Preventing Domestic Terrorism: My Guide

Welcome to the next installment of my “What the Hell is Going On?” collection drawn from my first book and various new essays that I have been sitting on and am now ready to publish. You can read the whole collection.

Introduction 

In the past year, almost everything I’ve written on terrorism, mainly domestic terrorism, has been read more widely than ever before. The study of terrorism as an academic subject is a unique 21st-century phenomenon. I was in the first graduating cohort with an emphasis on Norwich University. That was back in 2011. Here in the post-Covid world, we’ve seen domestic terrorism on full display. In the days after the January 6, 2021 crisis, I went on a 45-minute rant on The Cameron Journal podcast about how frightening armed people entering the capitol and disrupting constitutional processes were and why everyone should be glad we still had democracy after that day. It took a few days for the rest of the media to reach my level of panic. 

However, the January 6th riots are just the most recent and most public manifestation of the domestic terrorism problem we have in the United States. The reality is that some of the most violent moments in US history have come not from enemies without but enemies from within. One of the deadliest wars in US history did not take place in another country but on our shores. 

Domestic Terrorism

When I first researched domestic terrorism in 2010 as part of my graduate program on terrorism and asymmetrical warfare at Norwich University, it was a niche subject. I was in the first cohort to take the emphasis on terrorism at the school. However, even back then, in 2010, it was evident that the United States had a domestic terrorism problem. 

It is now painfully obvious today because of the recent attacks at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, and the Tops grocery store shooting in Buffalo. We know from all of these attacks that they were committed by white supremacists who were using mass shooting violence to achieve their naked political goals. 

In the U.S., terrorism can come from organized forces like militias, and it can also come from lone gunmen who have often been radicalized online. In my paper, “Domestic Terrorism,” I stated what makes a terrorist organization is “ineluctably political aims and motives, threats or equally important threats of violence, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target, conducted by an organization, and perpetrated by a sub-national group or entity, and the attack deliberately targets non-combatants.”

I then go on to define what a citizen militia in the American context means and what it means for our domestic security, “A citizen militia is precisely as it sounds: a group of citizens who are organized and armed for defense of their community against outside forces that include criminals, the government or other citizens. Militias have also wielded political power to protect the interests of their membership. This latter definition is what is most important to this paper.

Domestic means within the United States of America and includes her citizenry and her government. Therefore, domestic terrorism is an event that seeks to fulfill the six characteristics of a terrorist attack here in the United States and is committed by U.S. citizens without foreign influence or connection. Domestic terrorism usually involves a problem with the government similar to a resistance movement or insurgency.” 

The history of the militia is as old as the United States itself. In the same paper, I go on to say, “In an article in the Journal of Southern History, Harry Laver discussed the history, cultural and social importance of the local militia keeping the peace and order of a certain area where the members lived. This study was based on activities and records in Kentucky between 1820 and the Civil War. The local militia usually reported to the nearest seat of state power in its area, and the militia’s duties were executing certain laws, finding people, or bringing in criminals that were a menace to society. Besides their purely functional duties, they worked to ensure a general feeling of being American and enforced the cultural dominance of white males across all classes.” He also says, ‘The chosen subjects- the days citizen-soldiers picked to commemorate and the men they honored with public ceremony- were elements of a shared American culture.’ In this context, the militia not only kept the peace and order of the community but served as public representatives and helped create an idea of America with celebrations around national holidays. These holidays were celebrated with parades and feasts where the militia members would entertain the public with military exercises and then retire from the labors to eat, drink, and be merry, confident that the ideas that would keep the country great had been enforced for another period of time.”

One of the most significant changes to Domestic Terrorism is the proliferation of people recruiting new members and starting new organizations online. In the pre-internet days, there were few avenues for recruitment. For example, Timothy McVeigh, who, with Terry Nichols, bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, was radicalized through such outlets as Soldier of Fortune Magazine. Timothy McVeigh was angry with the federal response to the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. He committed his bombing on the one-year anniversary of the FBI attack on that group. He was ex-military, reportedly a mediocre soldier, and was unhappy with the country’s course then. While Timothy McVeigh lucked into radicalization, the internet has made it far easier to find the kind of thinking, material, and camaraderie that radicalized McVeigh. 

