U.S. Measures May Incite Domestic Terror

[auto301094 at hushmail.com]

http://ebird.dtic.mil/Sep2001/s20010925domestic.htm  
Stratfor.com

U.S. Measures May Incite Domestic Terror

Summary -- In the wake of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the 
U.S. government is moving quickly to create a new Cabinet-level agency for
homeland defense and ease restrictions on law enforcement agencies. But while
these measures may prove effective against foreign attacks, they may also lead
to increased domestic terrorism.

Analysis -- In a televised State of the Union address Sept. 20, U.S. President
George W. Bush announced the creation of a new Cabinet-level agency designed 
to "lead, oversee and coordinate" a national strategy to guard the United 
States against terrorism. Congress meanwhile is considering new laws to ease 
restrictions on wiretapping and eavesdropping. 

These new measures may be necessary components to protect the United States 
from further attacks by foreign terrorists. But they will also likely fuel the
fears and anger of domestic groups such as the Michigan Militia or the North
American Volunteer Militia. In time, as the U.S. security apparatus looks for
threats coming from outside the country, the United States may again face
attacks from within.


More than 800 militia-style groups existed at the peak of the anti-government
movement in the mid-1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The
number has decreased dramatically in the past five years, thanks to a 
combination of a strong economy and heavy pressure from law enforcement 
agencies in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. The SPLC now identifies only
194 "Patriot" groups that were active in 2000. 


Generally Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the "New World Order"
or advocate extreme anti-government doctrines, fearing the growth of 
government bureaucracies and intrusion upon civil liberties. Such groups are 
likely to enjoy a resurgence in interest, membership and activities as the
government adopts more stringent security measures.


U.S. lawmakers historically have been very cautious about tipping the balance
between law enforcement and civil liberties. It took Congress nearly a year to
pass former U.S. President Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism bill after the 1998 
bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. In the weeks before the recent 
terror attacks, privacy advocates hailed a major victory when a San Diego judge
banned the use of automatic cameras to catch cars driving through red lights.
 
But the attacks in New York and Washington have dramatically altered much of 
the nation's thinking, as many Americans are beginning to place a greater value
on security. This shift is reflected in the federal government.


The newly announced Office of Homeland Security, to be headed by Pennsylvania
Gov. Tom Ridge, is aimed at knitting together counter terrorism functions now 
scattered across more than 40 federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA,
National Guard and local police and firefighting forces. It will focus not only
on preventing terrorist attacks but also on fortifying potential targets by developing plans to protect the nation's transportation, power and food
systems, according to officials cited by the Associated Press.

The "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" still under consideration in Congress
would rewrite laws dealing with wiretapping, eavesdropping and immigration.
Included in the bill are provisions to ease the restrictions the FBI faces on
installing its Carnivore Internet-surveillance system as well as streamlining
procedures to obtaining voicemail recordings.


Further provisions include eliminating the statue of limitations for terrorism-
related crimes and allowing federal authorities to detain without a court order
non-U.S. citizens suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Also under
consideration is a modification to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
to make it easier for prosecutors in certain highly sensitive cases to look
through the records of a business, credit card company or Internet provider.
 

Fewer restrictions on law enforcement agents and the creation of a new federal
office may be necessary steps to protect the United States from foreign
terrorists. But powerful bureaucracies and narrowed civil liberties are
exactly the sort of triggers that set off militia groups.


We are likely to see a resurgence of militia group activity just at the time
that law enforcement agencies are retasking themselves to counter foreign
threats. Even if law enforcement agents continue to infiltrate militia groups,
it is much more difficult to monitor and prevent activity from individuals. As
militia ranks fill, it is not unlikely to expect some of them to resort to the
same kind of armed activity as Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski did in the
past.