Combating Domestic Terrorism: A Problem-Solution AnalysisAbstractThe biggest problem faced today in United States Homeland Security is combating both domestic terrorism and lone wolf terrorism. This report will focus on the problems faced today by United States Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in combating domestic terrorism, while providing solutions on how to counter this growing threat to the safety of America. This report utilizes scholarly peer reviewed sources from accredited professionals with knowledge and experience in the study of terrorism; in conjunction with an interview with Ann Phillips, who is an assistant professor of Security Studies and International Affairs at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, holds a Juris Doctorate in Law from the University of Florida, worked at the Attorney General’s Office for 20 years, and is knowledgeable in Constitutional Law. When addressing terrorism, there are three common motivations to terrorism that need to be considered, which are political, religious, and ideological. Among these motivations are four common elements; the criminal use of force or violence, an intent to intimidate or coerce, the targeting of the innocent civilian population, or that it furthers a political, economic, religious, or social objective. These motivations and elements must be countered in the war on terrorism, while also ensuring the civil rights and liberties of the citizens are protected. Terrorism is a real and serious threat to the world we live in. The issue of combating these threats is a continuous and ever evolving process which we must be prepared for.IntroductionOverviewTheFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded in 1908. They have asignificant history and a great deal of experience dealing with terrorism.After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)was formed. The DHS brought together a myriad of different agencies, includingthe FBI. The purpose was to allow the different agencies to enhancecommunication and allow intelligence to flow more freely between them. Therehave been many obstacles to overcome since the formation of the DHS. This isdue to regulations and sometimes simply the unwillingness of agencies to shareinformation. The result of this can be devastating should vital informationabout a terrorist attack slip through due to the gap in communication.Statement of ProblemThe biggest problem faced today in United States Homeland Security is domestic terrorism and in part, that of the lone wolf terrorist. A lone wolf can be difficult to detect before an attack. This is because a lone wolf is an individual who commits violent acts in support of a group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone without having communication with, or actually being a member of the group, making difficult or impossible to predict a potential threat.  This lone wolf style attack was witnessed in the Boston Marathon bombing. The FBI had indications of the attacker, Tsarneav, being a possible threat, but they failed to relay that information to the Boston Police Department (BPD). Had they done this, both the FBI and BPD could have coordinated an effort to more closely monitor Tsarnaev’s actions to confirm his true intentions before the attack occurred, possibly preventing or mitigating the damage. One of the most important aspects of detecting and stopping a lone wolf is communication.ObjectiveThe FBI has come under harsh criticism regarding counterterrorism and stopping known suspects before they commit acts of violence such as the Orlando Florida Pulse nightclub shooter, Omar Mateen. This problem-solution analysis report will provide the FBI with details of current counterterrorism surveillance, vetting, and tactics, while providing methods for improvements to keep America safe and maintaining the rights of the people under the United States Constitution.ScopeThis report will focus on the following areas:The FBI, who they are,what they do, and how they came to be.Understandingterrorism and how it worksChallenges andconsiderations in the fight against terrorismProvide methods forimprovements of current measures and proposing new methodsThe primary limitationinvolved in this report is staying within the bounds of the Constitution whencreating, proposing, and implementing new methods of counterterrorism withinthe United States.Research MethodsThis report will utilize peer reviewed sources from accredited professionals with knowledge and experience in the study of terrorism. Additionally, I will be interviewing a subject matter expert who has experience with both terrorism studies and the U.S. Constitution, Ann Phillips. The insight these credible sources provide will help me give an informed and educated report on terrorism and the counter measures against it. Through this I will be able to provide details on how and why the counterterrorism measures were created and how effective they have been. I will also be able to give an educated report on possible improvements that can be made to the existing system.ConclusionTerrorism is a real and serious threat to the world we live in. The issue of combating these threats is a continuous and ever evolving process which we must be prepared for. By analyzing how and why terrorist attacks occur, and the effectiveness of the measures created against them, we can learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. By doing so, we can create a better plan for countering and deterring terrorist threats, making for a safer America.Data AnalysisFederal Bureau of Investigation’s History in the United StatesTerrorism is nota new phenomenon; though the names for it may have changed over time, terrorismhas been occurring for hundreds of years around the world. Around 1908, theUnited States had grown enormously and saw a need to combat the domesticterrorism and violence growing in a new generation of professional lawbreakers. As stated by the FBI, “There was hardly any systematic way ofenforcing the law across this now broad landscape of America. And nationally, there were few federal criminal laws andlikewise only a few thinly staffed federal agencies like the Secret Service inplace to tackle national crime and security issues” (FBI, n.d.). One issue wasthe rise