In my paper on Domestic Terrorism, I said, “The internet is a boon to modern militia groups. It allows them to be readily accessible to new members, and it also allows them to coordinate efforts, be they violent or political. For instance, darkgovernment.com, a site dedicated to conspiracies against the government and educating people on how to counteract government policies, has 57 groups listed in their directory. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center in their ‘Intelligence Report,’ are 547 groups actively operating in all 50 states as of 2009. This list counts everything from the Constitution Party to more radical groups. Stephen Vertigans includes within militia groups every organization from the niche John Birch Society to the KKK to describe the movements of the far right in his article, ³Radicalization of the Far-Right.´ Indeed, a militia organization around racial politics is not new and has been common in various iterations of the KKK during reconstruction, again in the 1930s and lastly in the 1960s, with decreasing influence each time. A common theme among extremist militia groups is the shunning of women and minorities. With this many groups operating, the question of domestic terrorism remains important in the 21st century.” And as we know, those numbers today are far higher than they were when I first researched domestic terrorism in 2010. 

Even the racist nature of the militia was known. Laver discusses this, and I went on to state that “The militia always had shut out women and minorities as a part of their way to cement the power, across class lines, of white manhood. These old militias operated in a very dated and traditional sense. in their ranks and even decided who they entertained coming through the territory. While Laver mentioned prominent white politicians, certainly no black person, regardless of prominence during the period, would have received celebratory treatment from the local militia force. Militias worked hard to promote the West as a region, the United States as a country, and the superiority of good, white, Christian civilization.

Modern Militias are idealistic about their religion and their ideas about race. The most crucial part about modern militia movements, especially of the far right, is that they frequently invoke the name of the Founding Fathers on most matters and are generally dissatisfied with the direction of the country and the government. Militia movements have heated up in the U.S. since Mr. Obama took office due to many people having mixed feelings about him and not feeling represented by a Democrat president and Congress who seem unresponsive to their demands on a variety of issues. Besides violent and seditious behaviors, these racially charged KKK, white supremacist, and Christian fundamentalist groups (alongside the survivalists, separatists, and tax evaders) also believe in the spiritual and racial purity of the country and that it needs to be restored. 

They emphasize the Christian god and usually find exceptions with any kind of federal oversight and with the state and national income tax. Some groups even call the U.S. government ZOG or Zionist Occupational Government due to the continued American support of Israel. These people believe that the best and superior race that god cares about and is coming back for is the Caucasian people and that they are on a Holy War to protect themselves against a government who will not protect a good, white, Christian civilization.”

For a deeper dive into Christian Nationalism, please see my essay in this book, “Christian Nationalism and the US Military.” In that essay, published in conjunction with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, I elucidate the history of Christian Nationalism and its effect within society and the U.S. Military and discuss some of these points in greater detail. Let’s focus on the threat as we see it today. 

The Threat

I stated the threat clearly in my 2010 paper, “The threat has been increasing as of late, and the media has made particular note of it. This has been due to several factors. The Assault Weapons Ban that existed during the Clinton Administration expired during the Bush Administration, and extremists have been stocking up ever since. In a recent Huffington Post article, author Eileen Sullivan reviews a brief history of militia movements in the 1990s. Then, she mentions that the FBI is concerned that such attacks may begin again due to perceptions of a liberal government and a president of a minority race. 

It also concerns economics; according to ‘Mainstreaming the Militia’ by Mark Tharp and William Holstein, ‘In part, the groups are finding a receptive audience because of the same economic challenges confronting many other Americans. Military downsizing, the decline of the family farm, and the general loss of blue-collar jobs have created pockets of unemployment that have stimulated interest in protest groups. Efforts by environmentalists to limit the private use of public lands have also infuriated forestry workers and ranch hands in Western states. The situation with the enlargement of radical militia groups in the United States is rather substantial.’ According to Tharp and Holstein, The Center on Hate and Extremism at Stockton College in Pomona, N.J., estimates that 50,000 hard-core members of antigovernment groups plus 150,000 sympathetic followers spend $100 million yearly on their gear. These authors paint the future as quite bleak when they state, “moderate-intensity terrorism”–such as pipe bombings–will grow, while “mass catastrophic incidents” will be less common.” 

