HLSS523 APUS American White Supremacist & Neo Nazi Movements Discussion Response Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. Y

HLSS523 APUS American White Supremacist & Neo Nazi Movements Discussion Response Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.

Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria.

Respond to Kaitlin,

ADL (Anti-Defamation League) (2019) defines extremism as a concept that is “used to describe religious, social, political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted in society (i.e., “mainstream” beliefs).” In shorter term, this is an extreme belief or ideology. The FBI’s (2006) definition, which we will use throughout the course term according to this week’s lesson, states that violent extremism is “encouraging, condoning, justifying, or supporting the commission of a violent act to achieve political, ideological, religious, social, or economic goals.” Terrorism is considered “a type of political violence that includes the intentional targeting of noncombatants and distinguishes between direct victims and audience that you want to affect” (Pinfari, n.d). With the FBI (n.d) defining domestic terrorism as “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movement that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” It’s important to note that you don’t have to be an extremist to be considered a terrorist and vice-versa not all extremists are terrorists.

According to Michael Jensen, senior researcher at START, University if Maryland (2017), extremism in the United States is ideologically diverse, encompassing the far right, such as antigovernment, white supremacists, the far left, such as social justice, animal rights, environmental protection, single-issue ideologies, and Islamist. During one of Jensen’s presentation in September of 2016, known as An Empirical Assessment of Domestic Radicalization, Jensen explains that in the mid-1970s, we saw a rise in activity of extremists attributing to those ideologies of the far-right. This group still remains the majority today and in matter of fact PIRUS database advised that the spectrum of extremism falls as accordingly: 43 percent far right, 21 percent far left, 21 percent single issue, and 12 percent Islamist (Jensen, 2017). The Center for Strategic & International Studies states in their November 7, 2018 briefing that right-wing extremism in the United States appears to be growing. The Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism in the United States as “broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” With that being said, these are commonalities among White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups. Neo-Nazi groups share a common ground when referring to hatred for Jews and the love for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Neo-Nazi base their hatred on religion, race and ethnic groups thus falling under right-wing extremism. The same goes for White Supremacist, this group believes that those who are of white race are inherently superior then those of another race, thus hating those based on race.

Thank you,

Kaitlyn M.

Extremism. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/extremism.

Jensen, M. (2017). Countering Violent Extremism Through Public Health Practice: Proceedings

of a Workshop. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537578/

Pinfari, M. (n.d.). Terrorism vs. Extremism: Are They Linked? Retrieved from

https://www.aucegypt.edu/news/stories/terrorism-vs-extremism-are-they-linked.

Terrorism. (2016, May 3). Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.

The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States. (2019, September 24). Retrieved from

