Defying all expectations, the United States has avoided another serious domestic terrorist attack since 2001. Part of the credit for this success may be due to good cooperation between the FBI and Muslim community organizations inside the U.S. But a recent string of "self-radicalization" terror cases has put pressure on these relationships. FBI field agents and managers are under pressure to prevent another attack. According to the New York Times article there is a debate within the FBI about how it should manage its relationships with the U.S. Muslim community:
It also attests to differing views within the bureau about the effectiveness of community outreach, said Michael Rolince, a former director of counterterrorism in the F.B.I.'s Washington field office. Some factions within the agency, he said, have always been leery of Islamic and Arab-American organizations, considering their loyalties to be divided ... But by most accounts, the unraveling of ties between the F.B.I. and Muslim-Americans began two years ago, with the F.B.I.'s decision to stop sharing information with the nation's most prominent Muslim civil rights organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The F.B.I. said it was motivated by council executives' failure to answer questions about links with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The executives denied any such connection, and accused the F.B.I. of staining the council's reputation without due process.
The FBI is caught in a vise. It will get the blame if there is another spectacular attack and is responding by putting more pressure on its contacts with U.S. Muslim groups. Those groups increasingly don't like the pressure and are pushing back.
In the second story, the game of spy-versus-spy is back, this time on the U.S.-Mexican border. The U.S. Customs Service attempts to infiltrate Mexico's drug cartels. But the drug cartels have their own spies embedded inside U.S. law enforcement agencies:
James Tomsheck, the assistant commissioner for internal affairs at Customs and Border Protection, and other investigators said they had seen many signs that the drug organizations were making a concerted effort to infiltrate the ranks."We are very concerned," Mr. Tomsheck said. "There have been verifiable instances where people were directed to C.B.P. to apply for positions only for the purpose of enhancing the goals of criminal organizations. They had been selected because they had no criminal record; a background investigation would not develop derogatory information."
I recommend reading both articles.
Comments
@ Wim:
You are absolutely right. No offense meant but some Muslims really can't be trusted. Sorry, based on my personal experience.
<a href="http://iamdavie.com/premier-credit-card/">premier credit card</a>
All,
Ok, I'll stand up for WIM. His position is rational and consistent with the principles America was founded upon.
Do Hamas and Hezbollah "threaten" America? Certainly. Are they a "threat to" America? Not in this lifetime. It is one thing to say "Death to America," It is a far different matter to carry of such an assassination.
Even if some such group were to detonate a nuclear device in a major American city, millions would die, but America would survive. The Soviet threat was a far different matter, and a mistake there could have cleared the decks of both countries.
I will not justify the tactics of Hamas and Hezbollah. Their causes may well have merit and be forced upon them by powerful outsiders, but the choice of terrorist tactics is their own, and they should be held to task for their crimes. But there are no clean hands here, and Americans do well to keep that in mind.
To Lance and Autodidact I recommend that you consider why it is that organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah exist; and serparately, why it is that they feel so strongly that attacks on America are essential to their cause. While it is true that these organizations are made up of Muslims, I challenge the widespread proposition that they exist solely, or even primarily, because they are Muslims.
Ideology does not cause such resistance; it is merely the tool to rally the young men to take up the cause, and the general populace to support it in the face of great challenge. Just as Catholics and Protestants did not fight in Northern Ireland because of their religion, those were merely the religions of those who fought; similarly true in the Arab-Israeli dispute as well. A dispute, btw, the U.S. has taken a side in, and placed itself in the middle of.
Wim,
Are you joking? The Muslim Brotherhood not a threat? Hamas? I imagine you think Hezbollah is just a misunderstood charity. Islam is the ultimate totalitarian belief system. Where it mingles with the west violence will always ensue. From a minority of zealots perhaps, but come it always does. Count the attacks since 9-11 world wide.
As for McCarthy, hollywood works overtime to make themselves look noble. We find out years later that McCarthy, while a buffon was largely right about the infiltration of our government. Look up the Venona Papers. The FBI tracked the very people he railed against for good reason.
Wim, look at your country. Holland has all kinds of problems with Muslim immigrants. What about Pete Fortum and Leo VanGogh? Can you honestly tell me you are not worried for your culture and your people?
Wim,
"Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood are no threat to the US." Really? When they openly pronounce "Death to America!" and are supported by regimes who whould love to see nothing more than the elimination of the U.S. as a sovereign entity? When they attempt to assassinate our former presidents of the United States in the Gaza strip? I guess your idea of a threat is a bit skewed.
McCarthyism was a bad time in the U.S. Agreed. And it didn't "out" that many true communists; it hurt U.S. counterintelligence efforts much more.
However, our nation, and its domestic security agencies have a duty to secure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all Americans. That being said, when a group, regardless of race, creed, faith, or color, has as its goal the subversion of the constitutional government of the U.S., the FBI and other relevant agencies should use all legal means necessary to "identify, deceive, exploit, disrupt, or protect against espionage" from such groups or agents of such groups.
The U.S. saw the Soviet Union as such a threat and engaged on a counterintelligence mission to mitigate and exploit that threat. The American public saw no problem with going spy vs. spy against the Soviets or agents of the Soviets. What makes the Soviet threat any different that the threat from Islamist extremist groups or individuals?
These types of groups use U.S. democratic institutions and our legal system to penetrate and influence U.S. policymakers. If we continue to think with conventional wisdom, this threat will go unaddressed. For some of these supposed "charity" groups are up to more than just charity. Charity might be a legitimate part of the groups structure, but only to serve as a front for the other half that's engaged in malicious activities that threaten American lives.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood are no threat to the US. That makes demanding that all Muslim organisations denounce in my eyes unjustified.
The article reminded me of the McCarthy hunt against communists. Just as at that time everyone left of the center risked being branded as a communist now Muslims seem in the same position.
The main Muslim complaint in the article is about the use of FBI infiltrants and their operating as agent provocateur. I can understand how destabilizing that works in communities.