Boogaloo Boys, Militias, and Tiki Torches

Radicalized white men are nothing new to America. The prime example of this is Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. He would fit right in with groups like the Proud Boys if he were still alive. He had all the markers of someone who is easily radicalized into the modern, violent, right-wing movements. Although that is a contemporary example, these groups date back to the republic’s earliest days. 

The history of the citizens’ militia in the United States is as old as the United States itself. The first Continental Congress and the Continental Army were nothing more than a large and well-organized citizen militia. Small groups were integral to the founding of the American Republic, from the Boston Tea Party men who threw an entire ship’s cargo overboard into Boston harbor to protest the tax on tea, but also others like Paul Revere who sounded the alarm about the British march through New England. During the Civil War, the Continental Army of the American Revolution and the Union Army consisted of colony/state militias from each colony/state. In rural parts of the colonies and later in the young nation, militias protected the commonwealth/state and kept order. The Founding Fathers and those attending the Constitutional Convention knew the militia’s importance. However, the idea of a “well-regulated” militia and the right to keep and bear arms would not be embodied until 1791 in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, referred to as the Bill of Rights. This principle spread west into other states as the young nation moved west towards the Pacific. 

In an article in the Journal of Southern History, Harry Laver discussed the history, cultural, and social importance of the local militia keeping the peace and order of a particular area where the members lived. This study was based on activities and records in Kentucky between 1820 and the Civil War. The local militia usually reported to the nearest seat of state power in its area, and the militia’s duties were executing specific laws, finding people, or bringing in criminals that were a menace to society. Besides their purely functional duties, they worked to ensure a general feeling of being “American” and enforced the cultural dominance of white males across all classes. He also says, “The chosen subjects-the days citizen-soldiers picked to commemorate and the men they honored with public ceremony- were elements of a shared American culture.” In this context, the militia not only kept the peace and order of the community but served as public representatives and helped create an idea of America with celebrations around national holidays. These holidays were celebrated with parades and feasts where the members of the militia would entertain the public with military exercises and then retire from the labors to eat, drink, and be merry, confident that the ideas that would keep the country great had been enforced for another period of time. Laver believes that the militia is so important that he concluded his article with the statement,

“Given its geographic pervasiveness, broad membership, and range of activities, the militia’s influence on local communities and American society as a whole exceeded that of any fraternal institution. In contrast to Faulkner’s fictional Yoknapatawpha citizen-soldiers, the flesh-and-blood militia remained a viable and valuable institution in the early nineteenth century.”

The militia always had shut out women and minorities as a part of their way to cement the power, across class lines, of white manhood. These old militias operated in a very dated and traditional sense. in their ranks and even decided who they entertained coming through the territory. While Laver mentioned prominent white politicians, certainly no black person, regardless of prominence during the period, would have received celebratory treatment from the local militia force. Militias worked hard to promote the West as a region, the United States as a country, and the superiority of good, white, Christian civilization. 

As time passed through the latter half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the country grew, and more formalized law enforcement took hold. The localized militia was replaced with the police, the National Guard, and a host of national agencies meant to enforce laws. This expansion of power became particularly acute during Reconstruction. The Civil War would be the last war in which the Federal government would depend on state militias for troops. After that, the standing army of the U.S. was increased to accommodate foreign and domestic threats. The local militia was dead in the face of celebrations and festivities suited more to a modern notion of celebrating national independence. However, the spirit of citizen participation in law and government and the ability to take up arms against tyranny, outside threats, and domestic threats was still ever-present. Those early militias of the country wove into the fabric of America the responsibility (sanctioned by the Constitution) to take up arms against a threat to the American way of life, no matter where that threat came from. To shirk that responsibility was criminal in the eyes of those militias during that period. That attitude of protection and self-reliance has stayed in the American psyche and resurged in recent years. 

Timothy McVeigh was ex-military. His military career was unremarkable, but one thing was clear: he found a purpose his troubled youth did not otherwise provide him. After his military career, his interest in being an “operator” or soldier of fortune would lead him to pick up the magazine of the same name. At this time in the early 90s, young men like Timothy McVeigh would have found few outlets for their worldview. Soldier of Fortune magazine was one such outlet. 