of anarchism and these anarchists were in a way the first modern dayterrorists. The first incident happened in 1901 at the hands of an Ohio mannamed Leon Czolgosz. After losing his job he turned to the writings ofanarchists like Emma Goldman. He traveled to Buffalo where he bought arevolver, then shot a visiting President McKinley in the stomach. McKinley diedseveral days later where vice president Teddy Roosevelt took the oval office.Rooseveltappointed Charles Bonaparte as his second Attorney General. Bonaparte soonlearned that he had little ability to handle the current tide of crime andcorruption and he had no squad of investigators to call his own. Bonaparte created his own force of investigators. He quietlyhired nine Secret Service investigators along with another 25 of his own staffand formed a special agent force. The FBI states that,“OnJuly 26, 1908, Bonaparte ordered Department of Justice attorneys to refer mostinvestigative matters to his Chief Examiner, Stanley W. Finch, for handling byone of these 34 agents. The new force had its mission: to conduct investigationsfor the Department of Justice. So that date is celebrated as the official birthof the FBI” (FBI, n.d.). Though originallycalled the Bureau of Investigation, it wasn’t until J. Edgar Hoover becamedirector that the Bureau of Investigation was given additional powers and lawenforcement capabilities. Thus, in July of 1935, it was formally renamed theFederal Bureau of Investigation, whose priorities are fighting crime andprotecting the United States from terrorist attacks.The FBI’s Role in CounterterrorismThe role of counterterrorism within the FBI is led by the National Security Branch (NSB). The NSB states that their efforts are to “detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist threats to the United States and its interests. We continue to identify individuals who seek to join the ranks of foreign fighters traveling in support of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and also homegrown violent extremists who may aspire to attack the United States from within. The terrorist threat against the United States remains persistent and acute, and preventing terrorist attacks is the FBI’s top priority” (FBI, n.d.). The FBI created the NSB in response to a presidential directive. This directive sought to establish a National Security Service that “would combine the missions, capabilities, and resources of the FBI’s counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and intelligence elements under the leadership of a senior FBI official” (FBI, n.d.). The NSB uses these resources to neutralize terrorist cells and operatives, dismantle extremist networks, and cut off financing and other support provided by terrorist sympathizers. Their goal is to eliminate the risk of terrorism both domestically and internationally.Understanding Terrorism and its MotivesTo create effective counterterrorism measures, the motives behind terrorism must first be understood. Under Title 22, Chapter 38 US Code, § 2656f (d)(2), terrorism is defined as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Office of the coordinator for counterterrorism, 2005). Terrorism can be broken down and further explained by Ann Phillips, who is an assistant professor of Security Studies and International Affairs at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. According to Phillips, there are three common motivations to terrorism that need to be considered, which are political, religious, and ideological. Among these motivations are four common elements; the criminal use of force or violence, an intent to intimidate or coerce, the targeting of the innocent civilian population, or, that it furthers a political, economic, religious, or social objective (Phillips, power-point 2017). By understanding these motivations and elements, a more comprehensive plan can be made to counter the underlying issues before they become a serious threat.When addressing these motivations, it is important to note that one stands out from the others, and that is politics. All forms of terrorism has some kind of political motivation behind it because the core objective of a terrorist act is to create a change. Tom Quiggin is a Senior Researcher at the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University and is also a court qualified expert on terrorism. In his article, Terrorism As Politics By Other Means, Quiggin writes that, “Terrorism is, as a rule, a violent methodology of politics, pursued by the weaker party. It normally fails to meet its objectives” (Quiggin, 2010). The reason behind this methodology is because the group does not have a widespread influence to further their campaign. The terrorist group may justify their actions through religious or ideological terms, they always have a political agenda behind them. The group will typically cast their grievances in a religious light whether these grievances are real or imagined. However, there is always a political nature involved which may express issues such as political corruption, colonialism, or economic oppression. The Structure of TerrorAll terrorist organizations share a similar structure regardless of their diversity in motive, sophistication, and strength, which is depicted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Figure 1.Figure 1: The Structure of Terror (CIA, 2003) At the base of the structure, there are three common motives being political, religious, and ideological. Other underlying conditions include poverty, corruption, and ethnic strife which can create opportunities for terrorists to exploit. Terrorists use these motivations and conditions to justify their actions and expand support. This is a fundamental problem because they believe these conditions are a legitimate means to use terror, which is what enables terrorism to develop and grow. Moving up the structure, the CIA states that the international environment is what “defines the boundaries within which terrorists’ strategies take shape” (CIA, 2003). This is the problem open borders create. It provides terrorists access to safe havens, certain capabilities, and other support. This leads to states who, through ignorance, inability, or intent, provide a physical base the terrorists need in order to operate. These states