bomb attempt: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – U.K. and Nigeria citizen (Al-Qaeda – FTO) *
11. 2010 Austin IRS attack: Joe Stack – U.S. citizen (extremist)
12. 2010 Pentagon attack: John Patrick Bedell – U.S. citizen (extremist)
13. 2010 Times Square car bomb attempt and plot: Faisal Shahzad – U.S. naturalized citizen (from Pakistan) – Taliban – FTO
14. 2010 Alaska – Military/Media plot: Paul and Nadia Rockwood – U.S. citizens (Islamist extremist)
15. 2010 West Memphis attack on police: Jerry and Joseph Kane- U.S. citizens (Sovereign Citizen Extremist – SCE movement)
16. 2010 Chicago Wrigley Field bomb plot: Sami Samir Hassoun – Lebanon citizen (Islamist extremist) *
17. 2010 Florida – pipe-bomb attack outside Islamic Center in Jacksonville – suspect Sandlin Matthews Smith shot dead in Oklahoma (Anti-Muslim Extremist)
18. 2010 Washington DC Metro bomb plot: Farooque Ahmed – U.S. naturalized citizen (Islamist extremist)
19. 2010 Portland – Christmas tree car bomb plot: Mohamed Osman Mohamud – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
20. 2010 Catonsville, Maryland military recruiting center bomb plot: Antonio Martinez (Muhammad Hussain) – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
21. 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple attack: Wade Page – U.S. citizen (white supremacist/Nazi)
22. 2011 Multiple site bomb plots: Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari – Saudi Arabian student (Islamist extremist) *
23. 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot (NYC synagogue, Empire State Bldg): Ahmed Ferhani – U.S. resident and Algerian refugee, Mohamed Mamdouh – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremists)
24. 2011 Seattle United States Military Entrance Processing Command bomb plot: Joseph Anthony Davis (Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif), Frederick Domingue, Jr. (Walli Mujahidh)- U.S. citizens (Islamist extremists)
25. 2011 Fort Hood bomb plot: Naser Jason Abdo- U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
26. 2011 Pentagon and Capitol bomb plot: Rezwan Ferdaus- U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
27. 2011 NY/NJ police and post office bomb plot: Jose Pimentel (Muhammad Yusuf) – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
28. 2011 Washington Spokane – terrorist bomb plot on Martin Luther King Jr. Day Unity March – Kevin William Harpham (Nazi white supremacist)
29. 2012 Tampa terrorist plot: Sami Osmakac – U.S. naturalized citizen (from Kosovo) (Islamist extremist)
30. 2012 U.S. Capital suicide bomb plot: Amine El Khalifi (aka Amine el Khalife)- Morocco citizen (Islamist extremist) *
31. 2012 FEAR militia plots in Georgia and Washington State, murder of 2: Michael Burnett, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon, Isaac Aguigui – U.S. citizen (militia extremists)
32. 2012 New York City plots: Raees Alam Qazi, Sheheryar Alam Qazi – U.S. naturalized citizens (from Pakistan) (Islamist extremist)
33. 2013 Anti-Government and Anti-Muslim X-Ray weapon terror plot: Glendon Scott Crawford, Eric J. Feight – U.S. citizens (extremists)
34. 2013 Kansas Wichita Mid-Continent Airport bomb plot: Terry Lee Loewen – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist) – inspired by “Revolution Muslim” extremist group run by two individuals, one of which is now works for George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security (CCHS)
35. 2013 Boston Marathon bombing attack: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – U.S. naturalized citizen (from Kyrgyzstan) and Tamerlan Tsarnaev – U.S. permanent resident, was in process of achieving U.S. citizenship (Russian and Kyrgyz citizenship)-both Islamist extremists
36. 2013 Los Angeles International Airport attack: Paul Anthony Ciancia – U.S. citizen (NWO extremist)
37. 2014 Arizona SuperBowl plot – Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem (arrested after Garland center attack links) – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
38. 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center attack: Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr. – U.S. citizen (white supremacist/Nazi)
39. 2014 New York Rochester plot to kill U.S. military members – Mufid A. Elfgeeh – naturalized U.S. citizen (from Yemen) (ISIS-inspired)
40. 2014 New York City hatchet attack: Zale Thompson- U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist)
41. 2015 Washington, DC. U.S. Capitol Terror Bomb Plot Attack: Christopher Lee Cornell- U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
42. 2015 Northern Illinois military base terror plot: Hasan R. Edmonds (Illinois National Guardsman), Jonas M. Edmonds – U.S. citizens (Islamist extremist)
43. 2015 Garland Curtis Culwell Center attack: Elton Simpson – U.S. citizen (ISIS) and Nadir Soofi- U.S. citizen (ISIS) – father from Pakistan (possible FTO communications)
44. 2015 Charleston church attack: Dylann Roof – U.S. citizen (white supremacist)
45. 2015 New York – threats to attack “Islamberg” mosque in Hancock – Robert Doggart, U.S. citizen (radical anti-Muslim extremist)
46. 2015 New York Brooklyn – six ISIS supporters (from non-U.S.) locations arrested – Akhror Saidakhmetov (citizen of Kazakhstan) sought to also commit attack in U.S. (ISIS)
47. 2015 Chattanooga military installations attack: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez – U.S. naturalized citizen (from Jordan) – Islamist extremist
48. 2015 Boston police/activist beheading plots – Ussamah Abduiliah Rahim (aka Usaama Rahim) (shot), David Wright (aka Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq), Nicholas Rovinski – all U.S. citizens (ISIS-inspired)
49. 2015 NYC Independence Day pressure cooker bomb plot: Munther Omar Saleh, Fareed Mumuni (stabbed FBI agent) – U.S. citizens – ISIS inspired
50. 2015 NYPD pressure cooker bomb plot: Noelle Velentzas, Asia Siddiqui – U.S. citizens (ISIS-inspired)
51. 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting – Robert L. Dear – U.S. citizen (radical anti-abortion)
52. 2015 San Bernardino center attack – Rizwan Farook – U.S. citizen, and Tashfeen Malik – U.S. permanent resident (by marriage) (ISIS-inspired)
53. 2015 Lafayette Louisana attack – movie theater attack by John Russell House, U.S. citizen (Nazi, white supremacist)
54. 2015 New York City Anti-Police Bomb and Stabbing Plot – attempted to stab FBI agent – Fareed Mumuni, Munther Omar Saleh – U.S. citizens (ISIS-inspired)
55. 2015 Massachusetts University pressure cooker bomb plot – Alexander Ciccolo aka Ali Al Amriki – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
56. 2015 Ohio U.S. Military Killing Plot – Terrence J. McNeil – sought to target 100 U.S. military in U.S. homeland – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
57. 2015 Maryland Plot similar to Garland attack – suspect had residence 2 miles from U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground – Mohamed Yousef Elshinawy – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
58. 2015 Minnesota – Minneapolis shooting attack on BLM protest 4th precinct – Allen Scarsella, Joseph Martin Backman, Nathan Wayne Gustavsson,and Daniel Thomas Macey – U.S. citizens (charged with riots, assault, no fatal injuries) (white supremacist)
59. 2015 New York – Rochester – bomb maker leg injured while making bomb – Michael O’Neill, U.S. citizen (white supremacist, Nazi)
60. 2015 Pennsylvania – U.S. military attack and presidential assassination plot – Jalil Ibn Ameer Aziz – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
61. 2015 Minneapolis-St. Paul airport rocket-propelled grenade plot to attack passenger jets – Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame (previously had airport security clearance and worked on passenger jets) – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired) – also led a group of 10 Somali-American men from Minnesota who conspired to join ISIS in Syria.
62. 2015 Minnesota FBI death threats plot – Khaalid Adam Abdulkadir – Citizenship Unknown (ISIS-inspired)
63. 2015 California threat against Richmond mosque – William Celli – U.S. citizen (radical anti-Muslim extremist)
64. 2015 California mosque firebombing attack – Carl James Dial Jr. – U.S. citizen (radical anti-Muslim extremist)
65. 2015 Rochester New York restaurant plot – Emanuel L. Lutchman – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
66. 2016 Philadelphia police shooting- wounding police officer – Edward Archer – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
67. 2016 Oregon Malheur refuge federal building takeover – leader Ammon Bundy – total of 27 U.S. citizens – 1 killed, 12 pleaded guilty, 7 (including leaders acquitted) (Sovereign Citizen Extremists – SCE)
68. 2016 Northern Virginia plot – Mohamed Bailor Jalloh – U.S. naturalized citizen (from Sierra Leone) – ISIS-linked (FTO?) – Islamist extremist
69. 2016 Missouri – FBI and Secret Service death plots – Safya Roe Yassin – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
70. 2016 Northern Virginia Military Recruitment Center plot – Yusuf Wehelie – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist) – originally arrested in Egypt, and was defended by CAIR group (2015 CAIR statement – http://bit.ly/2jtxJ6n)
71. 2016 Florida Jewish Synagogue bomb mass-murder plot – James Gonzalo Medina – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired, Islamist extremist)
72. 2016 Orlando nightclub attack – Omar Mateen – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
73. 2016 Arizona bomb and rifle attack plot on DMV and JCC – Mahin Khan – U.S. citizen (ISIS and Pakistan Taliban inspired)
74. 2016 Virginia – unnamed domestic plot – Mohamed Bailor Jalloh – U.S. citizen, former Virginia National Guard (ISIS-inspired) — arrested for material support to ISIS, NOT domestic plot
75. 2016 Washington D.C. and Virginia plots – Haris Qamar – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
76. 2016 Dearborn Michigan plot – Sebastian Gregerson (aka Abdurrahman Bin Mikaayl) – U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist) – also linked to Maryland imam providing weapons funding
77. 2016 Virginia beheadings plot – double stabbing in apartment – Wasil Rafat Farooqui (aka Wasil Farooqui) – U.S. citizen (ISIS-inspired)
78. 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing – Dahir A. Adan- U.S. citizen since 2008 – originally Somalia refugee (ISIS-inspired)
79. 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings – Ahmad Khan Rahami – naturalized U.S. citizen (Islamist extremist, inspired by ISIS, Al Qaeda)
80. 2016 Maryland – U.S. military shooting plot – Nelash Mohamed Das – U.S. permanent resident (from Bangladesh) (ISIS-inspired)
81. 2016 Indiana – terrorist plot for commit attack in U.S. – Marlonn Hicks – U.S. citzen (ISIS-inspired)
82. 2016 Kansas apartment and mosque – anti-Muslim terror plot – Patrick Stein, Gavin Wright, Curtis Allen – U.S. citizens (radical anti-Muslim extremists)
83. 2016 NYC Times Square Vehicle Attack plot – Mohamed Rafik Naji – U.S. permanent resident (from Yemen) (ISIS-inspired)
84. 2016 Ohio State University attack – Abdul Razak Ali Artan – U.S. permanent resident, Somalia refugee (Islamist extremist, inspired by ISIS, Al Qaeda)
85. 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport attack – Esteban Santiago – U.S. citizen (apparently ISIS inspired)
86. 2017 Washington DC – Anarchist terrorist violence
87. 2017 California – University of Berkely – Anarchist terrorist violence
88. 2017 California – Pasadena – attempt by unknown persons to throw explosive device in restaurant