A proclaimed lover of freedom, he was horrified by the FBI attack on the Branch Division compound in Waco, Texas. After seeing the federal government attack a group of separatist people on weapons charges in Texas, McVeigh began to think about how he could fight back.

On April 19, 1995, McVeigh and his accomplice drove a Ryder truck into the loading dock of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. A few minutes later, the fertilizer bomb in the back of that truck exploded and tore the building in half. The entirety of the facade was blown away. Survivors described the moment as surreal as the floor beneath their feet simply fell away. The real tragedy was the fact that the bomb exploded underneath the on-site daycare center, killing all but one of the children being cared for there. Timothy McVeigh would be tried and convicted of the bombing. He was given the death penalty and was executed in Terre Haute, Indiana, in 2001. His father, after learning his son was dead, walked outside and began mowing the lawn. 

Leading up to the 2016 election of Donald Trump as president, America was rocked by several outward protests against Black Lives Matter protestors. Donald Trump often used racist dog whistles to rile up his ever-more fervent base. A significant incident rocked his presidency. The most well-known of these was the Charlottesville riots in 2017. One man drove his car into a crowd of people, killing one woman. Bearing in mind, this began as a “Unite the Right” rally, and when people went to counter-protest, violence broke out. Young men, incensed by the Black Lives Matter movement, took up tiki torches and marched around the city shouting, “Jews will not replace us.” 

In 2020, as his presidency was coming to an end, Black Lives Matter protests broke again after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Derek Chauvin held his knee against the man’s neck for nine minutes. Protesters repeated his last words, “I can’t breathe.” It sparked 450 protests nationwide and counter-protests. The summer of violence during the pandemic has become a right-wing talking point of its own, especially given the lockdown requirements of the pandemic and the national nature of the protests. The protests triggered violence on both sides of the issue and created some of the most overt anti-government protests seen in a generation. Protesters and protestors took over downtown Portland and occupied several blocks of downtown Seattle. The Occupy movement was never as successful. These protests were marked by their violence, but the reality, as we know, had been brewing for years before starting in Charlottesville with the tiki torches. 

Within the overall militia movement, you’ll also find ideas like “Three percenters” who believe they are the people who must fight against a tyrannical federal government. More organized groups like the infamous Proud Boys and Patriot Front add to the patina of people and organizations who are actively planning for war against the federal government and speak out against “racism against whites” and have a white power or white dominance agenda. They view diversity initiatives and the culture change that has occurred in the last twenty years as the primary reasons why America is being destroyed from within. Demographics are also changing, and that has caused a racial nervousness that was amplified by Donald Trump and has manifested in many new people, primarily young men, to radical right-wing organizations. There is also a very odd word that is common in these circles: Boogaloo.

Boogaloo is a term that is code for the coming race-based civil war. Boogaloo is a benign term for what will be race-based violence that could lead to the genocide of anyone these people deem as undesirable, which these days can range from simply being a Democrat to being of a different color. For the Proud Boys, they play down their racism by having a person of color in charge and by distancing themselves from racial rhetoric and promoting their diversity. However, the message is still the same, and the same people are still involved. 

ANTIFA

No discussion of domestic terrorism would be complete without a discussion about domestic terrorism coming from the left. It is not just the far-right that we need to think about when it comes to domestic terrorism. 

ANTIFA, or Anti-Fascists, has digital roots as a leftist organization. The popularity of groups like The Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys, Patriot Front, and others brought people to the streets to counter-act the racism in America’s streets. ANTIFA has also stood in solidarity with the Hong Kong protesters as they resisted a takeover of the local government by the CCP. ANTIFA bills itself as a decentralized organization with no authentic leadership or central plan. The reality is a bit more organized than anyone would admit. I have had some interactions with leftist groups and forces, much like the infamous hacker group Anonymous. They stay small and try to stay under the radar but can make their presence felt. During the 2020 protests, ANTIFA made several showings in the streets throughout the country. They dress in black, and while there was little violence against people, there was plenty of violence against property. In Portland, a federal building was attacked. In Seattle, a police state was sacked, and in Denver, ANTIFA forces supposedly tried to set the city on fire by lighting dumpsters on fire and pushing them against buildings. Billions in damage were caused by the 2020 protests in almost every major American city. 