that offer safe havens provide terrorists with two main types of aid, one of these being physical, meaning safe houses, training grounds, etc. and the other being virtual by providing reliable communication and financial networks. Once a haven is established, the terrorists can solidify their organization and expand, plan, train, and conduct their operations. The leadership at the top of the structure provides the direction and strategy of the organization. According to the CIA, “The leadership becomes the catalyst for terrorist action. The loss of the leadership can cause many organizations to collapse” (CIA, 2003). However, some organizations are able to recover and promote new leadership should the old one fail.The Cycle of JihadFigure 2: The Cycle of Jihad (Jenkins, 2006)The United States Approach to CounterterrorismEvents that Created New Counterterrorism Measures and their TacticsThe terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 put into action the president and congress to introduce “House Resolution 3162 – Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001” (Sensenbrenner, 2001). Congress created ten titles in the PATRIOT Act, those titles being:Areas of Consideration When Combatting TerrorismSubject Matter Expert: Ann Phillips, Terrorism and Constitutional LawWhen addressing the issue of terrorism and its prevention by law enforcement in the United States, the civil rights, liberties, and protections under the Constitution must be abided by. In a personal interview with an expert in constitutional law, Ann Phillips, she stated that a large area of debate is what rights to give terrorists. The debate encompasses whether we should try terrorists as criminals where they would receive all the protections a normal defendant would receive, whether they should have their own special class, or if they should be treated as a prisoner of war and receive the level of rights associated with it. The problem is that the Executive branch and the Legislative branch of the government would have to come together to decide how to treat terrorists. This includes whether the terrorist is a US citizen or not or whether the act of terrorism occurs on US soil or not, as long as the terrorist act is against America. This decision must be made, as a nation, on how the treatment will be implemented (personal interview, April 18, 2017). ConclusionTerrorism is a real and serious threat to the world we live in. The issue of combating these threats is a continuous and ever evolving process which we must be prepared for. By analyzing how and why terrorist attacks occur, and the effectiveness of the measures created against them, we can learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. By doing so, we can create a better plan for countering and deterring terrorist threats, making for a safer America.RecommendationsRadicalization and motivation are the biggest problems in preventing terrorism. Radical terrorist groups such as ISIS, use propaganda to recruit or motivate individuals to join their cause. When an individual can relate, sympathize, or share the same ideologies as the radical group, they are more likely to be influenced to act with, or act on behalf of the group in the name of their cause. The main channel of communication ISIS uses to broadcast their propaganda is through the internet. Law enforcement restriction of this means of communication is impossible for two main reasons; the first being that is would be a violation of the First Amendment to the freedom of speech. The second is that the internet would be too vast and most likely too costly to restrict anyway. However, as Brynielsson et al. stated, Thereare several behavioral markers that can be used to identify individuals likelyto cause radical violence. These markers are listed as leakage, fixation, andidentification. Leakage is the communication to a third party of an intent todo harm to a target. Fixation is an increasingly pathological preoccupationwith a person or a cause. Identification is the desire to be like aninfluential role-model or identification with a group or larger cause. Thesebehavioral markers can be used as indicators supporting that someone intends tocommit a terror attack. (2013) These markers mustalso be objective and adaptable in order to identify and correct errors toprevent someone from being wrongfully accused. Some of this process must beautomated to capture all the information, but must be checked by an analyst toensure accuracy and relevance.Monitoring all of the internet and everyone on it would certainly cross several lines and be a violation of civil rights and liberties. One way to go about identifying possible lone wolf radicals is to correctly identify and monitor individuals who are active on known radical websites. This alone is not enough to determine if someone has any intent to cause an act of terror. To further investigate the intent of the individual, it is important to analyze the content of their online posts and texts. Through these texts there can be several key words or phrases that indicate the level to which the individual has or has not become radicalized. This is where the behavioral markers come into play. To what extent does the individual identify with a radical group or person? Do they have a positive or negative stance or connection to their object of focus? How strong is their fixation to the cause? This can be identified by a significant increase in how often they mention their object of focus and any key words used. Finally, should the individual have the actual intent to commit an act of terror, they will often leak their intentions or plans which can be intentional or unintentional. Brynielsson et al. states that a notable characteristic of lone wolves is that they will announce their views and intentions in advance, such as in the case of many school shooters announcing their intents on social media. Their intent will include verbs such as “..will..”, “..am going to..”, or “..should..”, accompanied with the violent action (Brynielsson et al., 2013). Through the use of these markers and behaviors, it is possible to better identify an individual with the potential and intent to commit an act of terror.ReferencesBrynielsson, J., Horndahl, A., Johansson,F., Kaati, L., Mårtenson, C., & Svenson, P. (2013). Harvesting and analysisof weak signals for detecting lone wolf terrorists.Security Informatics, 2(1), 1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1186/2190-8532-2-11Central Intelligence Agency. (2003). National strategy for combatingterrorism. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdfFederal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Brief history. RetrievedApril 6, 2017 from https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-historyJenkins, B. M. (2006). True grit: Five years after 9/11. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/summer2006/truegrit3.htmlMadsen, J. (2004). Suicide terrorism: Rationalizing theirrational. Strategic Insights, 3(8).Office of the coordinator for counterterrorism. (2005).Chapter 1 — Legislative requirements and key terms. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved fromhttp://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/45323.htmPape, R. (2005). Dyingto win: The strategic logic to suicide terrorism. Random House.Phillips, A. (2017).Terrorism & intel. Unpublished manuscript.Quiggin, T. (2010). Terrorism as politics by other means. Global Brief. Retrieved fromhttp://globalbrief.ca/blog/2010/10/13/terrorism-as-politics-by-other-means/Sensenbrenner, J. Jr. F. (2001). USA PATRIOT act of 2001.Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162AppendixPersonal interview with Ann PhillipsQ: What do you see as the biggest threats or issues or obstaclesfacing U.S. Homeland Security?A: Trying to figure out what rights to give terrorists. There hasbeen a lot of debate on whether or not we should try terrorists as criminalsand they should receive all the protections that a normal defendant wouldreceive, or that they have their own special class, or whether they should betreated more as a prisoner of war and they should receive that level of right. Untilwe can get a consensus on how the US wants to respond to that and what kind ofprotections we want to provide, we’re not going to be able to come up with asolution.Q: Aside from the treatment of terrorists, what do you think are thebiggest threats to the US? Either the threat crossing our borders and cominginto the US, or the threat already within?A: I think they’re an equal threat because you have enemies fromwithout and enemies from within, and you have the enemies outside affecting theenemies within. With the rules that the United States has involving freetravel, or the ability to come in and out of our country and cross our borders,we can have anybody at any time come in and out. So, with the radicalizationoccurring of our own homegrown terrorists, I don’t think you can stop lookingat either place.Q: So, immigration and our borders are a big consideration or obstacleon this threat?A: They’re definitely a consideration, but again you have to back tothe basics of what does America want to look like? What do they want their ruleof law to look like? What’s more important? Coming up with the laws, it’ssecurity versus privacy, it’s security versus rule of law. How secure do youwant to be? What rights do you want to give up? What kind of country do youwant to be in order to be secure? Do you want to change who we arefundamentally and the rights that are provided under the constitution in orderto be secure? Or do you want to find a different way to protect America, butstill remain true to the constitutional values that we’ve had for over 200years?Q: What is your opinion on the threat of the lone wolf terroristssuch as the Boston bombing or the Orlando shooting?A: It’s a tremendous threat because you can’t ferret them out the wayyou can a more traditional terrorist being guided by a larger cell or largergroup. If they’re acting independently, the typical traces that you would find,the intelligence that would be out there doesn’t exist for the lone wolfterrorist. It’s a much harder discovery because it’s a much smaller needle inthe haystack that you’re looking for. Add in to that people who mental illnesswho need a place to put their anger, or someplace to hide under to utilized tojustify their actions, and you have a hard time with the lone wolf terrorist.Q: Do you see any potential solutions to this problem?A: Solutions are going to come with the increased ability to findintelligence on them and to come up with a path forward with agreement frompoliticians. Good luck getting that, but once America figures out how they wantto treat terrorists and how they want to respond to that and what the rule oflaw is to cover that, then I think the path forward will be a little bit moreclear.Q: When considering the constitution and their treatment, would therebe a difference in how a citizen is treated versus how an illegal immigrant or“refugee” is treated?A: I think if America wants to hold itself out as a leader amongnations of global power, then I don’t you can have that difference. I thinkthat if there is sufficient evidence against a particular person, you can putthat in our standard Article 3 courts and meet that burden, provide them withall the due process, and I think the world can then look at America and sayyou’ve convicted that person fairly. I think as long as America wants to holditself out in that manner, I think you need to treat the citizens andnon-citizens similarly when you try them. A lot of it comes down to whatAmerica’s values need to be. What we as Americans, what the politicians wantAmerica to look like to the rest of the world. Do we want to be a leader, or dowe want to change the values we have based upon the threat that we’re facing?Q: Do you know who would have to collaborate to standardize theselaws? What are your ideas about how this would happen?A: The Executive branch and the Legislative branch would have to cometogether as to how they want to treat terrorists. Whether they’re US citizensor not US citizens. Whether the act of terrorism occurs on US soil or not, aslong as it’s against America. We have to decide as a nation how we want to dothat. The Article 3 court is really set up already, that judicial branch hasalready been set up and the rights that apply already exist. We would just haveto decide whether we’re going to plug them into those rights or not.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more