If I Could Live Anywhere In The World.....Hmmm.

If I could live anywhere, I'd pick anywhere but places where the was even a hint of activity on this heat map. The map comes from the folks at START and highlights terrorist attacks in 2017. Yup, if you see your state, sleep tight, kiddo.

Somehow I Don't Think That Drone Has Been Registered With The FAA - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Drone with RPG-7 anti-tank grenade attached used by IS to target Syrian regime forces. This one was a dud. pic.twitter.com/nhgmr8oVlI

— Beyond The Levant (@BeyondTheLevant) December 10, 2016

Terrorism Attribution in the Age of Social Media - The Struggle is Real

Update (11-28-2016 1904): A few reports have emerged from the media stating various talking points derived from the suspect's Facebook timeline, though with little independent confirmation the account indeed belongs to the suspect. He seemed to believe Muslims were mistreated by the West and also disliked it's meddling in Islamic affairs. There were also noted jihadi luminaries quoted throughout. Again, this information has not been corroborated by official law enforcement sources but could speak to motive and ultimately whether this was a terrorist attack. 

Another mass casualty incident has occurred and I engaged the tried and true method of triggering my compulsion to smash my face with my palm by looking at Twitter. Yep, it was that bad. It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times I tweet or blog about the painstaking work of attacker attribution, people continually participate in oversimplified and error-prone "analysis". They're often trying to do this without being at the scene, with no prior investigative experience, and in real-time. To say the least, the amount of wrong is significantly higher than actual "I called it", despite what the authors say.

You're probably wondering why I'm so passionate about the inclinations others have toward this kind of "analysis". I believe it speaks volumes about how much we value the arduous work it takes to do the investigations needed to make accurate attribution claims. It's also a HUGE part of the myth that "anyone can do security". Over the years, I have been practically screaming how false that is. What we as professionals do, takes time, significant knowledge, limited resources, and countless hours of practical experience.

Yet, here we are. Today, I have seen tweet after tweet proclaiming the attack was immediately the work of jihadist invaders or lone wolf extremists of some variety. These suppositions have come in the early moments of reporting on the attack. As it developed, we were informed of a suspect, a Somali refuge named Abdul Razak Ali Artan. As of this writing, there are tweets claiming this is conclusive "evidence" of terrorism. The actual cops working the scene haven't made one statement, as far as I know, yet about any determination of motive. But Twitter says otherwise. A population where 99.99% of people with zero to any relevant law enforcement or security experience have done in hours what it will take seasoned and ordained professionals weeks to do. Yeah, it's crap.

So, if not terrorism, then what is it, Mr. "Security Professional"? Glad, you asked. I don't have a clue and neither do you unless you're on the scene actually investigating this incident. I should know. I used to do this thing all the time. Speaking from firsthand experience, I can confirm how easy it is to engage in this hasty sort of "analysis". What I can tell you is that we often make the mistake, as amateurs, of reaching conclusions about violent mass casualty incidents with little to any information. We do this based on what we either know of the attacker or the incident. This happens with minimal confirmation from official sources or reading too much into either first reports from witnesses, police scanner traffic, or what's told in early press conferences and releases. The often-ignored practice of "wait and see" has turned into "Holy crap! Something bad happened. Let me get my initial reaction out into the Twitterverse so my followers can give me reaffirmation for the sake of my ego and incessant desire to be first to comment on all-things tragic."

There are a few ways we can fix this.