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states. https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-thisweek-homegrown-violentextremism.mp3/view
Forum  Discussion  Rubric  
Synthesis  of  Concepts  
Response  shows  a  clear  
understanding  of  main  ideas  and  
mentions  at  least  three  concepts  
from  the  required  weekly  readings.    
There  are  no  irrelevant  comments  
and  the  information  is  on  point.    
The  response  provides  examples  
that  tie  in  with  the  course  material  
begin  discussed.  
Response  shows  a  clear  
understanding  of  main  ideas  and  
mentions  at  least  one  concept  from  
the  required  weekly  readings.    
There  are  no  irrelevant  comments  
and  the  information  is  generally  on  
point.  
Response  generally  mentions  a  
topic  from  the  weekly  readings  but  
does  not  clearly  mention  concepts  
from  the  required  weekly  readings.    
Argument  lacks  details  and  there  
are  some  irrelevant  comments  
present.  
(20-­?35  points)  
(<  20  points)   Responded  to  at  least  one   classmate.    Responses  were  at  least   a  courteous  paragraph,  formed  a   counter-­?argument  or  supported   another  student’s  answer,  and   incorporated  one  or  two  terms,   concepts  or  theories  from  the   required  readings.    (15-­?24  points)   Minimal  interaction  with   classmates.    Responses  lacked  topic   sentence  with  logically  supporting   sentences  and  did  not  incorporate   terms,  concepts  or  theories  from   the  required  readings.   (35-­?40  points)   Discussion  Participation     Responded  to  at  least  two   classmates.      Paragraph  length  may   vary  according  to  level  but  in   general,  two-­?three  full  paragraphs.       Responses  demonstrate  careful   analysis  of  other’s  opinions,  and   incorporate  several  terms,   concepts,  or  theories  from  the   required  readings.(25-­?30  points)       (<  15  points)           Writing  Standards   Response  is  free  of  grammatical   errors  and  made  proper  reference   to  the  course  text  or  to  other   materials  that  were  used  in   discussion.    Statements  are  well-­? organized  with  a  clear  thesis   statement  and  concluding  thoughts.   Response  is  generally  free  of   grammatical  errors  and  includes   proper  citations.    Statements  are   clear  with  a  thesis  defined,  though  a   few  points  may  be  out  of  place  or   confusing.   Response  has  numerous   grammatical  errors  and  lacks   proper  citations.    Statements  are   disorganized;  perhaps  with  a   general  structure  defined  but   stream  of  logic  lost  in  the  argument.   (15-­?24  points)   (<  15  points)   (25-­?30  points)       Domestic Terrorism: An Overview Jerome P. Bjelopera Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism August 21, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44921 Domestic Terrorism: An Overview Summary The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under federal terrorism statutes, which does not imply that domestic terrorists are taken any less seriously than other terrorists. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially designate domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist “threats.” These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and beliefs about abortion. The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity has received public attention. This boundary is highlighted by a number of criminal cases involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to domestic terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands the federal government’s legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-346). This report is intended as a primer on the issue, and four discussion topics in it may help explain domestic terrorism’s relevance for policymakers: ? ? ? ? Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating numerous incidents since 9/11. Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax fraud, for example. Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist analogues—are often Internet and social-media savvy and use such platforms to share ideas and as resources for their operations. Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the “political wing”) of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech. Congressional Research Service Domestic Terrorism: An Overview Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Domestic Terrorism Defined ........................................................................................................... 2 What Is Domestic Terrorism?.................................................................................................... 3 Toward a Narrower Definition ............................................................................................ 4 Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies” ................................................. 4 Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic Terrorism Threat ............................... 5 Counting Terrorism Cases ................................................................................................... 5 Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity ..................................................... 6 Extremism vs. Terrorism ..................................................................................................... 8 The Lack of an Official Public List .................................................................................... 9 Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups ................................................................ 10 Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists.................................................11 Anarchist Extremists ......................................................................................................... 13 White Supremacist Extremists .......................................................................................... 16 Anti-Government Extremists ............................................................................................ 23 Black Separatist Extremists .............................................................................................. 32 Abortion Extremists .......................................................................................................... 33 Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF ................................. 35 A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?” .............................................................. 35 Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance............................................................................... 39 Counting Incidents .................................................................................................................. 40 “Nonviolent” Strategies .......................................................................................................... 41 Direct Action ..................................................................................................................... 41 The ALF: “Live Liberations” and “Economic Sabotage” ................................................. 42 The ELF: “Monkeywrenching” ........................................................................................ 42 “Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes .................................... 46 The Internet and Domestic Terrorists ...................................................................................... 48 A Decentralized Threat............................................................................................................ 50 Leaderless Resistance ....................................................................................................... 50 Lone Wolves ..................................................................................................................... 53 Scoping the Threat Remains Difficult for Policymakers ............................................................... 57 Terminology ............................................................................................................................ 