New York City Counterterrorism Report: Profiling, Stereotyping, or Common Sense

The New York City (NYC) Police Department report on terrorism, mentioned in a Washington Post article yesterday (August 16, 2007), is the sort of long, detailed, official document that generally doesn't make the news. In fact, the paper only said enough about the report to give readers a general impression of its contents:

"The 90-page report, compiled by two police counterterrorism analysts, argues that the danger posed by homegrown radical Islamists is growing, fueled by Internet communications and the growing global popularity of jihadist ideology.

"But the report also concedes that "there is no useful profile . . . to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization" because those who end up being radicalized begin as 'unremarkable' individuals 'from various walks of life.'

"...The report by analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt outlines a four-step process, from 'pre-radicalization' to 'jihadization,' that it says is undergone by most terrorists before participating in an attack. The transformation is often triggered by a personal crisis and includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases, the report says."

I found more about the Silber-Bhatt report in the New York Post - "THE ROAD TO LOCAL JIHAD" (August 16, 2007). "Excerpted from "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," a report prepared by senior NYPD intelligence analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt for Police Commissioner Ray Kelly." There's quite a bit more about the report here.

Briefly:

The Silber-Bhatt report identifies four stages on the road to "jihadization," or being a terrorist. I'm going to boil it down even more: I suggest that you read the article, since I'm leaving out quite a bit of detail.

1. Pre-Radicalization
2. Self-Identification
3. Indoctrination
4. Jihadization

Expanding on that list,

1. Pre-Radicalization: This is when the terrorist-to-be is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person, with an ordinary life and job. There's usually no criminal history.
2. Self-Identification: The person starts moving toward Salafi Islam (1), and away from their old identity. They start associating themselves with people with the same mind-set, and adopt this ideology as their own. What sets this "religious seeking" off is is a cognitive opening, or crisis, which shakes the person's certainty about what they believed before. The person is open to new world-views.
   The trigger can be: losing a job; alienation, discrimination, or racism (real or imagined, as long as the person feels it); political, like "international conflicts involving Muslims" (my own guess is that politics on the regional or local level could be a trigger, too); death in the family, or another personal crisis. Self-identification is basically an individual act. However, being part of a group with similar beliefs is important, especially as the next step gets closer.
3. Indoctrination: The person "progressively intensifies his (2) beliefs," swallows jihadi-Salafi, ideology and an all, and concludes, no questions asked, that it's time for action. Specifically, militant jihad. The person is helped (and pushed) through this phase by a "spiritual sanctioner." Being with people who are in a similar frame of mind, and with similar beliefs, gets more important: particularly as the person sinks deeper into the group's beliefs. "By the indoctrination phase this self-selecting group becomes increasingly important as radical views are encouraged and reinforced."
4. Jihadization: This is where members of the little band accept being part of jihad as their individual duty. They call themselves as holy warriors, or mujahedeen. Sooner or later, they get practical and get into "acts in furtherance." These acts include planning, preparation and execution: of people; or the plans; or both. The earlier parts of getting radical can be gradual, covering two or three years or more. Jihadization can happen fast, anywhere from a few months to a few weeks.

A Washington Post article mentioned that this process "includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases." Although dropping out of a mosque is a common part of the jihadization process, the report includes mosques, as well as cafes, cabdriver hangouts, prisons, student associations, nongovernmental organizations and hookah bars, in its list of places where radicals can be hatched.

The Washington Post's "Terror Threat Grows Quietly, Report Warns" article wraps up its description of the NYC Police report with a quote, "'The subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization makes it difficult to identify or even monitor from a law enforcement standpoint,' the report concludes."

That's the report. Here are some reactions to it.

"Making all Muslims suspects is ethnic profiling, and it's unconstitutional," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. (from the Washington Post) (NYCLU is the (New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union)

"So while labeling almost every American Muslim as a potential terrorist, the report's authors admit that their findings offer no useful way to identify real terror suspects." (from a Council of Council on American-Islamic Relations press release, "CAIR: NYPD Terror Report Casts Suspicion on All U.S. Muslims," August 15, 2007)

The NYPD report was "unfortunate stereotyping" and at odds with federal law enforcement findings that the threat from homegrown terrorists was minimal, according to an Arab-American civil rights group.. "It [the report] is completely un-American; it goes against everything we stand for," said Kareem Shora, executive director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "We do not want to alienate any segment of any community, and by using that language you are actually aiding the extremists in their recruiting efforts."