1. Stop assuming race, ethnicity, or religion can explain why people commit acts of violence. While these things can play a role in attacks, it's unlikely they can explain every single one. Instead, disregard them initially until other information develops that establishes motive or crime typology (act of terror or just a crazy person).
2.  No one has an exclusive monopoly over non-sanctioned violence. Just because an attacker uses a pipe bomb or even their vehicle doesn't mean the attack is terror-related. Let me put it bluntly - there are no "exclusive" tricks of the trade among bad guys. For example, looking at just the initial information we knew about Christopher Dorner's attacks and his weapons of choice, we could have assumed the attack was probably carried out by militias or other extremists versus an ex-cop with a grudge.
3. It's too easy to get caught in the brutality of an attack and high casualty numbers and assume the attack was terrorism. Don't get caught in the weeds here, folks. Take a deep breath. Examine what we have and nothing else. When bad things happen, we naturally allow fear and our ever-incessant desire for immediate vengeance to cloud our thinking. Attribution is a game of facts and truth not emotion.
4. Attack attribution requires more than just your gut feeling. A great example of this is a scene from Designated Survivor. It's a show about a newly, fired HUD Secretary being the "designated survivor" for a State of the Union address by which most of government  is killed in an explosion. The newly, sworn President, played by Keifer Sutherland, is doing his best to determine who the attackers are. His advisers are pleading with him to name a known group as being responsible. Much of their evidence is based on wild speculation, self-interested political jockeying, and warhawking. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs asks the president to name this group. The President asks the FBI how sure they are of the identity of the attackers and they respond "75 percent, sir." Sutherland's character declines making the call to name the attackers. When pressed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs how much more certainty he needed, the President responds with "Give me 25 percent more." I won't lie. This was by far the best dialogue I've seen in a fictional television show regarding attribution. There are dire consequences when we rely on anything other than empirical data when making attribution calls.
   
   
5. The likely suspects could be people you like and it's not wrong to not rule them out. So much of the attack attribution that occurs on social media is wrought with people trying to make the facts fit their narrative. If a person is overtly political, this is more telling than they're ready to acknowledge. In fact, they often dismiss other possible and probable theories outright. Many times, I've seen the "expert" credentials of various participants in this crazy dialogue come into play. Stop it. Take long deep breaths and remember if you're not on-scene, you know absolutely nothing. 
6. Analysis is not a crystal ball. One of the most often over-played narratives is the intelligence community or law enforcement missed "something". Why? They assume those in these professions have to be right all the time as a part of what they do. It's as if some of us are expected to have superhuman abilities to predict the future accurately. Sometimes, like all things we think we understand, we get things wrong. It sucks when we do but it happens. Stop asking "How could they have missed this?" and start asking "What led them to believe this person posed no discernible danger?"
   
   Every time law enforcement does a threat assessment on supposedly dangerous persons, an interview with the subject is conducted if possible. Given our legal framework and the very imprecise art and science of "reading" people, some actually dangerous people are missed. It happens. Not often but it does. A more poignant avenue to approach is the examination of how law enforcement and security professionals have been inadvertently incentivized to go after "low-hanging fruit" rather than being given sufficient resources to investigate and mitigate these threats.
7. The most important component to any terrorism attribution work is understanding what legally constitutes terrorism. I know the US Code is such a drag but it is the legal framework for which cops use to determine whether something is or is not an act of terror.
   
   Most people assume a car bomb is immediate evidence of a terrorist attack. Yeah, not quite. Other people use bombs to commit murder for a variety of reasons. They were used quite often by the mob and other organized crime networks. Yet, none of these bombers were charged with terrorism. Why? Because their motives were not terror related. Terrorism is one of the few crimes which require motive in the "elements of the offense".
   
   Remember that "legal framework" I mentioned in the US Code? Here it is:
   
   "18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the U.S. Code, entitled "Terrorism.”
   
   "International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
1. Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

         "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.          

         18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

1. Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
2. Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.)."

I don't have all the answers and neither do you. Let's all take a deep breath and allow the cops to do their jobs.

Why Murder-By-Semi-Truck Could Be A Thing You Need To Mitigate

I'm not an alarmist. Or at least, I try not to be. Personally, I prefer a rather "Vulcan" approach to many things in security. As the youngsters say, "Logic rules everything around me." Actually, that may not be the "exact" wording but you get the drift. That said, I do have a fair amount of "Holy sh*t!" moments. While reading Rumiyah #3 (An English-language e-magazine for ISIL) and coming up on their murder-by-semi-truck tutorial, I tried to suppress having such a moment. I succeeded, mostly because I realize the tutorial was somewhat incomplete from a tactical perspective. That's not to say the message isn't effective or wouldn't possibly motivate ISIL members to strike. I see its inclusion as both for propaganda and potential triggering for an upcoming attack.