(This listing does not include the September 2016 mass shooting attack by Nathan DeSai in southwest Houston (U.S. citizen, reportedly wearing a Nazi emblem)- injuring nine people, and the 2016 Cascade Mall shooting by Arcan Cetin (U.S. naturalized citizen, who would not address potential interest in ISIS) in Burlington, Washington – killing five people. While both cases are suspicious, at the current time, there is not sufficient open source information to indicate that these were intended to be acts of terror.)

As stated above, this listing of notable terror plots and attacks is not expected to be fully complete, especially as it is reliant on open source information and limited research resources. Certainly, we would expect that professional counterterror analysts, large research organizations, and those with access to classified information have more information and further details than a private citizen volunteer might have. It would be valuable to see a more detailed, unclassified version of such a threat listing from professional and responsible organizations. However, what this attempt at a listing does show is there is definitely a significant trend of increased decentralized “terrorist movement” threats, from U.S. citizens and residents, with a significant jump over the past two years of 2015 and 2016. One of the reasons for this is the structure of federal law enforcement complaints, where documented criminal charges often focus on supporting charges of material support to FTOs (to justify an arrest), and the aspects of plots on U.S. homeland are sometimes buried within the details of the complaint. Sometimes, you need to read a number of the criminal complaints to see such details. The real point of this detail is not to truly assess that there were 88 terror plot/attacks, or 90, or 100, or whatever, and same applies to the percentage estimates. The goal of this is simply to get some context of the threat. Whatever the final and complete (including classified information) is – it is a LOT. Furthermore, there are a LOT led by U.S. citizens, and there are a LOT within the past two years.

These significant trends and patterns are not being clearly communicated to the American public. Despite the continuing political divisions of too many Americans, we have a shared common goal in the safety and security of our families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. This information should be digested by the appropriate authorities with the development of a more robust, unclassified version, so that American public can consider the directions our nation needs to take for our shared safety and security.

(9) Essential Need for Change in Counterterrorism Commitment.

It is time that the United States of America recognizes that the processes, organizations, skills, and personnel to combat “traditional” terrorist organizations lack the speed, responsiveness, and imagination to challenge the growth of “terrorist movements.” We are facing new waves of terrorist movement violence, which will require strategic and creative measures to ensure the liberty and security of the American people.

As times change and threats to our shared Constitutional and human rights change, so our organizations, skills, and personnel must change to meet new and different threats. We have seen many changes over the past 15 years, since the 9/11 terrorist attack, which was structured by Al Qaeda “terrorist cells” and groups in 2001. We have concentrated most of our efforts thus far to build on the response to how to deal with that type of structured terrorist threat. The nation agreed that change was necessary, and once again, we must revisit the need for change. On October 8, 2001, the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) was instituted as a small department in the White House. The OHS did not stay as a White House function, nor did it limit its capabilities to the scope, skills, and personnel of its founding, but a year later, on November 25, 2002, instead became a larger Department of Homeland Security (DHS), based on the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The now 240,000 employees of the DHS focus on mostly on major disaster preparedness and response, based on the structured terrorist movement large efforts for mass-casualty terror attacks, such as the 9/11 attack 15 years ago, including “hardening” major terror targets.

So when ISIS terrorist movement attacks result in the deaths in “soft targets,” we see the DHS largely out of the dialogue, and most of the response is by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, responding to attacks after they happen. The FBI is also largely involved in the criminal investigation of terrorists who brazenly tell members of the community that they are planning terrorist attacks, and undercover FBI informants collect the evidence necessary to arrest such terrorist braggarts. As we have seen too often, the FBI regularly needs to collect extensive evidence proving a specific weapons violation or other criminal act, with carefully documented proof of links to specific named Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). Known terrorists get unobserved for extended periods if there is the perception that there is not an immediate threat, and even for those openly making such threat, such terrorists remain at large, while the FBI agents collect the right evidence necessary for a criminal prosecution.

We need the mass casualty preparedness and response capability of DHS and we need the federal law enforcement functions of the FBI. But the efforts over the past 15 years to apply those organizations to address structured “terrorist groups,” with known “terrorist cells,” and “foreign terrorist organizations,” have limited application to a nimble proactive protection from “terrorist movements.” We need to consider a new approach to preventing terrorist movement attacks, which are not necessarily a “mass casualty response” or an extended law enforcement investigation. The enemies of human rights and liberty are using this domestic intelligence gap in our thinking on how to stop terrorist movements from ramping up a new wave of terrorist attacks across America.

(10) Public Safety Act of 2017.

The most jaw-dropping example of the inability of past counterterror practices to modern terrorist movement threats can be seen in “foiled” and arrested terrorists, who were given significant periods to endanger the public, while “under investigation.” This is a fundamental flaw in the 9/11 Commission thinking to thwarting modern terrorist movement threats. This ongoing threat to public safety by those known to be a threat, but receiving simply “periodic” investigation, is taken to the highest level, when the suspect associated with a violent terrorist group is a member of law enforcement, military, or some other public safety group. We have seen an increasing number of terrorists, especially in the past year, with backgrounds in military training, including weapons training. The level of investigation for these individuals is not clear. But one case that is very clear is the case of a Washington DC area police officer, who was known to be a terrorist supporter for years.

In the case of the United States vs. Nicholas Young, the FBI was investigating Washington Metropolitan Area Transit (WMATA) subway Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) officer Nicholas Young for nearly six years regarding his connections to known terrorists. As of April 1, 2011, the FBI knew of Young’s willingness to perform violent terrorist acts, yet Young remained as an MTPD officer, until his arrest on August 2, 2016 for documented material support and resources to the ISIS terrorist movement overseas. In the interim, Young traveled to Libya, trained with an AK-47 to attack, plotted kidnap and torture, associated with another terrorist who attempted to detonate a bomb in the Capitol. Young even trained with his AK-47 with another MTPD employee. But during all of this time of the FBI’s investigation of the ISIS-supporting police officer, Nicholas Young remained an active member of the police. This ISIS terrorist movement supporter wore a BADGE for years. Every day, there are an average of 836,800 riders on the Metro subway system. The DC Metro has an annual usage of 261,435,200 riders. Outside of the White House, the Pentagon, and the Capitol Building, it is probably the highest profile security threat in the nation’s capital, and unquestionably a threat to the Metro would have the highest threat to human life and safety.