Under the circumstances, I'd say the reaction to this report is fairly mild. Two days after the excitement started, news coverage I've seen has been subdued or non-existent.

It's early days, though.

Major players in the civil-rights game, like CAIR and the ACLU, through its New York State affiliate, as well as relatively unknown groups like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee started with the predictable accusations of profiling, and stereotyping.

My guess is that, if New York City law enforcement starts acting on this report, there will be more-or-less wild accusations of civil rights violations, profiling, and, of course, racism.

What got relatively little attention in coverage of the NYC Police report was that Muslims in America haven't gotten radicalized the way that Muslims in Europe have. I think that this reflects something that the civil-rights community in general has a great deal of difficulty understanding about this country.

Every identifiable group of immigrants have been viewed by suspicion by some, and occasionally subjected to discrimination (real discrimination: not I-was-arrested because-I'm-Yougarian thing (3)) on an official level, in America. Just the same, this country is much more comfortable about having one more ethnic group living here than European countries seem to be.

I think it's because by now we're accustomed to having corned beef and cabbage, enchiladas, potato curry, and stir-fried bean curd on menus downtown, and the people who eat these dishes at home, living within a few blocks.

Footnotes:

(1) Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam. Adherents more often refer to teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam." "Wahhabi" is a common term for the same group, although Salafi Muslims do not generally use it. People who belong to this type of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (that is, "Unitarians," or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). Wahhabism is one a particular set of beliefs within Salafism. Most Islamic "puritanical" groups are Salafi, but not necessarily Wahhabi.
(2) Although I found no news report which mentioned this gaffe, the NYC Police report seems to be sexist, too. At least, by PC standards.
(3) Yougarian: Of or relating to Yougaria, a fictional country of uncertain location. I use it sometimes, as a generic term: mostly because it's somewhat more adaptable, and much cooler, than "foreigner."

T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense

My post earlier today, "T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'," tells about Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in the United States, who chose to wear a T-shirt with bold Arabic lettering, days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners. Again.

He's suing, of course.

Maybe scaring airline passengers is a constitutional right. The ACLU is backing Mr. Jarrar, the architect who says his civil rights were violated, so I think we can count on this case being taken as far as it will go in the courts.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other about the profound constitutional issues involved. Not in this post, anyway. I don't have expert knowledge in constitutional law.

On the other hand, I think that over a half-century of living in the real world has given me a little knowledge about common sense.

Based on my experience, Mr. Jarrar was not showing common sense. Not if he was serious about wanting to board that JetBlue airliner quietly.

I mean to say: a few days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners, wearing a black shirt with big white letters - in Arabic?!

The sad fact is that there is the people who knocked over the World Trade Center in New York City were from the Arabic-speaking part of the world. The people who have been chanting "Death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan America!" all these years have been doing so in Arabic.

Like it or not, Arabic has been linked with some very anti-social activity. Moreover, many people are not broad-minded enough to risk being part of the next jihadist martyrdom, just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

I hope that the Flying Imams (I still think that would be a good name for a rock group) and Mr. Jarrar's T-shirt escapade don't represent an increase of false alarms triggered by daft behavior.

I'm very fond of my hypothetical Scandinavian Lutheran terrorists, so I'm going to indulge in another mini-story about them.

If you find that sort of thing annoying, you should stop reading this post now. There won't be anything else after this paragraph.

In case you missed the setup of this very hypothetical situation, here's an excerpt from a previous post.

Let's say that Scandinavian Lutherans had, for decades, been blowing up airplanes, buses, and themselves in what they called a Ragnarokathon. Leaned scholars explained that the Scandinavian Lutherans were doing this because western culture didn't appreciate lutefisk and lefse.

Then, in the fall of 2001, Scandinavian Lutherans, mostly from Sweden, blew up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Thousands of people were killed. The skyscraper was destroyed by crashing two airliners into it.

It's five years later. A few days earlier, Norwegians belonging to Eske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø (ELLD) were foiled in their plans to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

You're in a New York City airport. You notice that a fellow passenger, six-foot-something (two meters) Kjell Hanssen is wearing a black T-shirt.

The first thing you notice is probably not how well it sets off his pale blond hair and blue eyes. You're more likely to notice the big white letters spelling out "Stillhet er ikke en valgmuligheten." You might even notice the English translation, in small lettering below: "Silence is not an option," a phrase used by those protesting the war in Denmark.

You've got quite a few options, including

• Ignore Kjell, and hope he's not a terrorist
• Alert one of the flight crew or a guard of the shirt and its slogan, and your visceral reaction to it
• Beat Kjell to within an inch of his life, just in case
• Make a mental note to contribute to the Defense Alliance for Witless Norwegians (DAWN)

I'm sure you can think of other options.