Oh, you read that whole "murder-by-semi-truck" bit correctly. Here's what they actually said - "Though being an essential part of modern life, very few actually comprehend the deadly and destructive capability of the motor vehicle and its capacity of reaping large numbers of casualties if used in a premeditated manner. This was superbly demonstrated in the attack launched by the brother Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel who, while traveling at the speed of approximately 90 kilometers per hour, plowed his 19-ton load-bearing truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, harvesting through his attack the slaughter of 86 Crusader citizens and injuring 434 more."

There's a lot we, as security professionals, can glean from this. Have no worries, I won't be divulging "state secrets" or imparting tactical clues. There are merely my observations. Take them for what they're worth, as your mileage could very well vary.

1. Large vehicles are vogue for jihadis still. In fact, one of the key criteria they attribute for an "ideal vehicle is a "load-bearing truck". Even though, speed and "controllability" are also highly desirable, they suggest operators steer clear of SUV's and small cars. Obviously, they're looking for something that can handle a lot of weight.
2. The Nice attack is seen as successful. Notice the vehicle should have "double-wheels" because it gives "victims less of a chance to escape being crushed by the vehicle's tires". Also, I noticed the inclusion of having a secondary weapon as a means of ensuring additional casualties and "increasing terror". Pretty telling.
3. Crowd mitigation is really freaking important, stupid. Look, folks. I know I harp on this a lot. I get it. I do. But they pretty much say it - "In general, one should consider any outdoor attraction that draws large crowds." Notice the bit about crowds.
   

   

   Image include in Rumiyah #3. Notice the large crowd. Just saying.

4. Attribution is really freaking important, stupid. The last few ISIL-related attacks (either by the group or attributed by them) have included language using the phrase "soldier of the Islamic State". Almost every attack committed by a Western-based attacker who hasn't gone to Syria, ISIL has claimed responsibility using this phrase. So no surprise here when you see it in Rumiyah #3 - "I am a soldier of the Islamic Sate!" Why do they do this? To sum it up - they're a holy anointed apocalyptic cult whose proximity to Allah can only determined by their ability to seemingly kill at will. If that's not clear enough, they do it for street cred. You gotta have bodies to make it in the terror game, folks.
5. Large crowd size does not always equate to certain specific targets. Located in the fine print was this gem - "All so-called “civilian” (and low-security) parades and gatherings are fair game and more devastating to Crusader nations." If you're a security professional who has to mitigate threats to a parade route but you're not in New York, you may assume you're in the clear. Yeah, you're dead wrong about that. It's about the casualty count. If your parade route could have a large number of people along it with limited egress points and insecure access control to the street, you could be in the same boat, if not worse than New York. As I always say - it's not a matter of IF but WHEN. Mark my words. Be vigilant.
6. It's not just about parades, stupid. What other "targets" are they looking at? Glad you asked. ISIL says "Outdoor markets, festivals, parades, political rallies (We got any of these coming up soon? Asking for a friend.), large outdoor conventions and celebrations (Got any tree-lighting ceremonies?), and pedestrian-congested streets (High/Main streets)" are all legit targets. Yep. Here comes your "Oh sh*t" moment. Stop it. Relax. Now, go mitigate.
7. Fail to take this kind of attack seriously, at your peril. Let me put it bluntly. Nope, let me just leave what they said here - "The method of such an attack is that a vehicle is plunged at a high speed into a large congregation of kuffar, smashing their bodies with the vehicle’s strong outer frame, while advancing forward – crushing their heads, torsos, and limbs under the vehicle’s wheels and chassis – and leaving behind a trail of carnage."

Vehicle Assaults in Terrorist Attacks
Create bar charts

Al-Shabaab vs The Security Dialogue: Round 3 - The Hilarity Continues

Well, folks. It's that time of year when our favorite little jihadis decide to engage me on Twitter. Our contest is always one-sided and really quite funny. For a bunch of murdering, raping, degenerates they do a hell of a job of setting up a great punch line. I'll stop teasing and let you see for yourself. Ding ding!

