OPINION: The Ten Things We Can Expect To Happen In Security For the Next Four Years

So....the election is finally over!!! There's a lot to be said about the politics of this election and what that means for insert-the-name-of-your-special-interest-group. Have no worries - I'm not going there. In the vein of "staying in my lane", I'd like to discuss what the next four years will look like for those of us in security.

1. Expect more protests. Seriously, nothing with respect to protesters and how they feel about a litany of political issues will change except they'll find more reasons to protest. There is little that can be done about it. Accept it. Monitor it. Hope to mitigate it. Move on.
2. Expect ISIL to show up more. Given the aggressive nature of how the next administration plans to engage ISIL, there will inevitably be more attacks either from the group or its sympathizers and ad-hoc members aka lone wolves in retaliation. Expect more attacks against soft targets during periods of high crowd frequencies or surges like major U.S. holidays. Why? Simply put: ISIL and most jihadi organizations are holy anointed apocalyptic cults who are actively trying to bring on the apocalypse and any conflict with the "West" is objective towards that goal.
3. Expect violence against minorities. The new administration has found its campaign rhetoric resonates with people who share ideologies that encourage violence against minorities. Not saying that message came directly from their campaign; just that the rhetoric resonates. How much more violence is unknown at this time. Seriously, it's been a few days since the election and while we've had a number of attacks reported, it's still much too early to see how far this develops as a long-term trend. That said, be very freaking vigilant.
4. Cyber security could get really interesting really fast. There could be more cyber attacks against this administration and groups who contract with them. Also, we could also see counter-attacks from groups who sympathize with the administration. Has there been any indication of this happening? I haven't seen anything yet but we should know soon enough. If public outcry continues, then we can expect potential cyber attacks in response or in tandem.
5. Border security could spawn a growth in physical security. The wall that is being discussed and presumably implemented will require an immense amount of physical security to augment surveillance and protect the wall. How many cameras and sensors will need to be installed? Who gets that contract? What about construction security? What about the wall itself? Lots of things to be hammered out but I expect some growth in the physical security sector if the wall comes to fruition.
6. More stringent controls on immigration and background checks needed for visas. This was a central part of the campaign and cannot be ignored. I suspect the new administration will rely on the hearings that have been held in Congress previously on visas and travel documents, as a guide. My suspicion is that not much will change for those who immigrate from countries we already share travel document information with. Much stricter guidance will come about for countries which have a history of poor identification documentation controls and who have poor passport security.
7. Police officers will continue to die in the line of duty. I mention this because there seems to be some mythology that exists which says tougher penalties on cop-killers means more deterrence. Time and time again, we've found that not to be the case. Yet, this is also a theme with the current administration. I do not argue that tougher sentencing is warranted for any murder; I do have issues when we infer a harsher penalty will bring a greater reduction than focusing on what drives the crime to begin with. Fix what drives people to kill and you will see long-term results in dramatically reducing the number of line-of-duty-deaths for cops.
8. Crowd mitigation will become a bigger issue than is being discussed in the security industry. If you've heard me speak on this topic before, I apologize but this needs to be said. We're not doing enough to mitigate crowd surges which serve as target-rich environments for bad guys. Unless the new administration hires national security people who understand the importance of mitigating this issue, my fear is this will continue to be exploited in a significant way.
9. Gun control and marijuana will continue to be big-ticket issues. Weed is legal in more states than before which means many of these states will be looking to Colorado and others to determine what should be their guidelines for security. I suggest if you live in a new weed state, brush up on this stuff. There's a big opportunity for growth.
   
   Active shooters will continue to murder people. Fixing this in the short-term is never going to happen. Again, expect this trend to continue until we discuss what drives it. Thus, gun control will grow as a hot-button political issue.
10. Criminal justice reform is not going to happen. The new administration has stated one of its primary objectives is the restoration of the rule of law and has taken on a very pro-law enforcement stance. Expect little in the way of discussing reducing or eliminating mandatory sentencing. It could happen but not for the next two years.