I don't think that the second option would be that far out of line, under the circumstances.

Finally, in case you wondered what the name of that hypothetical Scandinavian terrorist group, "Elske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø" (ELLD), means, here's the name in English: "Adore Lutefisk and Lefse or Die." Catchy, isn't it?

T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'

"I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen.

"But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the US."

These were the words of Mr. Raed Jarrar, an architect, who wasn't allowed to board a JetBlue airliner in New York. Just because of his T-shirt!

If fact, he wasn't allowed to board until he got another T-shirt to wear.

Shocking!

And he's gonna sue!

That's not really so shocking, come to think about it.

On the surface, this looks like a clear case of racism, islamophobia, or something scary like that. Mr. Jarrar grew up in Iraq, moving to to the United States in 2005. The T-shirt he was wearing was black, with the words "We Will Not Be Silent" written on it in white.

In Arabic.

These days, "We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan used by people against the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East. The BBC article on Mr. Jarrar's troubles says that the phrase comes from the White Rose dissident group in Nazi Germany. "Resistance group" might be a better term, but "dissident" is the more groovily relevant term these days. That's another topic.

The Curious Affair of the Architect's Shirt started August 12, 2007.

"We Will Not Be Silent" was boldly proclaimed on Mr. Jarrar's shirt in Arabic, and, in much smaller lettering, in English.

The black-shirted Iraqi-American boarded the flight "days after British law enforcement officials announced they had disrupted a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights," the New York Sun pointed out.

I wouldn't have chosen that day to wear a black T-shirt with Arabic writing in big, bold, white lettering.

Mr Jarrar said that the T-Shirt slogan was protected by his "constitutional rights to free expression."

He finally consented wear another T-shirt, another T-shirt, purchased for him by a JetBlue employee at the airport gift shop. At least, that's what the Mr. Jarrar's complaint says.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gotten involved with Mr. Jarrar's lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over the T-shirt affair. This should be interesting.

If Mr. Jarrar's lawyer decides to play Mr. Jarrar as an a-political architect whose just happened to wear a T-shirt with a harmless slogan, I hope that the court will take a few facts in mind:

• A month before the T-shirt incident, Raed Jarrar wrote "An Illegal War Degenerates / Iraq: Raped." He has a definite position on U.S. involvement in Iraq, and has actively promoted that position
• Raed Jarrar is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange

Global Exchange says that, in contrast to "US companies such as Nike abusing the women who make its shoes, the US government fueling an illegal, unjustified, murderous war in Iraq, or the World Trade Organization (WTO) undercutting consumer and environmental protections, Global Exchange offers itself as a partner for peace and social justice."

Mr. Jarrar's bolg is In The Middle / Raed Jarrar's Blog.

FISA Updated: for a Limited Time Only

I suppose that "half a loaf is better than none." Congress has given law enforcement a little more leeway, temporarily, in how they find out who's going to have a shot at killing Americans again. The bill's last stop is the White House, where President Bush has said he'll sign it.

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) bill will "expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants" when communications between foreign suspects pass through the United States.

FISA dates from 1978, and apparently hasn't been overhauled until now. Reviews of U.S. intelligence-gathering rules following the 9/11 attacks made Congress aware of FISA and how poorly it addressed technologies like cell phones and e-mail that had developed in the last thirty years.

Acting with the speed and resolve that I have become accustomed to, a version of FISA that recognizes the last three decades of changes information technology finally passed through congress.

Predictably, the ACLU doesn't want FISA updated.

Also predictably, "privacy" was a concern for many of our leaders. Excerpted from a ZDNet article:
"Can you assure us that no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al-Qaida or otherwise?" Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, asked at one point early in the daylong hearing.

Some of the meaningful debate was about due process for communications intercepts. I appreciate the need for, and value of, due process.

What I question is whether in is wise to risk people's lives while a judge gets around to reading a request for a search warrant: and then risking that the request will be denied because of some weird connection to something in the Constitution. (Since the 4th Amendment may be boring in this connection, how about citing the 1st? Quite a few jihadists are religiously motivated, after all.)

Despite these concerns, the House agreed to give law enforcement a little leeway in monitoring terrorists: by a vote of 227-183. For six months. Then it's back to 1978.

That time limit was the Republicans' idea. Democrats wanted the bill limited to four months.

I wish that Congress would ease up on protecting us from the police, and pay more attention to protecting us from terrorists.