The idea that we are tolerating members of police as supporters of terrorist organizations for YEARS is insane. The fact that too many FBI agents did not think it was insane is even worse. It should be no surprise to any American with sense that we MUST NOT tolerate our police and others in a public safety role, as supporters of the ISIS terrorist movement or any terrorist movement. We need a new federal law added to our Criminal Code or an Executive Act, which prohibits this, perhaps a “Public Safety Act of 2017.” Such a law could state in effect that: “No employee of any government or private security, police, military, or other public safety organization can remain employed in a position of public trust and public safety, while supporting or under investigation for supporting a violent terrorist movement.” A violation of this act would be prosecutable as a criminal act with mandatory jail time. I am sure there are those who will argue that our police and those in positions of public safety should have the “right” to support bloodthirsty, violent terrorist movements, and they will want to argue against such a new law in court. I say, let them. Pass such a bill, let them take it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court thinks we can have terrorists on our police forces, then we need a new Supreme Court too. In the meantime, let us take the BADGES off of terrorists hiding in our police and public safety organizations – NOW.

Four of the last terrorists committing terror attacks in the United States were employed as security guards or working in security organizations – all of them recently wore badges: Omar Mateen – G4S security guard (Orlando ISIS terror attack killed 49, injured 53), Dahir A. Adan – Securitas security guard (St. Cloud ISIS terror attack injured 10), Ahmad Raham – Summit Security guard (NYC and New Jersey terror bombings), and Esteban Santiago – Signal 88 security guard (Fort Lauderdale terror shooting – 5 dead, 8 wounded). Dahir Adan even wore his security guard uniform, when he stabbed people for ISIS throughout the St. Cloud Crossroads Center shopping mall. He got victims because people TRUSTED him. The “Public Safety Act of 2017” would make it a criminal offense if these security agencies hired such individuals without a thorough background check. Furthermore, most of these security agency businesses provide background checks as a commercial service today. They simply don’t have the incentive to do rigorous background checks on those to whom they hand out a badge. This needs to change.

(11) Criminal Code Reform on Terrorist Acts Under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B – Domestic Terrorism Sections

As previously referenced, there is the need to reform the U.S. Code Chapter 113B, using the legal starting point of 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5) which provides a definition of “domestic terrorism” to expand on this to provide definitions on domestic “terrorist movement” and “extremist movement” threats to public safety. Once we modify this basic starting point in the U.S. Code, additional areas under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B need to acknowledge specific threats to domestic terrorist movements. Much of this part of the U.S. Code focuses on “international terrorism” and “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO) threats.

For example, this part of the U.S. Code includes: § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, § 2339B – Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, § 2339D – Receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization, etc. Other elements of this code are less restrictive, such as, § 2332a – Use of weapons of mass destruction, but too often they are used as replacements for charges when a direct link to an FTO cannot be established. We need a reassessment of this part of the U.S. Code to provide comparable and/or additional emphasis on “domestic terrorism,” including domestic terrorist movements.

With some exceptions, the overwhelming majority of this area of the U.S. Code comes from the mid-1990s, based on 20th century terrorist threats, with some updates in early 21st century, most of which haven’t been updated since 2004-2006 timeframe. But while this vital part of the U.S. Code has remained mostly stagnant, the world and terrorist organizations, structures, and threats have dramatically changed. The very technology behind global communications and terrorist recruitment has changed. Much of the world has changed, yet we have laws in the U.S. Code on terrorism, which was mostly based on 20th century terrorist threats. The U.S. desperately needs an overhaul of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B, to recognize the threats from terrorist movements, especially with domestic terrorist movements, actors, and groups. With too much of the references in the U.S. Code based only on a 20th century thinking that terrorism will only come from “foreign terrorists,” the ability to effectively identify, arrest, and prosecute domestic terrorists on charges of terrorism is less effective. In May 2016, the FBI announced the arrest of an ISIS supporter, James Gonzalo Medina, in Florida, who for many months had been planning a terrorist attack on the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center synagogue. For quite some time, the unpredictable terrorist Medina planned to use an automatic weapon to shoot up the synagogue. An FBI undercover operator managed to convince Medina to use a bomb instead, so that the FBI could replace the bomb material with inert material and then arrest Medina on a weapons charge without directly endangering the synagogue. But there apparently was not sufficient proof of Medina’s direct connection to ISIS as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) to charge him with that. So the FBI was able to use a part of the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B, in §2332a(a)(2) “Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction.” But for several months, the FBI had to let this threat develop against these families in a synagogue, because the FBI believed there was no effective U.S. Code charge to simply arrest Medina for plotting to commit the terrorist attack in the first place. I urge the public to read the complaint on this case, and see how Medina continued to want to act against the synagogue, but the FBI continued to try to “stall” him while they gained more evidence, and waited until Medina violated this specific statue of the U.S. Code. We need to also consider measures to PREVENT terrorist attacks as a priority. If Medina had grown impatient and attacked the synagogue or another site using other means, we would have a very different outcome to this case. Our civil liberties must include the freedom of worship without the threat of being gunned down or blown up. We cannot be increasingly dependent on luck and terrorist incompetence, as our significant tool in terrorist prevention.

With the rapid growth of U.S. domestic-centric, decentralized terrorists, we desperately need an update to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B, to allow for effective criminal charges against those plotting and committing domestic terrorist acts, who are not directly linked to the infrastructure of a FTO. The so-called “ISIS-inspired” terrorists are often not directly “linked” to a “terrorist group,” but when the threat is from a terrorist movement, rather than a 20th century style terrorist group, we are left grasping on how to deal with such criminals effectively.

Rarely do we see federal investigations specific to “domestic terrorist groups,” and this perception does not recognize the sea-change in terrorist movements that is underway today, with a wide variety of extremists, who are linked via the Internet and advanced 21st century Internet communications, social media, and develop “virtual organizations” based on the shared goals of a terrorist movement, rather the specific direction of titular “FTO” leader. Most recently, we have seen this with the convicted White supremacist terrorist Dylann Roof. White supremacist terrorist Roof was NOT charged with committing what was obviously a terrorist act in Charleston. One of the federal charges that he was convicted of was that he “used or threatened force to obstruct any person’s free exercise of their religious beliefs.” This white supremacist terrorist murdered 9 African-Americans, and our federal laws were dependent on this type of federal hate crime charge, because his act of terror took place in an African-American church. We need additions to our criminal code to support more ready charges of domestic terrorism, rather than be dependent on interpretation of weapons and “hate crimes” laws to gain convictions, and more importantly, to stop terrorist activity.

Not all such cases wind up with the success of the case of white supremacist domestic terrorist Dylann Roof, who essentially refused to defend himself. There are other cases, where failing to have modern criminal code protections allow terrorist threats to get right back out on the street. While every case will not result in necessary convictions, we need to amend the U.S. code to allow more laws to gain such convictions in the interest of the public safety when dealing with 21st century terrorist movements.

In Oregon in 2016, we saw 27 armed men and women, in support of the Sovereign Citizen Extremist (SCE) terrorist movement, take over by armed force the Malheur refuge and occupy it for 40 days. They damaged the refuge, created their own roads, threatened the public, and drove around public streets and courthouses with automatic weapons. Furthermore, they traveled with these weapons to nearby states to recruit more support and incite additional insurrection. The SCE terrorist movement specifically seeks to deny the legitimacy of the U.S. Government, and seeks to undermine, including by use of force of arms, the law of the land. For 40 days, these SCE terrorists were able to act without consequence from the law, including holding public press rallies, holding social media campaigns, and even involved in public meetings where children and others could have been endangered. During all of this time, law enforcement did nothing to stop them – a precedent of inaction whose ramifications could be catastrophic in the future. These SCE terrorists sought to use force to coerce the U.S. Government and the American people to give into their political objectives. But not a single one was charged with “terrorism.” Not one. Instead they were charged with “conspiracy and firearm charges.” Then even though these SCE terrorists took over a federal facility at gunpoint, threatened to kill, terrorized the Oregon public, including threats around a public courthouse, not a single domestic terrorist charge was made against them. Furthermore, seven of the SCE leaders who plead not guilty to the federal conspiracy and firearm charges that they did received were ALL ACQUITTED.

Too many in the counterterror establishment think that the current code of laws to deal with domestic terrorism is sufficient. But they depend on successful association of domestic terrorists with FTOs, or unquestioning criminal violations of arms or weapons of mass destruction to gain convictions. We must learn lessons from failure to have consequences for the Malheur facility occupation and the growing threat of decentralized terrorist movements to target the American people.

We need to have a U.S. Code infrastructure that reflects the terrorist threats Americans face today.

(12) Protective Measures on Terrorism and the U.S. Code

Another aspect of the challenges to U.S. Code Chapter 113B is that they are designed only for the long-term incarceration of those charged with specific and detailed crimes, with extensive investigation. Our current legal system is not designed to provide sufficient criminal code protections to stop or prevent terrorist attacks, but like most of the rest of the 9/11-based infrastructure, is designed on the response to terrorist attacks either after they happened or they are in a very detailed and mature stage.