So that's how I see the next few years. It's not an entirely optimistic view but I believe it to be an honest view of what we can expect. I'm not going to take a pro or con position on the administration here but I would like my readers to begin the process of determining how they plan to mitigate some of these things. No matter who is president we have a profession that demands we place public safety above our political leanings. Let's do what we can to achieve just that - public safety. Perhaps, when we do this, rather than embrace fear and anger, the American people will embrace hope again.

Commentary: Is censorship a security tool or a huge mistake?

Recently, I learned the U.S. government was looking at legal options to compel Twitter to cancel the accounts of foreign terrorist organizations such as Al Shabaab and the Taliban who are very active on the social media site.  These unnamed officials believe these groups are using their accounts to recruit and promote their propaganda.  As an observer and a person engaged in dialogue (okay - its taunting) with both of these groups, I can attest to the sort of messages they are referring to.  Often, the messages are full of their "exploits" and fail to address their brutality within Somalia's or Afghanistan's civilian populations.  Nor do they address any real plans for Somalia's future given its current economic and political situation.

However, I find the request to be somewhat superficial and insufficient.  It's as if they have no concept of how global the Internet has become in both scope and depth.  I'm perplexed as to what good they foresee coming from this.  By limiting the use of Twitter and other major social media sites, these officials have failed to address other sites for which they have ZERO jurisdiction over and would still be accessible to Al Shabaab and the Taliban's intended audience.  What happens when another site comes along and replaces Twitter as the messenger de facto of major transnational terrorist organizations and their franchises?  What happens when these sites are created and maintained on servers, the U.S. government has no control over?  The United States does not nor should it ever have a firewall like the Chinese do.

Also, they negate how this plays exactly into what these organizations want.  It demonstrates to young, disillusioned, frustrated, and impressionable people how the freedoms our government is supposed to uphold above all else mean very little to it.  In other words, we would be behaving like the governments these groups originally rose up against and from whose failings they gained significant momentum.  Don't get me wrong - I despise what these organizations are and what they really stand for.  I wholeheartedly believe they have an interpretation of Islam that is fundamentally flawed and inherently destructive for the Ummah.  However, censorship like torture, no matter how well-intentioned, produces none of the results you expect to get.

My final question to these lawmakers is, "Can we include domestic terrorist groups and organized crime organizations to the list to be banned?"  They create and promote atmospheres of violence and fear to achieve political goals.  We seem to be proclaiming a war on terrorism and actually fighting only one enemy.  What about the Jewish Defense League, Hutaree, the New Black Panther Party, or the countless other domestic groups that have or are using social media?  The Jewish Defense League whose members attempted to kill a U.S. Congressman in 2001 still has an active Twitter account.  Hutaree, which received notoriety after its members were arrested for plotting events which they believed would bring about the apocalypse, maintained and utilized their YouTube videos to showcase their tactical prowess. Google any violent hate group and their popular slogans and you will discover they or their members maintain and use a vast amount of social media for the same reasons as Al Shabaab or the Taliban. Yet, we've made no moves until now to remove a single group from these sites.

What good does it do to allow them to keep their accounts?  Any casual observers of the Taliban's "tweets" knows they usually receive a "special" reply from a certain other Twitter account.  That's right - the folks at NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have an account and they get into a verbal skirmish almost weekly.  This is what Twitter is all about - the ability to say what you want and some other guy having the ability to quickly call "BS" on whatever crap you spewed out.  So while the Taliban uses this space to pass along its propaganda and possibly recruit active members or sympathizers (more likely), NATO has many people capable of answering back.  

Finally, it allows those people involved in intelligence to gather information we might not otherwise get.  It's like I used to tell younger cops - you want your suspect to keep talking even if he's lying because you can tell a lot even from a lie.  The FBI and Justice Department bust organized crime groups all the time using electronic surveillance.  Osama bin Laden was found because someone "talked on the wire".  People get careless the more they talk.  Take it from this former cop-turned-security pro - that's exactly what you want.