Daaamn son. .@hsmpress_ Got 99 problems & revenue streams is ONE. moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/ter…
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 29, 2013

.@hsmpress_ I never underestimated your "wealth". I believe that was the work of others. People will donate money for any evil.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Moreover, I'm never "shocked" by your actions. Though I am "impressed" you're still chasing an American HVT. How is Omar?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

@scrivenlking Amriki has imported that Yankee superiority mantra into #Somalia & he can't understand why locals are resisting him.
— HSM Press Office (@HSMPress_) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Speaking of superiority issues, how's that participating in democratic governments working out for you?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Seriously. How hard is it to catch a white guy who Tweets in Somalia? $70M in revenue & you can't catch a nerd w/ a beard? Sigh.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ Speaking of Kenya, how's that going for you? Great parade they did for you guys. Hearts and minds, right?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ At least you guys have Mogadishu. No? Oh, touchy subject. Well at least you have the other cities. No? 99 problems, huh?
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) April 30, 2013

.@hsmpress_ You're on my mind. youtube.com/watch?v=eJlN9j…
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) May 1, 2013

HOT: Real-time US Drone Strikes in Pakistan (You Should Bookmark This)

Real-Time U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan infographic by hrwgc.

I found this "gem" on a site called visual.ly which hosts a variety of infographics. The data was compiled fromdata from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which "provides a live-updated database of U.S. covert drone strikes in Pakistan. There are other sources for this information, including New America Foundation and The Long War Journal, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages." This has been the best resource thus far in terms of keeping track of drone strikes in Pakistan.

Why should any security professional be concerned with these strikes? These strikes are often done to eliminate "high value targets" (HVTs). It would be prudent for a security professional to understand when and where a strike has occurred in order to prepare for reprisal attacks on any resources deemed important to the United States government. This could also provide needed intelligence on a subject of interests in an environment where you do constant threat intelligence and analysis. It does a great job as well of illustrating the continued and progressive use of "unmanned aerial vehicles" (UAVs). Becoming aware of the technology and its real-world deployments and challenges, could aid a security professional in determining their applicability to their threat landscape. I HIGHLY recommend bookmarking this page for future reference, as the data will change day-by-day.

Why Senator Tom Coburn Is Wrong About Columbus

Pro 3XE Underwater Search and Recovery Vehicle cited in Senator Tom Coburn's report
Credit: http://www.atlantasmarine.com/product/videoray-pro-3-gto

Last week, Senator Tom Coburn released a report criticizing various municipalities and the Department of Homeland Security for spending taxpayer dollars frivolously on various pieces of equipment, training exercises, and conferences.  His report, titled “Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in US Cities, mentioned several cities including Columbus, Ohio.  I grew up in the Buckeye state for a while. As such, I pay attention to any allegations against our capital city, particularly with respect to homeland security.   So, I read the report and was surprised by its allegations.

On his web site, Senator Coburn states,

"Columbus, OH’s Underwater Robot: Columbus, Ohio recently purchased an “underwater robot” using a $98,000 UASI grant. The robot is mounted with a video providing a full-color display to a vehicle on shore. Officials on the Columbus City Council went so far as to declare the purchase an “emergency,” not because of security needs, but because of “federal grant deadlines.” If the money was not spent quickly, it would have returned to the Treasury. (Pg. 27 & 28 )"

In the report, he goes on further to state,

"The Columbus dive team, however, is responsible only for underwater search and recovery missions – not for rescue missions that may happen during a terror attack.  One of the team’s higher profile missions in recent years was the recovery of a
$2 million “sunken treasure” in the Scioto River."

So, naturally I did my own "investigation" into this allegation made against Columbus and DHS. Here's what I found out:

1. Columbus's police department is solely responsible for search and recovery.  It's in the standard operation procedures.  That much is true.  What his report fails to acknowledge is that after a terror attack the most important job any first responder agency can have is the search for human remains and evidence.  That too is in their SOP.  It states, "Underwater search and recovery operations encompass underwater criminal investigations, the recovery of bodies and property, and other operations, which by their nature fall into the scope of duties and obligations of the Division of Police."  Additionally, the Scioto River is 218 miles long and goes through downtown Columbus.  It also lays along the "approach" for Columbus International Airport.  Any counter-terrorism expert worth his/her salary will tell you this would be a natural place for an attack to occur and for law enforcement to begin search and recovery operations.  Given that debris fields from most major attacks extend for miles, it would be prudent for any law enforcement agency to look for evidence and possible human remains along this river.  My favorite item to back this up came from the FBI dive team site.  Yup.  The FBI says, "Our underwater experts can find clues and map out crime scenes in exactly those places and more...They’ve got some fancy tools and technologies to help them do their jobs: “side-scan sonar” that can detect debris...miniature remote-controlled subs that send real-time color video to the surface for on-the-spot identification and that can make videotapes of underwater searches for future use.  We’ve called on our dive teams many times over the years since the first one was launched in 1982. For example:  When TWA Flight 800 exploded over the Atlantic in 1996, our New York team helped scour a 40-square mile patch of the ocean floor, recovering the remains of all 230 victims and 96 percent of the airplane....Our teams have even traveled overseas to support such investigations as the terrorist attack on the USS Cole."
2. Columbus, Ohio is/was a terrorist target.  Many people don't think of Columbus, Ohio as being of major interest to al Qaeda.  However, in 2004, we learned different.  Nuradin Abdi, a Somali native plotted with three of his friends to attack a Columbus mall. Abdi entered this country with the sole intent to target Americans, after illegally entering in 1999.  In 2002, he along with two friends discussed bombing a mall in Columbus.  Abdi was sentenced to 10 years and was deported back to Somalia in November 2012.  Here's a link to his indictment - http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/85.pdf.  Here's a map of downtown Columbus.  Note it's approximal distance to the airport and the Scioto River:
   View Larger Map
3. The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) this grant is managed states its purpose is "to directly support expanding regional collaboration and is meant to assist participants in their creation of regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery."  Part of any response and recovery effort is search and recovery.  Seriously.  Anyone who took Emergency Management 101 knows that much.  The quicker you get to the bodies and the evidence the sooner you can figure who attacked you and more importantly, how.
4. The New York Police Department has the same robot.  How is it that I'm the only one who caught that?  That's right.  NYPD uses this robot on the missions I described and for bomb detection as well.  Why?  Because they have a river that flows through the heart of their city.  The only exception is the Scioto currently doesn't allow commercial ships due to the 2012 drought.
5. DHS did have a deadline that was approaching and the city council deemed funding was neccessary and determined it an emergency.  Why would call this an emergency?  Because of the ridiculous amount of time it takes for a city to make any purchases on their own.  The city simply didn't have $98k for an underwater robot.  What the report failed to mention was the city had done this numerous other times in an attempt to stockpile on homeland security equipment they felt they needed.  They purchased a similar robot for their fire department.  The exception is the fire department can't use their robot or their divers for recovery of evidence or remains.  This simply is not in their area of operations (AO).

So there you have it.  The truth about Columbus isn't what Senator Coburn made it out to be.  Senator Coburn is trying to bill himself as a good steward of taxpayer money.  While I appreciate his diligence, I am struggling with why he didn't go to these cities himself and ask the same questions I did.  Moreover, why isn't his staff asking these questions instead of producing hilarious cover art for his reports.

Al-Shabaab vs The Security Dialogue: Round 2

Al-Shabaab (aka "The Lads") and I have continued our verbal contest of will and intellect.  As one might imagine, this has been quite entertaining.  My wife has told me I need a real hobby. Pfft! I told her some people have golf and I have making fun of transnational "designated terrorist organizations".  It's the simple things in life that are the most rewarding.

In case you haven't heard, al-Shabaab "nailed" the Kenyan military Twitter spokesperson who tweeted a photo of an execution which the Kenyans claimed happened in 2009.  Given the fact al-Shabaab was there when this execution took place because they were the executioners, it should come as no surprise al-Shabaab was able to note this glaring discrepancy in fact.  Massive embarrassment occurred prompting the Kenyans to apologize for the slight to al-Shabaab.  Sensing the mounting tension, I decided my commentary might be needed to mitigate this crisis.