Certainly, the U.S. law should not be in the business of allowing prosecution for thoughts or for casual reckless comments. But there is vast area between abuse of a legal system for “thought-crimes” and waiting for terrorists to have a sufficiently mature and well-developed attack or detailed FTO links, to stop them from acting.

Again, the 21st century priority in challenging terrorist movements needs to focus on prevention. In the 21st century, the speed and nimbleness with which terrorist movement actors can act to kill and maim is astounding. Our primary protection, thus far, has been a significant amount of incompetence by such terrorist movement actors, who as extremists, in acting impulsively and recklessly. Our shared public safety from domestic terrorism is too dependent on “luck” and the “terrorist movement” actor’s incompetence.

The U.S. courts have a legal history of using orders to protect the public safety. This is not an entirely new concept to American law. Every day, courts issue restraining orders or protective orders to protect a person or entity, and the general public, in response to claims involving alleged domestic violence, harassment, stalking, or sexual assault. The American legal system and American people view this to be a necessary part of our law for our shared public safety, not an egregious violation of such bad actors’ civil and Constitution rights.

In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United Kingdom updated its laws and created the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Among the controversial aspects of this UK law was the creation of government powers to allow the Home Secretary to impose “control orders” on people who were suspected of involvement in terrorism. The act was condemned by some human rights groups, whose concern was violating the civil liberties of terrorist suspects. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and control orders were replaced in December 2011 by the UK Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011. This replaced broad “control orders” with TPIM notices which can restrict the behavior of a terrorist suspect in terms of movement, financial activity, weapons, electronic communication, and communication with others.

To deal with the 21st century threat of terrorist movements, which are different than “terrorist groups,” preventing terrorist attacks requires some form of preventive measure to be able to restrict the behavior of terrorist suspects, just like have restraining and protective orders to protect the American public in other aspects of life. It is inconsistent with public law and policy to have a position where we can be protected from someone for stalking or harassment, but we cannot be protected from someone plotting to commit a terrorist act. We do not wring our hands over the danger to “civil liberties” of those who threaten to harass, rape, and stalk. It is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest to claim the danger to the “civil liberties” of terrorist suspects somehow deserve a greater attention and respect under the law. There is a middle ground on preventive measures that needs to be developed to protect the rights and safety of the American public. It also makes no sense that a terrorist movement suspect’s activity can be restricted in the United Kingdom, but a terrorist movement suspect can do whatever they want in the United States.

Our legal system already accepts this concept today with the use of the “No-Fly List” and the “Terrorist Watch List.” For those suspected or investigated of terrorist movement involvement, we need to use the “No-Fly” list to control their movements. If the FBI Anchorage office had done this in November 2016, Esteban Santiago would not have been able to commit a terrorist attack, just two months later, in Fort Lauderdale – killing five and injuring eight. The failure of law enforcement individuals to effectively use such preventive tools does not diminish the capability of such tools to prevent terrorism and protect the public. The American public accepts and recognizes the value of such preventive measures as the “No-Fly” list.

But the 21st century threat of terrorist movements are more complex than simply the terrorist act of 15 years ago, where organized Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked jet airplanes to commit acts of terrorist mass murder. In 15 years, the terrorist organizational structure and threat has evolved.

At a minimum, the United States needs a comparable preventive measure to expand on the “No Fly” listing that allows us to protect the public from fluid terrorist movement actors, suspected on plotting a terrorist attack.

I recommend that the U.S. Congress consider a new law, such as a “Terrorism Prevention and Public Protection Act of 2017,” which expands on existing law, policy, and prevention measures to allow at least temporary measures involving terrorist suspects, while investigation is completed, before we see another terrorist tragedy on American homeland. The new “Terrorism Prevention and Public Prevention Act” could be largely modeled around the United Kingdom’s TPIM act. It could also integrate other preventive tools used such as the No Fly List and Terrorist Watch List, to provide a legislative check and balance over such laws, and to allow the American public to make decisions over the laws needed for their overall security and liberty, not as competing – but as shared interests.

Furthermore, unlike the UK approach, I recommend an important modification to such a “Terrorism Prevention and Public Protection Act,” to include an oversight board of selected and cleared members from the justice community and the human rights community, to regularly review and assess if terrorism prevention and public protection measures are abusing Constitutional and human rights freedoms, and if so, to provide specific case recommendations for changes. America is an open and free society. We have the right to know what is going on and be active participants in our public safety decisions. But when we are defending our freedoms, we are defending all of our freedoms, including our security, our safety, and our right to exercise our freedoms without the threat and harassment of those who seek to deny such freedoms by terrorist acts, just like we use protective and restraining orders to protect the public from other dangers and threats to human rights.

(13) Integrated Law Enforcement and Public Roles in Protective Measures on Terrorism

The goal which Americans will increasingly face, if the growing domestic terrorist waves of 2015 and 2016 continue (or likely increase), will not be ones primarily of law enforcement or military objectives, but objectives with a priority on public safety and prevention of attacks. This will require an increasing integration within law enforcement agencies (federal, state, local) and among law enforcement and the public. While some suggestions are offered below on this, the real point of this is the need to reassess how federal, state, local law enforcement and public need to work to protect the public from domestic terrorists, and also how to coordinate in preventive measures as well.

As much of the establishment media’s political agenda has sought to obfuscate such growing “terrorism” by not using the word “terrorist” in ongoing reports, many Americans are not seeing this building wave of domestic terror. They have been taught that “terrorist attacks” focus on mass-casualties, and are part of organized “terrorist groups.” The growing domestic, decentralized terrorist threats (by individuals inspired by extremist movements) have not fully caught the attention of many of the American public YET. But as Americans saw in January 2017, a decentralized terrorist attack can readily strike a “soft target,” even an airport to QUICKLY kill and injure. (I urge the readers to see the video of the Fort Lauderdale attack for context on the speed of such an attack, which apparently happened in a few minutes at most. In less than the time it would have taken to read Mr. Santiago his “Miranda rights,” the terrorist attack was over.) As decentralized terrorist movements mature, domestic terrorist actors can modify their actions to avoid the “mistakes” from previous attacks, without being given an FTO-based “foreign terror” instructions and guidance. We have seen terrorists evolve, use new tactics, new weapons, all with little or no FTO “coaching.” Aggressive terrorists inspired by a decentralized terrorist movement do not need a “command and control” structure, “approvals,” or even extensive planning. This dynamic, high-speed, soft target, decentralized domestic terrorism is not the type of threat that the American counterterror establishment has primarily been designed to stop.

Our domestic counterterror protection for the public is based on lengthy investigations, research, evidence-gathering, etc. While our law-enforcement-centric counterterrorism operations are building case files, aggressive domestic terrorist movement actors can strike, strike, strike, and strike again. As they strike, our public safety from a law enforcement position is largely dependent on them making mistakes or the public noticing something is wrong. In 2002, John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo committed a series of attacks over three weeks in the Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia area, killing 10 people and injuring 3 over a three-week period. Law enforcement had the luck that the attackers left repeated clues and even notes to follow them, and even provided a detailed description of their crimes to a member of clergy. Based on the extensive amount of clues and leads that the attackers gave to law enforcement, a license plate for a car was identified, and the car was discovered by random by a member of the public in Maryland. We are dependent on “luck” in these cases, and from a law enforcement perspective, the hope is that such cases are infrequent.

But what happens when we have U.S. individuals inspired by a terrorist movement to attack parts of the country and their fellow Americans? Thus far, once again, our public safety is largely been dependent on luck and tips, as well as the brazen stupidity of terrorists announcing their crimes on the Internet before they attack. As we have seen in the summer of 2016, this has changed. The Orlando attack, the Minnesota attack, the New York/New Jersey bombings, the Fort Lauderdale attack all had little to no warnings, and clearly our current law enforcement-centric model was not able to stop any of these attacks. In most of these cases, however, federal law enforcement had been warned about the terrorist actor.

The value of hybrid domestic groups in law enforcement to stop terrorism is the ability of the local police to stop and arrest a domestic armed terrorist suspect in the act of committing the terrorist attack or after it was over. Our laws provide the flexibility to prevent us from having to wait for federal law enforcement to arrive on the scene for arrest of a terrorist actor in progress. But if attacks by aggressive decentralized terrorist movements continue, this reactive ability of local law enforcement to act will become strained. Do we also need to empower public citizens to have the ability to make “Citizen’s Arrests” of terrorist acts in progress? Is there a need to extend inconsistent state laws on “warrantless arrests” to be a federal legal right to all American citizens to protect them?

Once we also have laws for preventive measures to stop terrorist attacks from taking place, we also need to assess if expecting our limited federal law enforcement organizations will be sufficient to enforce such laws. This may become a criminal code right which is extended not only to federal law enforcement, but also to state and local law enforcement.