57 Designating Domestic Terrorist Groups .................................................................................. 57 A Public Accounting of Plots and Incidents ............................................................................ 58 Better Sense of Scope May Assist Policymakers .................................................................... 59 Figures Figure 1. ALF and ELF Guidelines ............................................................................................... 45 Contacts Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 59 Congressional Research Service Domestic Terrorism: An Overview Introduction Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements1—have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their violent jihadist counterparts. This was not necessarily always the case. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported in 1999 that “[d]uring the past 30 years, the vast majority—but not all—of the deadly terrorist attacks occurring in the United States have been perpetrated by domestic extremists.”2 The U.S. government reacted to 9/11 by greatly enhancing its counterterrorism efforts. This report discusses how domestic terrorists broadly fit into the counterterrorism landscape, a terrain that since 9/11 has been largely shaped in response to terrorists inspired by foreign ideologies. This report focuses especially on how domestic terrorism is conceptualized by the federal government and issues involved in assessing this threat’s significance. Today (perhaps in part because of the government’s focus on international terrorist ideologies), it is difficult to evaluate the scope of domestic terrorist activity. For example, federal agencies employ varying terminology and definitions to describe it. Possibly contributing to domestic terrorism’s secondary status as a threat at the federal level, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. Additionally, many domestic terrorists do not intend to physically harm people but rather rely on alternative tactics such as theft, trespassing, destruction of property, and burdening U.S. courts with retaliatory legal filings. While plots and attacks by foreign-inspired homegrown violent jihadists have earned more media attention, domestic terrorists have been busy as well. It is worth noting that in terms of casualties on U.S. soil, an act of domestic terrorism is second only to the events of 9/11. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives and injured more than 500 others. Some estimates suggest that domestic terrorists are responsible for carrying out dozens of incidents since 9/11.3 Much like their jihadist counterparts, domestic terrorists are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Terrorists are typically driven by particular ideologies. In this respect, domestic terrorists are a widely divergent lot, drawing from a broad array of philosophies and worldviews. These individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white supremacy, and abortion, for example. However, the expression of these worldviews (minus the commission of crimes) involves constitutionally protected activity. 1 This conceptualization of the term “domestic terrorism” is derived from a number of U.S. government sources detailed in this report. This report will not focus on homegrown violent jihadists. However, when referring to such actors, for this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, permanent legal residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. “Jihadist” describes radicalized Muslims using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for belief in the establishment of a global caliphate—a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph—via violent means. Jihadists largely adhere to a variant of Salafi Islam—the fundamentalist belief that society should be governed by Islamic law based on the Quran and follow the model of the immediate followers and companions of the Prophet Muhammad. 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States: 30 Years of Terrorism—A Special Retrospective Edition, (2000) p. 16. 3 New America Foundation, Terrorism in America After 9/11: Part IV, What is the Threat to the United States Today? https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/. Congressional Research Service 1 Domestic Terrorism: An Overview Aware of the lines between constitutionally protected speech and criminality, domestic terrorists often rope themselves off from ideological (above-ground) elements that openly and often legally espouse similar beliefs. In essence, the practitioners who commit violent acts are distinct from the propagandists who theorize and craft worldviews that could be interpreted to support these acts. Thus, in decentralized fashion, terrorist lone actors (lone wolves) or isolated small groups (cells) generally operate autonomously and in secret, all the while drawing ideological sustenance—not direction—from propagandists operating in the free market of ideas. Domestic terrorists may not be the top federal counterterrorism priority, but they feature prominently among the concerns of some law enforcement officers. For example, in 2011, Los Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P. Downing included “black separatists, white supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists” among his chief counterterrorism concerns.4 A 2014 national survey of state and local law enforcement officers found that sovereign citizens were “the top concern” among terrorist threats.5 The violence related to protests in Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2017, also has raised the issue of domestic terrorism, particularly related to public discussions regarding a widely reported incident involving James Alex Fields, who according to witnesses drove his car into a group of people protesting a rally featuring white supremacists in Charlottesville on August 12.6 Fields allegedly killed one person and injured 19 others in the incident. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a civil rights investigation into the incident, presumably pursuing possible hate crime charges.7 Additionally, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly stated that terrorism investigators are involved in investigating the incident, ostensibly exploring the possibility of characterizing it as an act of domestic terrorism rather than a hate crime.8 This report provides background regarding domestic terrorists—detailing what constitutes the domestic terrorism threat as suggested by publicly available U.S. government sources. 9 It illustrates some of the key factors involved in assessing this threat. This report does not discuss in detail either violent jihadist-inspired terrorism or the federal government’s role in counterterrorism investigations. Domestic Terrorism Defined Two basic questions are key to understanding domestic terrorism. First, what exactly constitutes “domestic terrorism?” Answering this question is more complicated than it may appear. Some 4 Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011. See also Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak & Joseph Simone Jr. “Surveying American State Police Agencies About Terrorism Threats, Terrorism Sources, and Terrorism Definitions,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3 (2009) pp. 450-475. Freilich, Chermak, and Simone found that domestic terrorist groups featured prominently among the concerns of U.S. state police officials. 5 Jessica Rivinius, “Sovereign Citizen Movement Perceived as Top Terrorist Threat,” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, July 30, 2014. For the report, see Carter, David, et al., “Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes,” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2014. 6 T. Rees Shapiro et al., “Alleged Driver of Car that Plowed into Charlottesville Crowd Was a Nazi Sympathizer, Former Teacher Says,” Washington Post, August 13, 2017. 7 Department of Justice, “Joint Statement from United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Civil Rights Division,” press release, August, 13, 2017. 8 Michael Edison Hayden, “Sessions Defends Trump’... Purchase answer to see full attachment