"Once you permit those who are convinced of their own superior rightness to censor and silence and suppress those who hold contrary opinions, just at that moment the citadel has been surrendered." ~Archibald MacLeish

Commentary: Internment Camps: A 20th Century Solution for a 21st Century Problem?

U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class William Weinert
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In my military professional endeavors, I have come across a variety of counter-terrorism theories and practices.  One which I always find myself "sitting on the fence" on is warrantless detentions or internment camps.  While I can appreciate the operational necessity to capture, detain, and thus incapacitate certain rogue individuals who are involved in ongoing terrorist operations, I grow concerned due to the lack of accountability and need for legal justification when making such detentions.

We've been down this road before in World War II and the results weren't so great.  One only has to look at The Ringle Report to find evidence of this.

Here's a film about what those camps were like:

Are we entering a world where our fear is governing our national security strategy and allowing for certain or "inalienable" rights to be stripped away?  Don't get me wrong.  I like the fact my government has assets whose sole job is to seek and take whatever legal actions are necessary to prevent the loss of life.  I am one of those sentimental people who says they sleep easier at night knowing this.  However, I cannot but wrestle with the notion we are regressing whether than growing in our current security paradigm.

I recently came across an interesting editorial on the Mercury News' site.  According to the author, S. Floyd Mori,

"A bill on the Senate floor raises the question of whether the Senate has forgotten our history. S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act, has a provision in it, unfortunately drafted by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would let any U.S. president use the military to arrest and imprison without charge or trial anyone suspected of having any relationship with a terrorist organization. Although Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and more than a dozen of her colleagues are bravely calling for a halt to a damaging bill, they face significant opposition.

The troubling provision, Section 1031, would let the military lock up both Americans and noncitizens in the 50 states. There would be no charges, no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All that would be required would be suspicion."

I went online to further research the bill and I've attached the section of concern:

a) In General- The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person, including but not limited to persons for whom detention is required under section 1032, as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Long-term detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities against the nations, organizations, and persons subject to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity

(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Here's the lowdown on three subsections:

1. Subsection (b) makes it a point to leave out the specifics of what particular operations would be eligible.  In other words, anyone who is not a citizen or legal resident alien suspected of participating in a terrorist action could be detained without so much as a warrant.
2. Subsection (4) says a person could then be transferred to another foreign country or foreign entity to be detained as well.  Why would someone want to "transfer custody" of these individuals to a foreign country or entity?  In other places, they may not have the legal restraints against certain kinds of detention activities which could be useful in obtaining critical intelligence or they may have a more compelling reason for having them.
3. The only bit I like about this bill is contained in subsection (d) which says that it does not pertain to citizens and legal alien resident who are conducting suspected activities within our borders.  However, those protections do not extend outside of them.  The only negative side effect I see here is the application of indefinite detention within the US or outside of it for activities our government could see as being terrorist related.  Given the often "shaky" nature of the definition of terrorism and who you're asking, those activities could range from financing to operating a website which post terrorist related materials.

The bill's supporters will claim Guantanamo as a success.  They will allude to the lack of attacks on US soil since its inception ten years ago.  While its detractors will allude to its failures in gathering reliable information and only detaining very few real operators and masterminds.  They will point Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the 9/11 plotter who while at Guantanamo Bay reportedly told lie after lie in an effort to mislead his interrogators.  

Like these Senators, I want to give our government more powers to act on against ongoing operations.  I sincerely believe some extreme measures would be necessary in certain circumstances such as operations which could result in a large loss of life or cause massive chaos and public unrest.  However, I'm troubled by the bill's lack of specific language or limitations.  Troops and operators on the ground hate such restraints and I can understand why.  The persistent question I ask is, "Where and when does it end?"