Here's the commentary.  As you can see, this was a very entertaining series of tweets:

@MYC_Press @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir Seriously? Over ONE photo? You guys pulled off a heck of a coup! Finding Waldo should be piece of cake.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) January 12, 2012

@MYC_Press @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir U seem to excuse mass murder and terror.
— Scriven King (@scrivenlking) January 12, 2012

@scrivenlking @HSMPress @MajorEChirchir touche! but i don't - i'm just a jihadi waiting to cross over into Somalia & chinga a KDF personnel!
— MYC Press Office (@MYC_Press) January 12, 2012

Terrorist Group of the Week - The Sicarii

In a quest to learn more about terrorism and its roots, I've decided to start two new series:  Terrorist of the Week and Terrorist Group of the Week. The criteria is quite simple: I'll be showcasing different groups and individuals according to their interests to me and their significance to terrorist activities.

The first group I'm profiling is the Sicarrii, an ancient Jewish extremist group who used assassinations and kidnapping to expel Romans and other foreign entities from Judea. Many scholars point to them as the "fathers" of modern terrorism. This is not a stretch considering the methods and motives were practically unheard of prior to this. Most revolutions began once armies could be formed to engage occupiers on the battlefield. The Sicarrii did not have the time nor the resources for a conventional army so they used the unpredictability and lethality of their daggers to inflict psychological and strategic casualties on their enemy. These ideas are not foreign to any terrorist groups. Many use assassinations, kidnapping, and other means in order to achieve similar results.

Sicae - ancient dagger used by the Sicarri. Often hidden in their garments,
it was the preferred weapon due to its stealth and concealability.

What made the Sicarri unique was their use of stealth. They hid small daggers under their cloaks called sicae. As it was often difficult to their enemies alone, they often waited for them at mass gather points to strike them. Hidden in a crowd, they could operate without worry of detection before, during, and after the attack.

Who did they go after? Their targets of choice appeared to be Romans and their sympathizers. Some of their notable victims included Jonathan the High Priest, a suspected collaborator. Many were Roman soldiers and administrators. Like most terrorist groups, they struggled to gain popular support. And like most terrorist groups, they turned on the people they were liberting to get their support. At the beginning of the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD, the Sicarii, destroyed the city of Jerusalem's food supply so that the people would be forced to fight against the Roman siege instead of negotiating peace.

Mountaintop fortress and one of the most revered sites in Jewish  history .

Still haven't heard of them?  Ever hear of a place called Masada? That's right - these folks made the infamous stand at Masada along with their leader Simon Bar Giora. He and a group of followers made their way to the abandoned mountaintop fortress in 72 AD.  The standoff lasted until 73 AD when the Romans took over and discovered how deep the Sicarrii conviction was. They all committed suicide rather than surrender.

Terrorist of the week: Yasi al-Suri

In 2005, Yasin al-Suri made al-Qaeda's
"Top 30 under 30." According to Uncle Sam,
his head is worth $10  million.

Have you seen this guy?  If you have, the United States government would like to have a chat with him.  In the age of the Global on Terror, what that really means is "If you have and would be so kind to let the United States government know, they will pay you a very large reward fee for being able to put him in the crosshairs of a drone pilot."

What did he do?  According to the State Department,

Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, more commonly known as Yasin al-Suri, is a senior al-Qaida facilitator based in Iran. Al-Suri moves money and recruits from across the Middle East into Iran, and then on to Pakistan, to support al-Qaida’s senior leadership. Iranian authorities maintain a relationship with al-Suri and have permitted him to operate within Iran’s borders since 2005.

Al-Suri facilitates the movement of recruits for al-Qaida from the Gulf to Pakistan and Afghanistan via Iran. He is also an important fundraiser for al-Qaida and has collected money from donors and fundraisers throughout the Gulf. Al-Suri funnels significant funds via Iran for onward passage to al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Working with the Iranian government, al-Suri arranges the release of al-Qaida personnel from Iranian prisons. When al-Qaida operatives are released, the Iranian government transfers them to al-Suri, who then facilitates their travel to Pakistan.

As you might imagine, our "friends" in Iran flat out deny any connection. According to the Iranian news agency, Fars, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, "The American government's recent unwise scenario regarding Iran's involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks and the presence of an al Qaeda member in Iran is completely baseless. The US endangers international peace and security through repeating such false claims which are raised to meet Washington's political goals."