Michigan and 6 January

Two modern instances of militias running amok stand out, and both are in recent memory. The first was the attempted kidnapping of the governor of Michigan and the now infamous attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Both represent intelligence failures of their own and show why we must take domestic terrorism far more seriously than we do. 

During the 2020 election and its messy aftermath, a group of Michigan militia members plotted to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan at her vacation home because of COVID restrictions. They planned to hold a trial and execute her for violation of their rights. Fortunately, due to local law enforcement, the plot was foiled, and the men were convicted of attempted kidnapping and other charges and are now in prison. 

On January 6, 2021, as Vice President Mike Pence was getting ready to open the ballots from the electoral college and certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, militia groups prepared to attack the capitol. Thanks to the work of the January 6th committee on Congress, we now know that this incident and the near coup was not merely the work of a mob, riled up by Trump and gone mad, but rather an effort by several people, including members of Congress to stop the certification and keep Trump in power indefinitely. However, it was militia groups like the Proud Boys who did the heavy lifting in planning the attack and used the mob as a way to get into the capital. They sought out Mike Pence and chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.” Pence refused to accede to Trump’s wish not to fulfill his constitutional duty to certify the vote. One woman was killed, and a capital policeman was also killed. 

This was the first time in American history that the transfer of power between Presidents was not peaceful and resulted in bloodshed. Violence of this kind had not reached the nation’s capital since the Civil War. No American government building had been attacked like that since 9-11 when the Pentagon was attacked, and before that, it hadn’t occurred since 1814 (during the War of 1812). 

How to stop domestic terrorism

The United States lacks, unlike many major peer nations like the UK, Canada, and France, its domestic intelligence agency. The FBI has been tasked with this since 9-11, but it is rather clumsy in its attempts to deal with domestic terror groups. The National Security Agency (NSA), which became famous overnight for its phone data tracking in this century’s late Aughts and early teens, also bears some responsibility. The Central Intelligence Agency is legally barred from operation within the borders of the United States without oversight from a companion domestic agency. 

Before the advantages are examined, it is good to note that while there have been advantages gained by having a domestic intelligence service, having these agencies has not made any nation immune to attack, and these agencies have not been perfect. In several cases, according to Peter Chaulk and William Rosneau writing in “Confront the “Enemy Within.” A special report from the RAND Corporation, “Difficulties have arisen in several areas. Operationally, the counterterrorist track record of the four agencies has been far from perfect, and there have been several instances when accepted democratic norms and operational limits have been violated in the name of counterterrorism. More pointedly, establishing dedicated domestic intelligence agencies vested with unique covert surveillance powers has helped “bureaucratically normalize” state security infrastructures with considerable authority over the individual.”

An effective Domestic Intelligence Agency has to incorporate three things: Military Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, and FBI and local law enforcement. Another area is foreign policy ostensibly; many intelligence matters often involve foreign policy. With an organized and clear intelligence with names that are easily searched and cross-referenced, policies and arrests can then be created based on actual information gathered and analyzed in real-time.

All of these things must be harmonized and coordinated through a series of multi-level working groups and clear protocols to share intelligence and get the intelligence to law enforcement to deal with the problem effectively. Clear policies must be implemented, and a transparent, inter-agency decision-making process must be implemented. This agency needs to incorporate these different areas and these positive traits from agencies around the world.

Gregory Traverton, in his RAND report on U.S. Domestic Intelligence and Security, offered the following recommendations for a practical domestic intelligence agency. He recommended that the government increase resources, change organization, culture, laws, regulations, orders, and/or improve leadership. The best way to achieve all these things is to create a new and separate agency and modify the correct laws (FISA and others) to compensate for that.