(14) A War of Ideas for Human Rights to Challenge Terrorism

If we want to stop terrorism, we must first challenge the extremist ideas that inspire terrorism. The struggle against terrorism is not, as too many think, an issue of weapons, investigations, arrests, security measures, and contingency plans. The struggle against terrorism begins with challenging extremist, anti-human rights IDEAS. To deal with an evolving terrorist movement threat in America, our first priority has to be to plan a “war of ideas” against extremist ideologies that inspire terrorism.

Currently, our U.S. resources in conducting “dialogue” on such topics are predominantly focused in trying to communicate with people in other countries. For example, the U.S. State Department has attempted a Twitter campaign of sorts, occasionally writing Twitter messages, focused on foreign events, to discourage people from joining ISIS, and the State Department and other agencies meet with foreign local leaders on such topics. In the U.S., the DHS has periodically held “engagement” events, but their venues have been counterproductive, and shocking to those who hold a pro-human rights against terrorism. This has included DHS booths at events next to extremists like the anti-democracy, anti-women’s equality group Hizb ut-Tahrir, without any “judgment” or challenge to such extremist views. But while DHS called for support of civil rights for selected identity groups, they did not take a stand on supporting consistency on human rights for all people – which is a fundamental aspect of any challenge to terrorism.

As the counterterror establishment seeks endless discussions on tactics about terrorism, there really is no foundation being set for a human rights-based “war of ideas” that defies and challenges the extremist views that inspire terrorism. This is especially necessary in the United States, as opposed to the primary emphasis in the past in foreign countries. The record of actual terrorist attacks show the overwhelming number of threats and attacks over the past eight years have come from U.S. citizens and residents.

To protect the American public from terrorist attacks in the United States, if we are going to have a war of ideas to challenge extremist views, it must take place – right here – in the United States. We are losing that war of ideas in the United States today, because it is not even being fought. Part of the mission of a U.S. domestic counterterrorism agency must be this “war of ideas,” not just in theory, or in comfortable conference rooms with reporters, but also in the field reaching communities and individuals that have been influenced and damaged by extremist radicals. Just as we saw in the 1960s struggling against the white supremacism of that era, this is where the REAL WORK gets done. Could you imagine if we had tried to fight white supremacism in America in the 1960s with meetings in Washington DC conference rooms using PowerPoint slides? But the equivalent of such a defeatist half-effort is considered standard procedure for today’s ideological challenges.

One establishment counterterror specialist stated in 2011 that since the United States did not have an equivalent to the UK’s Communities and Local Government Department, it needed to assign such roles to other government agencies to engage with communities, including “addressing local grievances.” One of the most powerful tools of the human rights community in challenging terrorist and extremist views is the ability to LISTEN. Where the opportunities and circumstances require, a “thinking”-centric domestic organization to challenge terrorism should engage and listen to local communities to guide our fellow American citizens and residents away from extremist and terrorist views.

But who would conduct such a “war of ideas” in modern America? Our foreign-based organizations would be inappropriate for U.S. domestic events, and given their inability to succeed overseas, they certainly won’t be able to succeed in the U.S. The DHS has a civil rights office, which is very polite and politically correct, and will send members of that office to “cultural” events, but it is not their mission to fight a “war of ideas.” The FBI has an Intelligence Directorate and Public Relations Office, which can essentially do the same thing as the DHS Civil Rights Office, but they too have no mission to fight a “war of ideas.” Our institutions of higher learning are lost in relativism; most of their nihilistic views can’t imagine anything worth fighting for, let alone lead a “war of ideas.” The few human rights groups who grasp this issue are so vastly overextended with their paltry volunteer resources they could barely last a week, and the larger human rights groups might consider the “war of ideas” should be in support of extremists! So basically, we really have no consistent leadership for a “war of ideas” in the United States.

Let’s think about this. How can we fight an ideologically-based threat to public safety in the United States without ANYONE consistently fighting a “war of ideas” against such extremist ideologies? The answer is obvious. We cannot. We have a war with no generals, no planners, no leaders, no war strategy, just random troops scattered all over, and we hope that we will get lucky. This war without a commander-in-chief cannot even get started.

The American government solution thus far has been basically just to abandon the idea of strategy altogether, except when it applies to terrorist threats in foreign countries, and even there, not really fight the ideology, but simply continue to throw troops, weapons, bombs, and tactic after tactic, until we basically expect the ideological enemy to stop fighting. With a massive influx of foreign-based focus on foreign terrorist group, leaders, and massive troop deployments, we were able to slow some of the foreign group based terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland.

But terrorists have allowed time, lack of vigilance, and changes in technology to offer them new methods of fighting. While counterterror specialists once were able to address and dissect structured FTOs, their adherents, and discuss how to fight them overseas, now the “terrorist movements” using technology of mobile mass and encrypted communications have won new supporters, including self-starting “inspired” local terrorists in the United States, willing to conduct their own campaigns of terror.

As the world changes around them, our establishment counterterror tacticians have no answers for this evolved terrorist movement threat, so they simply shrug and tell the American public that such attacks are “inevitable.”

We can and we must do better. But this begins with changing the way we think about how we fight terrorism in America, and recognition that stopping terrorism in America first should be the U.S. government’s TOP priority.

(15) A Multi-Faceted Challenge to Counter Extremism

To those who are not familiar with U.S. history, let me share an important point of context. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s greatest victory was not in winning the hearts of his fellow African-Americans for whom he provided such leadership, but in winning the hearts of white Americans to motivate them to also work for CHANGE against the extremism of white supremacy. This is how we make change and challenge extremism – not in creating hatred and division, but in calling to our shared conscience and respect for all – by reminding all identity groups and individuals of our social responsibilities in defending human rights. We must identify and defuse terrorist violence threat to the America, but we also need to work, as some courageous private citizens are doing today, to try to convince groups at risk of influence by extremists that we need change to abandon extremist views to threaten our fellow citizens.

Unlike some senior political leaders who believe it is “you can’t change hearts,” I have seen first-hand that a counter movement to defy extremism can “change hearts.” Difficult work is not impossible work, and the difficult work is often the most important work. We cannot rely only on tactics of law enforcement and military actions to defy and prevent terrorism in America. We must use the American historical experience in “changing hearts” as our primary effort in countering extremist views. We must recover a sense of social “competence” to encourage a sense of “right” and “wrong” among our citizens in dealing with extremist views and inspiration of extremist terrorist violence. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. met with those who sought to commit violence and urged them to pursue social change using other means. In the 1960s war of ideas to challenge white supremacy, people at every part of society worked to build a renewed compact in a consistent social conscience to challenge and reject extremist views that looked at people who are different as “enemies.” We will not persuade or “change the hearts” of every extremist, but we need to work to change the hearts of more, and also make it clear that we will institute more comprehensive protective measures to prevent extremist terrorists from injuring and killing American people – in any identity group, any walk of life.

In challenging the source of terrorist violence, the idea that we can only focus on one source of extremist ideologies, undermines a “war of ideas” of extremist views. To counter extremism, we must speak to and seek to change extremists within multiple areas and multiple identity groups. This includes those who seek to spread race-based extremism, political-based extremism, religion-based extremism, hate group-based extremism, and gender-based extremism, among others. To those who believe such a broad focus is “impossible,” I can provide factual proof that such defeatist views are wrong. The U.S.-based volunteer group, which I lead, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has provided such multi-faceted challenge to extremist ideologies for the past 8 years. It is NOT impossible. It requires a discipline and willingness to be consistent on a commitment to our shared human rights, which goes beyond any one “political” partisan ideology and narrow activist group, and requires the ability to recognize that extremist views that call for persecution and violence of our fellow Americans, represents a threat to all Americans.

For too long, societal group unwillingness to have a consistent view to counter extremism is based on two false beliefs: (a) we can only challenge extremist ideologies that we view as a “real threat,” and (b) extremists represent a threat to just a narrow segment of society. This is wrong because our challenge to counter extremism is not solely focused on the views of extremists, but must primarily be focused on consistency in our shared values for human rights, integrity, safety, dignity. We cannot effectively defy extremists by only showing how “wrong” extremists are; we must also offer an alternative path, using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.S. Constitution, and other rights standards of conscience and integrity as a path forward. Furthermore, we see repeatedly that when such extremist inspirations end up as terrorist attacks in the United States – Americans of diverse identity groups are the victims. Terrorist attacks frequently do not end up with results of killing and wounding people of one identity group, but regularly attack victims of diverse identity groups.

The Nazi white supremacist terrorist attack at the Overland Park Jewish Community Center was to target Jewish-Americans; the victims of the terrorist attack were all Christian, white Americans. We frequently see this pattern repeated by extremist-inspired attacks: ISIS-inspired attacks result in injuries on Muslims, racial extremist-inspired attacks often result in victims of the racial extremist behind the attack. There are cases where terrorists manage to target only selected identity groups, but in many cases, terrorists’ inability to discriminate among victims in a diverse society, demonstrates that a diverse society has a shared public safety responsibility to challenge extremism inspiring terrorist violence. The narrow view that we can only counter some extremist views, and ignore others, misses the point that the most important change we need to prevent terrorism in America – is a heightened sense of social responsibility and shared respect for every American’s human rights.