What's amazing about the reward and Yasin is the admission that he's been a liaison between al Qaeda and Iran since 2005 when he was 23 years old.  I know of drug dealing thugs who murder people every day and don't even have a sum this high on their heads.  Yasin's bounty is only $15 million less than Ayman Zawhiri, the new chief of al Qaeda.  What does this make Yasin?  I'll tell you what it makes him a high value target.  My guess is if captured or killed, Yasin's disappearance from the global terrorism scene would be a huge victory for American intelligence agencies as well as put a dent in the number of foreign fighters who appear to be growing exponentially.  Another reason you offer this kind of cash is because you know someone out there wants this money more than they care about Yasin.

So this leads me to wonder as to what happens if the government has actionable intelligence on his whereabouts possibly in Iran.  Do we send in Joint Special Operations assets to render him? Do we send in our drones? Do we apply "diplomatic pressure" (i.e. apply another series of ineffective sanctions with a country who does business with other countries not affected by our sanctions)?  Any covert actions, once discovered, could provoke the Iranians into more overt acts of aggression against the United States.

It is highly doubtful the US government expects to actually capture or kill him in Iran.  Why put up the reward then?  Perhaps it's a message for Iran to let them know we know who Yasin is and who he works for.  Whatever their reasons, the government is taking this guy very seriously.

To leave a tip (tell them The Security Dialogue sent you), click on the link below:
https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=tip&language=english

Here's a link to Yasin's wanted page:
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=suri

Here's the Treasury Department's Press Release in July 2011 about Yasin's network:
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1261.aspx

TSA vs The Cupcake Lady

Folks, I really do believe TSA has the toughest job during the holiday season.  They screen millions of travelers from all over the world.  Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the TSA has successfully kept America's skies safe.  That being said, there a few times in which the commit some of the dumbest mistakes in the name of security.

According to the Washington Post,

"Rebecca Hains said the Transportation Security Administration agent at McCarran International Airport took her cupcake Wednesday, telling her its frosting was enough like a gel to violate TSA restrictions on allowing liquids and gels onto flights to prevent them from being used as explosives." Here's the question that's going through my head - "Seriously?"

As a former military law enforcement officer, I can appreciate the zero-tolerance enforcement standards TSA has. In some security environments, it is best to enforce the rules with no exceptions. I also get the logic this TSA screener had. He or she saw the cupcakes with the glazed frosting which by the way probably looked nothing the ones above and assumed it was best to "play it safe".

Here's where things get strange. The cupcakes are allowed by TSA's regulation. I got this off of their blog listing typical "holiday items" you're allowed to bring on the plane:

Foods: Cakes, pies, bread, donuts, turkeys, etc. are all permitted. Here is a list of items that should be placed in your checked bags or shipped: cranberry sauce, creamy dips and spreads (cheeses, peanut butter, etc.), gift baskets with liquid or gel food items (salsa, jams and salad dressings), gravy (mmm gravy), jams, jellies, maple syrup, oils and vinegars, sauces, soups, wine, liquor and beer.

Is there "more to the story"? Probably. I think Ms. Hains encountered a very strict screener who was performing their duties as prescribed by law. Nothing wrong with that. However, the question which never crossed the screener's mind and is indicative of every foothold we in security take was "Is my taking this cupcake worth having my boss and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security hearing about through the Washington Post?" There are times when as a security officer you have to stick to your guns and take a stand no matter who it is you said the dreaded "no" word to. I'm just not sure two cupcakes from a previously screened passenger (remember she went through two airports to get to this point with zero issues) is worth it.

So what do you do? There is no right or wrong answer. You have to be there to figure it out. Perhaps, I would have inquired whether she had the icing with her (i.e. Is the icing cup in your carry-on). Had she replied that she did, then I would have inspected the icing and made a determination from there. I do find it ironic this screener is with an agency which just implemented a risk based philosophy towards passenger search criteria which is supposed to use intelligence, behavioral, and travel pattern data to eliminate these sorts of things from happening.

For a complete list of prohibited items, go to http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

GRAPHIC: UAV fleet breakdown

Here's a pretty cool graphic from the folks at The Post.   It gives a breakdown of our current drone fleet.

The growing U.S. drone fleet - The Washington Post

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

That's not C-4.....It's my denture cream!!

