Report: CRS on Combating Domestic Violent Extremism

A September 2010 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report examines the “radicalization” process of American residents and the responses of government and law enforcement agencies. Titled American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, it chronicles the nearly 40 “homegrown” violent extremist attacks since 9/11, the forces that may drive these plots and offers policy considerations for Congress.  

The report identifies a critical distinction between the terms “radicalization, a “right under the First Amendment to adopt, express, or disseminate ideas, even hateful and extremist ones,” and “violent extremism,” the act of “supporting, or executing terrorist activity.” Understanding this important distinction has proven to be a “major challenge” for law enforcement. The use of a “preventative policing approach” that does not focus exclusively on criminal wrongdoing, but also on “the possibility that a crime may be committed in the future” is widespread among law enforcement. For example, the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations do not require a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before FBI agents can conduct surveillance operations.

The report defines the term “jihadist” to be “radicalized individuals using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate.” This limited definition ignores other roots of violent extremism often cited by experts, such as poverty, disenfranchisement and foreign occupation.
 
Disagreements on what factors actually contribute to the conversion of law abiding citizens to murderous terrorists has been discussed and debated by law enforcement and civil libertarians for years.  Despite citing the controversial 2007 New York Police Department report that promotes a “conveyer belt” process by which a person’s grievances escalate into violence, theCRS  report says studies by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis indicate “there are many diverse “pathways” to radicalization and individuals and groups can radicalize or “de-radicalize” because of a variety of factors.” It also quotes terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND saying, “There is no easily identifiable terrorist-prone personality, no single path to radicalization and terrorism. Many people may share the same views, and only a handful of the radicals will go further to become terrorists.”

The report also describes the “Al Capone” approach of apprehending individuals possibly linked to terrorist activity on lesser, non-terrorism related crimes, such as immigration violations, as one of the more common tactics used by law enforcement. This tactic, combined with the use of informants and spies at protests, activist group meetings   and places of worship, have contributed to an erosion of trust among some groups for law enforcement. Civil rights and civil libertarian advocates have warned that these types of “counter-terrorism policies that discriminate against religious or political groups could actually be creating an ominous self-fulfilling prophecy.”
 
Another counterterrorism tool CRS cites is increased engagement and partnerships between law enforcement and American Muslim communities across the country.  A list of programs started by American Muslim organizations to counter extremism and an appendix listing federal, state and local authorities’ efforts to work with American Muslim communities is contained in the report. It describes how Muslim-Americans have established several programs to better understand and reject violent extremism, like the Muslim American Society’s "Straight Path Initiative," which focuses on rooting out potential extremism. The Muslim Public Affairs Council has produced an analysis of the different “radicalization” theories and outlined a strategy to improve this engagement policy, and a background paper documenting “16 terrorist plots disrupted with Muslim community assistance, nine of which involved homegrown jihadist cases.” This type of activity led Attorney General Eric Holder to say that members of the American Muslim community have “provided critical assistance to law enforcement in helping to disrupt terrorist plots and combat radicalization.”
 
The report recommends that “Congress may opt to consider requiring that the executive branch produce a national strategy, framework, or plan to combat violent extremism domestically.” Specifically, it explains such a strategy would need to address, at a minimum, the following issues:

• “Identifying Radicalization and Interdicting Attempts at Recruitment: It has not been entirely settled which agencies have which responsibilities in this area.
   
• Countering Radicalization: What role is there for government, if any, in countering radicalization—particularly radical jihadist ideology which is not necessarily illegal—before it manifests itself in actual violence? Should the government be in the business of contesting radical ideology and extremist narratives within the United States?
   
• Enhancing Domestic Intelligence: According to former and current intelligence and law enforcement officials, there is no national estimate of domestic terrorist threats; national domestic intelligence collection plan; nor domestic intelligence collection requirements, priorities, or coordination. Congress may also consider requiring the Director of National Intelligence to examine whether and how to develop a national domestic intelligence framework or plan as part of a unified strategy to combat violent extremism within the United States.”