(16) Counter-Extremist Struggle Begins with the Mind

The “war of ideas” begins with thinking. A frustrated, impatient public often wants aggressive action on terrorism. Thus far, in America, our public representatives have responded to this by encouraging and instituting with an endless array of tactics: law enforcement tactics, military tactics, data gathering tactics, building security tactics, airport security tactics, etc. There is no question that tactics as concrete measures of progress in public security have their place. But it is when we get caught up in the belief that the only answer to fighting terrorism is more tactics, and less thinking, that we fail to remember exactly what threat we are facing.

The immediate public sees the terrorist threat based on the tools and methods of terrorist actors: bombs, guns, suicide bombings, mass-murders in public places, etc. Too often, a frustrated public believes if we simply stop these tools and methods used by terrorists, we will improve our public safety. In the short-term, there is value to this in dealing with known or suspected immediate threats. In the long-term, focusing on these terrorist tools and methods alone misses the point. As today, some counterterror specialists urge increased security for “soft targets,” the question will remain at what point will we have “enough” tactics to stop terror threats? It is this endless focus on tactics only, which has led to the defeatist attitude among counterterror establishment figures that terror attacks are “inevitable.”

(17) Counterterrorism Roles of Existing U.S. Organizations.

Given the massive investment in existing U.S. organizations for counterterrorism, the idea that change might be needed may seem astounding to many in the public. But let’s consider what these existing groups actually do.

(a) American Intelligence Community Resources. We have over 21,000 government employees in the CIA and over 14,000 government employees in the NSA. That is just the tip of the iceberg in the foreign-centric intelligence community; the reality is that there are really over 100,000 employees and contractors in the overall intelligence community. The intelligence community’s resources include the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) (reporting to the Office of Director of National Intelligence – ODNI). The NCTC develops “strategic operational plans,” “analytic assessments,” “daily threat reporting” focused on WORLDWIDE threats. U.S. international intelligence organizations have information on terrorist threats, but they also have an agenda of their own to influence foreign affairs and impact domestic events to improve their ability to influence world events. Hopefully, in 2017, we will responsible actions by members of the Intelligence Community (IC), which will further the safety of the American people. But the foreign entanglements of such global-facing organizations lead too many of their operations to deal with global priorities, rather than actual U.S. national safety priorities. The international intelligence community also includes the the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) (reporting to the Office of Director of National Intelligence – ODNI). The NCTC develops “strategic operational plans,” “analytic assessments,” “daily threat reporting” focused on WORLDWIDE threats. 50 U.S. Code § 3056 describes the NCTC mission to “serve as the primary organization in the United States Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism, EXCEPTING intelligence pertaining exclusively to DOMESTIC terrorists and DOMESTIC counterterrorism” (emphasis added).

After the December 2015 San Bernardino domestic terrorist attack, President Obama met with NCTC, and then stated to the press assembled there that “we are in a new phase of terrorism, including lone actors and small groups of terrorists.” But our IC was designed based on FTO and international-based threats, and while President Obama ensured the public from the NCTC that there was no “specific and credible information” about future attacks, there really remained no genuine strategy to deal with U.S. terrorists inspired by “terrorist movements.” (No one in the press asked why President Obama was speaking at the NCTC, when this was a domestic terrorist attack.)

(b) Military Resources. Military organizations also have widespread global ability to act and to stop foreign actors who are a threat to American national security, but military organizations primarily exist for a military mission, not a public safety mission. Furthermore, based on the Posse Comitatus Act created in 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385), we have largely disabled the ability to use federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies in the United States, despite efforts in 2006 to expand the possible use of such resources, which are mostly available only on emergency basis. So the vast 1.4 million personnel in our U.S. military can provide efforts on FTO-based foreign terrorists, but virtually no support in dealing with “terrorist movement” U.S.-based terrorists. Unfortunately, an additional problem is an increasing number of U.S. terrorists have had U.S. military backgrounds and training. While these are the smallest conceivable number of our loyal military forces, the problem still exists. We can provide military training to people who can use that same training to attack the U.S. homeland, but we can’t use our same military to defend us from U.S.-based terrorist attacks.

(c) Homeland Security Resources. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in response to the 9/11 terrorist threat. Fifteen years ago, the perception most Americans had in the creation of the DHS was that it would have an aggressive role in “finding” and “preventing” terrorists. While this is still a part of the DHS, it has become such a large organization with 240,000 employees that this mission has become blurred. The DHS has become significantly a “coordination” and “research” group, with a primary focus on public safety associated with mass casualty events “from terrorism to natural disasters.” It focuses on science and technology, cybersecurity, nuclear detection, “aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector.” Among the major DHS components are the: 1. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 2. United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 3. United States Coast Guard (USCG), 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 5. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), 6. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 7. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 8. United States Secret Service (USSS), 9. Directorate for Management, 10. National Protection and Programs Directorate, 11. Science and Technology Directorate, 12. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, 13. Office of Health Affairs, 14. Office of Operations Coordination, 15. Office of Policy… and yes… 16. Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). For the DHS I&A, the LAST on its list of priorities is: “inform operators and decision-makers on effective means to Counter Violent Extremism.”

Among the 240,000 DHS employees, this includes 55,000 with the TSA, but it only has 852 employees in the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).

For context, these groups within the DHS were not previously organized together, and a number of the technical and research functions were not clearly organized or didn’t exist. We have made progress with the DHS, in preparing for response to another mass casualty terrorist attack such as 9/11. Despite all of incredible efforts of the TSA’s 55,000 employees, on January 6, 2017, a terrorist was able to simply check a gun as part of his luggage, get off the plane, retrieve the gun from his checked luggage, and shoot 13 Americans at the Fort Lauderdale airport. We are prepared for the fight from 15 years ago. All of the red flags about Esteban Santiago were never filtered into a system which recognizes extremism as a threat. The struggle to stop terrorist movements and U.S.-based actors of today remains a challenge.

The 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security called for a group to provide “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” The 2017 mission statement of the DHS is: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.” As America faces the evolution of “terrorist movement” threats, the word “terrorist” is not in the DHS mission statement.

(d) FBI and Law Enforcement Resources. Law enforcement organizations have ability to act to arrest individuals on such threats, but ultimately their primary mission is to build a case for a successful prosecution in a court of law. In support of counterterrorism objectives, the FBI maintains a National Security Branch (NSB) and an FBI Intelligence Directorate. In addition, at each of its 56 field offices, it maintains Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs), with Special Agents (SAs), Intelligence Analysts (IAs), Language Analysts (LAs), and Surveillance Specialists, all performing some degree of intelligence function, for the overall mission of law enforcement regarding terrorist threats. In the early stage of the U.S. FBI counterterrorism organizations, internal structures were largely divided by different groups of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs): some divisions investigated threats from Al Qaeda, other from Hezbollah, etc. This has evolved over time. But the overarching thinking in the CT establishment remains the same: we are fighting terrorism from outside foreign groups against America.

The primary objective of these FBI organizations is naturally to perform law enforcement-centric functions, even with the development of the FBI Intelligence Directorate and National Security Branch (NSB). The FBI has and no doubt will continue to argue that the FBI Intelligence Directorate (created in 2005) is sufficient and appropriate for U.S. counterterrorism operations. It will point out the stories of its successes, as it should. However, the issue here is not whether these FBI divisions, focusing on intelligence and counterterrorism, provide a valuable function and service (of course it does). But the challenge remains that these were mostly organized and then re-organized in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack of 15 years ago, and the evolution of terrorist movements and an inability to fight a “war of ideas.”

The FBI has approximately 35,000 employees; this includes about 14,000 special agents and 20,000 professional and administrative employees. The total number of FBI employees involved in intelligence and counterterrorism is classified information.

As we have over 1.4 million in the U.S. military, we also have approximately 1 million in the U.S. law enforcement community nationwide. While both provide a degree of support in fighting terrorism, the direct application to U.S.-based terrorist movement threats is more likely a reaction from a “surprised” U.S. law enforcement employee, who is now in the position to have to respond to some random, unanticipated attack somewhere in the nation. While the American public is grateful for our law enforcement’s response to such emergencies, such “firefighting” is not an ideological “war of ideas,” nor is it necessarily “preventing” such attacks, unless it is based on a tipoff from the public or by chance. State and local law enforcement join in “fusion center” with the FBI in sharing information on potential terrorist threats, and we need to continue such information sharing.