In addition, this new agency needs to be new and separate; it needs to coordinate with law enforcement and respect the Fourth Amendment while working hard to gather new intelligence. The various domestic intelligence services and agencies need to be consolidated into an MI-5-like separate and independent agency under the Department of Homeland Security. One of the problems in France was that “coordination between the police and intelligence services has, at least historically, been subject to chronic problems of mistrust, with agencies not only failing to collaborate but moreover occasionally working at complete cross-purposes with one another.”

This cannot be the case within the United States, as that is an existing problem. A new agency must have a clear direction (like MI-5) from both Congress and the Executive, and when all of the existing agencies are consolidated, then, and only then, can it be guaranteed that there won’t be a great deal of overlapping investigations. How this agency takes in and consumes data is also important. 

Another area of reform for a new agency includes Congressional oversight. According to statements made by Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi in 2010, congressional oversight has been “feckless” and failing over the past several years. In an article by Amy Zegert, the problems with Congressional oversight were elucidated as grave and ineffective. It took Congress 6 years to pass an intelligence directive bill. Intelligence moves must be faster than six years. Congressional oversight must be ended in favor of Executive control with limited Congressional involvement. 

Social Media Tech as an Organization

This new agency will pioneer and utilize the Central Intelligence Data Service (CIDS). The CIDS will be where all government agencies will post all domestic intelligence gathered in short posts like Twitter with searchable tags. They would also create profiles for every contact they have with information that can be filled in. This data would be searchable by all agencies and White House staff. The French mastered data centralization, and data gathering and organization are priorities for this new agency. Taking and organizing data involves gathering it and then putting it in a place where agents can search it, find it, and coordinate it with policy. Social Media has completely changed how we collect, search for, and consume data. Therefore, social media can guide how agencies and a new domestic intelligence agency can collect, search, and consume data. 

The Intelligence Twitter-like feed would use direct messages, @ mentions, and # tags to organize the intelligence. Using this system of taking and organizing intelligence, many intelligence-gathering problems plague the intelligence community. Not only would it be searchable by a list of # tags and @ mentions, but it would also be updated and viewable in real-time 24/7. Instead of finding the latest news on the Kardashians, you could see everyone from the lowest gun dealer to a rogue physicist with nuclear material. 

In addition to the centralization of intelligence data, a Facebook-like profile will be created for each contact. Every agency, including the CIDS, will have a “friends” list of people they are watching. Like Facebook, similar and shared “Friends” will be put together to find similar people being watched. Pictures and satellite images will be organized by agency and person tag, identical to Facebook and Flickr. A simple search can bring up a person with photographs and satellite images. If intelligence mentions a name, then a search of the name will bring up all data on a person. Usually, this can only be done within an agency but with a new centralized system where all data is entered and searchable with @ mentions and hashtags. Other agencies would then post their intelligence, official policies, and other information in short posts with searchable tags onto the CIDS. The posts would be searchable by tags and keywords, and the system would be able to match tags and keywords together to make it easier to find similar pieces of intelligence. If all information that came in was put into the system and analysts pulled it regularly, then many different pieces of intelligence from various agencies could be put together, investigations could be organized within different agencies under DHS, and new working groups and committees could be created. The proper enforcement apparatus can be enacted if a matter is worth action.

 It is essential to keep the law enforcement side separate from the intelligence side because it will be easier to pass through Congress and more palatable to the American people. Due to recent changes within the legal frameworks, gaining access to these contacts within the United States is easier because of the new allowance for “no-knock” raids based upon hearing or seeing illegal activity. With accurate intelligence, 4th amendment problems should not plague these operations. In addition to using credible intelligence derived from a central force, local agencies, and local law enforcement can revert to their WWII-era role, as described by Samuel J. Rascoff in the Texas Law Review he said,

 “On September 6, 1939, FDR issued the following directive: “The attorney general has been requested by me to instinct the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice to take charge of investigative work in matters relating to espionage, sabotage, and violations of the neutrality regulations.” It went on to urge “all police officers, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement officers in the United States promptly to turn over to the nearest representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation any information obtained by them relating to espionage, Counter-espionage, sabotage, subversive activities and violations of the neutrality law.”

This new intelligence agency should not have its law enforcement powers. Although this creates similar problems to its international counterparts, this can be mitigated by doing two things: releasing the military from not being able to operate within the United States and by creating an F.B.I team with state-operated sub-teams that are on call at all times to operate against potential terrorist threats. 