So, you going see your grandfather at the retirement village he now calls home.  During that visit, he tells you about his planned trip to Detroit.  As a security expert, you warn him about crime and other security-related issues there.  He politely nods and then reaches for his ankle and says, "Stop worrying......I got this covered", as he pulls up his trousers to reveal a fully-loaded semi-automatic pistol on his ankle.

The good folks at TSA stumbled upon one such "packing grandpa" at Detroit Metro Airport.  During a routine scan using "imaging technology", a .38 handgun was found on the unidentified 76 year old's ankle.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: Homegrown Terror Threat to Military Communities

Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who is charged with
murder in the Fort Hood shootings 

Love him or hate him - Congressman Peter King can get press coverage on homeland security better than anyone.  On December 7, 2011, he did not fail.  The committee he chairs, the House Committee on Homeland Security published a 14 page "investigative report" on the
"Homegrown Terror Threat to Military Communities".  So what did he say to land himself in the news again?  Oh, I don't know....Perhaps it was this little "gem" found in the report:

"The Committee’s Majority Staff has reason to believe that the actual number of radicalized troops is far more than publicly realized or acknowledged."

That's ironic because the FBI and the ADL have been practically shouting this for quite some time.  It appears to me either the Committee is a little behind on the counter-terrorism information or being a tad bit subjective.  Imagine - subjectivity in politics.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

I love it when lawmakers make sense.....

"Focusing on the followers of one religion as the only credible threat to the nation's security is inaccurate, narrow and blocks consideration of emerging threats," said Mississippi Democratic Congressman Ben Thompson, describing how America owes its military personnel a clear understanding of "their mission and a clear definition of their enemy."

"That enemy is not a religion and their mission is not to defeat an ideology. And while some of my colleagues appear to have difficulty grasping this, I am glad that our military people understand it."

Al Shabaab vs The Security Dialogue: Let the Twitter War Begin!!

I'm not necessarily a person who goes "looking for a fight" but I do detest bullies.  Moreover, I hate it when people take something "good" and distort into something more perverse.  So when I had a chance to confront the Somali Al Qaeda franchise - Al Shabaab, I couldn't resist but to get a few good jabs in.

It all started, when I learned they had their own Twitter profile.  One could say, I went looking to start a fight:

It would also be safe to say the boys from Al Shabaab were feeling the heat from all over the Twittersphere throughout Somalia (thanks Kenya):

It didn't help matters that I could have cared less:

I was little worried they didn't want to continue this any longer until....

So naturally I said:

The link I provided above is an article describing how
Al Shabaab has denied foreign aid access to Somalia's worst
hit famine areas.

I'm not sure how far I'll take my bantering with these guys.  All I know is they (the writer) is much more articulate with his English vernacular than I originally assumed.  For terrorists, they do seem to be a bit "thin-skinned".  I'm waiting for an actual tweet back from Al Shabaab.  I know they're busy waging jihad (shame it's the lesser jihad as pronounced by Muhaamad) but I'm beginning to wonder how they expect to win the propaganda war if they let something like my desire to pester them get in their way.  Stay tuned - this could get interesting.

For more on Al Shabaab, feel free to visit any of the links below:

1. http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/al_shabaab.html
2. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2009/08/20098432032479714.html
3. http://www.meforum.org/2486/somalia-al-shabaab-strategic-challenge
4. http://csis.org/files/publication/110715_Wise_AlShabaab_AQAM%20Futures%20Case%20Study_WEB.pdf
5. http://csis.org/publication/al-shabaab
6. http://csis.org/files/ts110524_Sanderson.pdf
7. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/28/us-somalia-aid-idUSTRE7AR0N720111128

Here are some aid groups which do work in Somalia (I HIGHLY encourage you to check them out and DONATE):

1. http://doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=68
2. http://care.org/
3. http://www.mercycorps.org/
4. http://www.unicefusa.org/work/emergencies/horn-of-africa/?gclid=CKTynZ-2kKoCFQHu7QoddxOsxw
5. http://www.icrc.org/
6. http://www.edesiaglobal.org/
7. Save the Children   
8. The World Food Programme  
9. World Vision  
10. The International Rescue Committee

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?"