The development of hybrid groups, the FBI intelligence directorate, and fusion centers between groups, have all been productive steps, but the focus remains predominantly one of the following: (1) intelligence gathering, (2) law enforcement action, and (3) foreign military action. These are valuable and necessary, but the priority of STOPPING and preventing extremist terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is not the primary focus of such initiatives. Such groups would argue the opposite – from their perspective (key), they seek to stop terrorist attacks, but the fact is that most of their actions are focused to their mission area of specialty, or “swim lane.”

We need to develop more flexible intelligence gathering to PREVENT attacks and de-radicalize terrorists. If we do a comparison of intelligence resource, we could conclude that the U.S. has resources of 100,000 in the IC for intelligence on global terrorist threats and approximately 36,000 intelligence resources for U.S. based threats (assuming all of the FBI – which is not correct – and the nearly 1,000 with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis). While this is a very rough comparison, my point is that, as a decentralized terrorist movement based threat continues to grow, such resources are unbalanced. We could conclude that we have 3 to 1 resource emphasis (or much greater disparity) in terms of foreign terrorist threats to U.S. based terrorist threats.

The “whack-a-mole” approach to killing foreign terrorist “leaders” in foreign nations provides a false sense of security and accomplishment. As one goes down, another one rises up. The approach to simply arresting U.S.-based terrorists also has a limited public safety function; while we remove that terrorist from committing an attack, the terrorist then finds a new body of available recruits among criminals in U.S. prisons. We need to find more creative, more holistic ways, at working to reduce extremist influence and ensure greater public safety. Without a holistic and effective strategy on dealing with U.S.-based terrorists, the predominant focus on foreign counterterror operations may or may not be yielding the results we need to keep the American public confident that such tactics are stopping U.S-based terrorism in the U.S. homeland.

Our gap among these resources to provide leadership in the “war of ideas” against domestic extremism represents a major flaw in the ability and strategy to protect Americans from extremist terrorist attacks. Who is going to fight, let alone LEAD a “war of ideas” to influence U.S. citizens and U.S. residents to reject extremist and terrorist ideologies? Not the IC, not the NCTC, not the military, not the DHS, not the FBI. So who? When faced with this massive gap, establishment counterterror specialists question “why should we fight a war of ideas in the first place?” This is followed by well-intentioned, but poorly-considered cultural relativism, and how we must not offend anyone within an extremist group, or a possible extremist, etc., and NOTHING gets done.

I know. I had such a discussion – face-to-face with establishment counterterror leaders at a conference 9 years ago. When I argued the need to fight such a “war of ideas” to challenge extremism, using my own experience and history in fighting white supremacism, I was dismissed, explained that I didn’t respect cultural relativity, and lectured that we should not “elevate” such “criminals” as terrorists to represent more than the criminal acts they perform. In essence, I was told by our CT specialists that we should ignore the terrorist extremist ideology, dismiss those who support it as simply “criminals,” and hope that we can encourage people to express extremist views peacefully. I was later told, and saw West Point Counterterror Center’s documents that urged that instead of challenge extremist views, we should “engage” politically with extremists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, in finding a way to keep them committing violence. Too many in the American establishment counterterror community have been willing to “engage” to find political settlements with extremists, as long as they based in someone else’s country. So clearly these are not the resources to fight a “war of ideas” with extremists – of any kind.

To the larger counterterrorism community, certainly it is necessary to know about foreign terrorists, to arrest terrorists in the U.S., to plan on how to respond to major casualties, but first and foremost, the American public wants a government committed to makes its top priority to be reducing numbers of terrorist extremists and preventing such terrorist attacks.

(18) Priority in U.S. Public Safety and Preventing U.S. Extremist Terrorist Threats

The priority for any national security strategy in protecting a nation’s citizenry needs to be within the borders of its nation. That should be obvious, but the organization of the U.S. military, the Posse Comitatus statutes, and the development of major intelligence agency growth in response to World War II, with an emphasis on foreign threats, has put the U.S. on a uniquely narrow vision of national security being “foreign” threats. This was re-emphasized after the 9/11 terrorist attack 15 years ago, and the focus since on threats from Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). When many terrorists are being investigated today by the FBI, one of the primary drivers in the investigation is finding a link to support, funding, or involvement with FTOs, such as the ISIS terrorist movement, based on its foreign headquarters. The same holds for most other suspects linked to “terrorist groups.” As the argument went after 9/11, we went to fight the foreign terrorists in other countries so that we didn’t have to fight them here. But the reality 15 years later is that the majority of our terrorist threats come from other Americans.

There is no question we will always need coordinated relationships with our foreign intelligence community, our law enforcement community, and other organizations which part of America’s overall government resources. But these elements of our government will retain a focus and bias, natural to their mission, which may or may not coincide with the need of public safety in stopping terrorist attacks in the United States of America homeland. But if we look at the public safety issues in preventing domestic terrorism, based on the evolving decentralized terrorist movements, we see that our current establishment, while it provides answers for FTO-centric threats, increasingly is challenged by new threats of domestic terrorists, inspired by decentralized terrorist movements.

As previously described, I have provided an open source-based listing 76 terrorist extremist attacks and plots on the U.S. over the past 8 years. The overwhelming numbers of these attacks are planned or performed, nearly 9 out of 10, by U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. Furthermore, of these 76 terror plots/attacks over 8 years, 38 of these have been in the past TWO YEARS – 50 percent of the total. The American people need to be informed on these changes to what we previously perceived as “terrorist threats” – most of which are not coming from foreign nations, but coming from their neighbor down the street, or in the next city. This challenge to our assumptions on the “terrorist threat” requires some rethinking and reevaluation as to the organizations, processes, resources, and law to address what is becoming a largely “domestic terrorist threat.”

For example, the ISIS terrorist group long ago evolved beyond a single leader, a territorial area, and a singular direction. Instead, while President Obama viewed the ISIS terrorists as merely a “JayVee” group, ISIS evolved beyond any group into a transnational terrorist movement and ideology. This evolution is not as sudden as some might believe, as the ISIS terrorist movement is not based on some philosophy unique to ISIS leaders, but is simply the accumulation of multiple Islamist extremist terrorist ideologies which we have failed to combat in a “war of ideas.”

The failure to act on the ISIS terrorist group alone was merely the tip of a much larger establishment failure in challenging the ideas of extremism. The domestic terrorist threats we see in 2015 and 2016 are increasingly not simply based on a “foreign” ideology, but rather an extremist ideology against the United States and human rights, which our leaders have failed to challenge. So we see terrorists such as Ahmad Rahami, Dahir A. Adan, and others. Our counterterror specialists want to either define them as “disturbed” or associated with a specific FTO, but the reality is many of these Islamist extremist terrorists are not fighting FOR ISIS or Al Qaeda… they are fighting AGAINST the United States of America. That is their true cause. Like many other terror plotters and attackers, Ahmad Khan Rahami was inspired by the American Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, ISIS propagandists Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, and other extremists. Increasingly, American terrorists like Ahmad Rahman are acting as “inspired” terrorists on behalf of extremist ideologies and terrorist movements, rather than a structured FTO organization. Unlike the previous American ideological challenges with white supremacist extremism, the unwillingness to challenge the ideology of Islamist extremism, especially within the United States is the second aspect of the failure to act. Not only did the U.S. government fail to act to stop ISIS before it became large enough to become a transnational movement, it also failed to challenge the underlying extremist ideology which inspired ISIS.

It was the failure to challenge such extremist ideologies, which allowed American terrorist figures such as Anwar al-Awlaki to grow and develop a following in the United States and other parts of the world. In an ironic twist, the “foreign terrorist” Anwar al-Awlaki came from America to Yemen as exported terrorist, as an increasing number of other American extremists have left the United States and gone to Syria, Iraq, Libya. The inability to fight a war of ideas allowed these figures to go relatively unchallenged in America. American terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki previously served as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, where he preached to three of the 9/11 terrorists. American imam Anwar al-Awlaki then provided guidance to other terrorists who sought to attack the United States, and fled to Yemen where Awlaki was killed. But let us not lose sight of an important fact: before he was known to join Al Qaeda, the American Islamist Extremist Anwar al-Awlaki accepted an extremist ideology as an American, and then he guided terrorist to attack the United States, including American Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan and Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who sought to attack the United States in a 2009 airliner attack.

America’s continued counterterror assumptions and strategies that we need to prioritize mainly the fight against “foreign terrorist” flies in the face of: (a) overwhelming majority of U.S. terrorist attacks and plots that are by U.S. citizens and residents, (b) increasing number of foreign terrorist threats from Americans who seek to go to other countries and commit terror, (c) when we see Internet postings in support of ISIS, a significant percentage of them are coming from within the United States (second only to Saudi Arabia). Our counterterror intelligence and establishment is organized to fight a “foreign terrorist organization” threat, but as terrorist movements evolve, increasingly we see the threat from within the United States.