The Agency

This new agency must also collect data on immigrants as they do in France. In France, all non-citizens must carry their documents on them at all times. This new agency should head up a similar program within the United States. Not only is this an important part of immigration policy (a politically touchy issue), but tracking potential targets is easier when you know where they are. When immigrants enter the country, they should automatically go into the intelligence Facebook with a profile. Profiling all manner of immigrants will make them easier to find and possibly detain if necessary. 

In short, this would be a holistically and organically created agency with a new, effective, coordinated data system backed up by a multi-level law enforcement system. This new agency resolves the bureaucratic issues that plague American intelligence, respects the Fourth Amendment, and helps direct policy. Every recommendation is based on another country’s experience. Using the experiences of the UK, France, Canada, and Australia can help guide the U.S. in creating a necessary agency. 

Advantages of Domestic Intelligence 

The advantages of a Domestic Intelligence agency are relatively straightforward. Currently, the US relies on the FBI to do this work, but their efforts are imperfect at best as a law enforcement agency. Incidences like the January 6th riots and the variety of militia movements in this country necessitates an agency whose express job it is to surveil these groups. 

The biggest argument against this, of course, and quite likely the main reason we don’t have such an agency in this country, is that such an agency would be undemocratic and against the American idea of freedom. The CIA is restricted from operating within the borders of the United States without a partner domestic agency to look after their activities. 

I would argue that keeping an eye on undemocratic forces within any democracy is essential. Europe has more experience with this than we do in this country. Italy suffered a spat of bombings in the 1970s from local communist groups. England had to deal with the IRA, and the Germans had to keep a sharp eye on both fascist and communist resistance within their country. 

Suppose you hang out in alternative political groups, as I have done from time to time during my many adventures in politics and journalism. In that case, there is always a rumor that the federal government is currently or has been involved in a protest or movement or at least had people in the movement. While this isn’t as true as people think it is, some data indicates that this has been a policy of the FBI. Assata Shakur revealed this in her testimony after the MOVE bombings in Philadelphia in the late 1970s. She pointed out that the ones who were interested in taking violent action against local targets in support of civil liberties and against black oppression were all federal agents. The real members of MOVE were too busy “doing their shit,” as they put it. 

Stories like these give people pause about having a dedicated agency to handle domestic intelligence. Although it has faded, the scandal around the NSA tracking telephone data of Americans was an important scandal of the Obama presidency. Still, there was little public backlash, and the response tended to be more apathetic than anything else. 

Rather than having agencies trying to do this work behind the scenes and extra-legally, it is for these reasons that a domestic intelligence agency should be formalized, have a modicum of congressional oversight, and be under the purview of the Executive. The legal means for tracking someone can still go through FISA courts (special courts handling intelligence) and follow the broad outlines of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. 

The primary idea is to keep all Americans safe from forces within our borders who may try to undermine our democratic form of government or may try to overthrow the government. There are multiple pathways in which this might take place. The advantage of having a domestic intelligence agency like our near-nation peers is vital to protecting all citizens and residents from these threats. 

Domestic Terrorism in the 21st Century

The new century has proven, in its 23 years, to be far more dangerous than the last in terms of domestic threats. Thanks to the internet, people with nefarious intent have far more access to information and like-minded people than ever. Timothy McVeigh might have read a magazine in 1994, but today, he would join a Facebook group or a secret telegram chat. Given our present environment, domestic terrorism is even more of a concern today than it was when I first wrote about it in 2011. Back then, it didn’t seem as necessary, but given today’s environment, domestic terrorism is a real threat that we must face head-on. These groups and these movements are not going away. These groups have been emboldened and have taken the opportunity to take more action within society. Whether it is a lone gunman attacking a synagogue or a grocery store or a more organized campaign like ANTIFA or the Boogaloo Boys, democracy can only exist when public safety is ensured. Otherwise, society quickly begins to break down. It is difficult to argue for a radical expansion of the power of government, especially towards everyday people. However, given our present environment and the general lack of safety that people can be expected to enjoy in our society, we must address domestic terrorism at the systemic level.