One of the recurring beliefs within the U.S. Government remains that our answer to domestic terrorism can be found with the destruction of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and if we bomb them out of existence, our domestic terror threat will end. Did that work in Afghanistan in the war against the Taliban? Did the death of Osama Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki end the threat of Al Qaeda? But even with the growth of global ideological “terrorist movements,” there remains the short-sighted confidence that if we only bomb ISIS out of existence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, that will end our domestic terrorist threat from the ISIS movement. The growing number of U.S. terrorist attacks by U.S. citizens and U.S. residents supporting decentralized movement shows that we need to reconsider our approach. Based on 20th century and post-9/11 thinking, America is prepared to fight terrorists and extremists from around the world – except in the most important place for its citizens: the United States of America.

(19) American Counter-Extremist Service (ACES) Concept – Watchmen on the Wall for Americans

Even with all of America’s counterterror resources, we still need to come up with a more holistic solution to ideologically inspired U.S. domestic terrorist movements and terrorists, using tools and organized based on 21st century realities of today. This challenge is not simply an international intelligence issue, a military issue, a public safety coordination issue, a border and airport detection issue, or a law enforcement issue. These partners all bring an “area of expertise” to the issue of defying U.S.-based terrorist attacks, but what is missing is a national-centric view on challenging the extremist ideologies and identifying more flexible methods of preventing such terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland.

While Americans may have long served as “watchmen on the wall” for world freedom, we also need Americans to be “watchmen on the wall” to defy extremists in America who seek the destruction of freedoms and human rights for our fellow Americans.

We need a focus leading organization on the “war of ideas” to challenge extremist ideologies that seek to attack and defy the human rights of any of the American citizens. This war of ideas is not simply to challenge Islamist extremist ideologies, but also other known extremist ideologies with a history of threatening American citizens: white supremacist extremist, Sovereign Citizen Extremists (SCE), Anarchist extremists, Neo-Nazi extremists, black supremacist extremists, radical anti-Muslim extremists, and other avenues of documented extremist violence. With the growth of decentralized terrorist movements, we need counter-extremist leadership resources to challenge violent extremists before the next terrorist attack, rather than accepting such attacks as “inevitable.”

We need to do more than look for a “weapons criminal charge,” “explosives criminal charge,” or other criminal law statutes to find a way to challenge violent extremists when they: (a) seek violent attacks on American people based on a twisted religion-rationalized ideology, (b) seek to commit violence against people of other identity groups based on their race, nationality, religion, other identity, (c) burn down and attack houses of worship, (c) shoot, bomb, injure and kill people from other races based on their race or other identity group, (d) murder and threaten members of law enforcement and government because they don’t accept our legal system.

We believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But we too have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. We need to challenge those who seek to promote extremist have and violence against our fellow Americans, who seek to deny our fellow Americans their Constitutional and human rights, and who seek to undermine our nation by claiming they have the freedom to call for violence and death against our fellow Americans, and we have no authority to challenge such extremist ideologies.

Politically correct or incorrect silence in the face of extremist threats against our fellow Americans is not an American virtue; it is simply an unwillingness to be responsible for the equality and liberty of Americans, which Americans have fought and died to defend. Rejecting this responsibility – while seeking to find endless tactics, security measures, and criminal statues, to deal with extremists’ violence attacks on society – is not a sign of tolerance and restraint. Failure to challenge extremism ideologies shows a willingness to accept that Americans’ human rights and Constitutional rights can be violently attacked by extremist bullies, without resistance by those responsible for their protection.

Extremist Omar Mateen murdered 49 Americans in cold-blood, and our U.S. government representatives worked to prevent publication about his extremist views, let alone challenge them. Extremist Dylann Roof murders nine African-Americans in a church because of their race, and we cannot call his crime a terrorist act, but need to find charges such as “used or threatened force to obstruct a person’s free exercise of their religious beliefs.” America’s representative government and its courts must defend all American’s Constitutional rights, even those of criminals. But in a war of ideas, America needs to do more than provide legal protections for the 1% of extremists and terrorists, it also must fight for ideas, values, human and Constitutional rights on the 99% of Americans who reject ideologies of hate and violence. We have many good and valuable counterterrorist organizations with diverse tactical missions, but we do not yet have a group to fight this necessary “war of ideas.”

While our established intelligence community, law enforcement, homeland security, and other organizations provide a largely “foreign terrorist” oriented response to fighting terrorism, America needs a counter-extremist service that sees such threats are merely different shades of the same type of extremist threats to American safety and human rights. If we believe as Americans that all of us are created equal, with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we cannot remain silent to extremist ideologies which seek to promote violence and aggressive hate, and divide and destroy our nation.

We need to push back as a nation and to communities across the nation, to make it clear that we challenge and reject all such extremist ideologies, and we must be willing to call for change in any racial, religious, political, ethnic, or other community, where extremists justify violence and aggressive hate against other Americans, as a means to inspire acts of terrorism.

The American Counter-Extremist Service (ACES) would provide a focused set of resources to push back against extremist ideologies and their violent domestic threats against our fellow Americans anywhere in the United States. The concept of ACES’ scope of responsibility would include: domestic counter-extremist strategy, community outreach, media and citizen engagement, legislative planning and coordination, and intelligence and public information coordination with law enforcement. ACES is not intended to replace any of the existing U.S. government organizations, but instead provide a centralized counter-extremist leadership role to work to discourage the growth of extremist ideologies, and work to prevent terrorist attacks from happening in the United States.

ACES would provide a non-traditional “intelligence” function, based on the true meaning of the word, “thinking,” rather than the perception that many in the American public have regarding traditional intelligence organizations. ACES would provide strategic analysts on areas of extremist ideologies (rather than isolated terrorist groups) as well as terrorist movements and their 21st century tactics to provide guidance to law enforcement and other domestic-centric U.S. government agencies for action.

ACES would lead the “war of ideas” and field work performing citizen engagement in American communities across the nation to challenge extremist ideologies. ACES would provide a first line of defense on social media, legacy media, and other venues to defend American human rights and Constitutional rights for citizens and groups threatened by violent extremists. ACES would send rights advocates to communities plagued by extremist ideologies to work to challenge and discourage violent extremist threats.

ACES would perform legislative planning and coordination to assist Congress and other U.S. government agencies to address news proposed domestic-terror based laws, including preventive measures, and additional new criminal code laws to deal with “domestic terrorism,” “terrorist movements,” and “extremist movements.” This would also provide planning and coordination with the U.S. Congress in the Public Safety Act of 2017 to prevent those in U.S. law enforcement, U.S. military, other public safety organizations and private security organizations from being advocates and members in violent extremist / terrorist organizations or movements.

ACES would also work aggressively with the public through social media and other forms of outreach to gather intelligence on domestic extremist threats and domestic terrorist plots – to share with appropriate U.S. government or other law enforcement agency to provide preventive action. ACES would have an open dialogue with the American people to obtain threat and security information on violent extremist / terrorist activity in the United States, as well as encouraging a position of respect for the dignity and safety of our fellow American citizens. ACES would also monitor open source information, including public meetings, social media, and other public communications by extremist groups and movements to identify threats or plots of domestic terrorism, and share this with U.S. government or other law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent domestic terrorist threats.

In addition, ACES would work with a series of American human rights organizations on the extremist threats to make certain our human rights community understands and provides feedback on our national challenge to violent extremism.

To those who believe that we do not need a structure such as ACES, I urge them to provide a recommendation as to who they believe will wage the “war of ideas” to counter the extremist threats to our human and Constitutional rights. Because allowing the extremists to wage this war on the American people, our human and Constitutional rights, without any response, is simply undermining America’s freedoms and security to a growing domestic terrorist movement threat, which believes it can act with impunity. We are smarter, we are stronger, and we have more real courage than this.

The American public and its government can once again, work together, as we did in the 1960s in challenging white supremacism, to defy and defeat extremist threats in our nation.

(20) Defending Freedom Requires Ability to Adjust to Change

The United States of America is a nation built on and based on CHANGE. It is an inherent part of our national history and character. We began with the declaration that, to defend freedom, we must be willing to change. This is the most fundamental aspect of America’s identity. Americans do not welcome change which requires war or conflict. We need to face and accept the times in which we live.

In both America and the world, we see radical and dynamic change in the way people live, communicate, and interact, including the way violent extremists have leveraged these changes to try to stay one step in front of the law and our public safety organizations. We are allowing violent extremists to hold the public forum without our own defense of American rights, security, and freedoms. Violent extremists increasingly believe that their actions to promote and incite violence and aggressive hate against our fellow Americans will not be challenged. We need to show such extremists they are wrong and that America can and will defend the American people from violent extremist bullies.

We must not let our unwillingness to recognize and adjust to change — prevent us from our responsibility to protect the human rights, including the security, of the American people. In the nation’s hour of growing danger from violent extremism, we must not shirk from this responsibility, but welcome it.

Let us show the wisdom and courage in defending our fellow Americans and their rights from violent extremists. Let our ability to adapt and be fearless in the powerful currents of change, show a nation and its government that are worthy of their power and responsibility to defend the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of the American people.