Domestic Terror

After nearly a decade of the word ‘terrorism’ being virtually synonymous with ‘foreign extremist’ in the United States, the March 2010 arrest of nine Hutaree militia members for “conspiring to levy war” against the U.S. government has once again thrust domestic security risks into the forefront of the national conversation.

Much of the Hutaree’s philosophical foundation is shared by many of the estimated 130 armed militia groups in the United States. While they vary in priority from group to group, many of these ‘patriot’ militia groups share the same elements: fear of government authority (specifically fear of the government disarming civilians), Christian fundamentalism, nationalism, and racism.

The overwhelming majority of these militia groups pose no real risk, resembling highly political gun clubs more than paramilitary organizations. However, the incendiary rhetoric they espouse has ultimately resulted in violent actions in the past. Easily the most notable is the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 persons and injured nearly 700 more. This, the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to the September 2001 attacks, was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both of whom were associated with the militia movement.

From the Hutaree Website: “Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment…We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren’t. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming.”

The militia movement has always been present in the United States, dating back to the first years of rebellion; indeed, virtually all militia members see in themselves kindred spirits with the ‘everymen’ who took up arms against the British during the Revolutionary War. The movement has, however, waxed and waned in popularity, generally along economic lines. The Waco incident, along with the economic recession of the early 1990s, inspired a huge resurgence in militia enrollment (as well as serving as the primary inspiration of Timothy McVeigh). By the end of that decade, radical militias had all but vanished; the economy was recovering, a strict conservative was in the White House, and the national focus was soundly on a foreign threat.

The Fringe of the Fringe

Any ideological organization provides a certain closed group dynamic, a safe bubble in which one can openly embrace and talk about opinions that in the larger society might be greeted with repulsion, confusion, or anger. This shifting of 'normal' results in jarring culture shock when someone from these small societies is suddenly thrust into the larger. One who might only be a slight outlier in a militia meeting room could be viewed as a near sociopath by the standards of society at large. Thus, while a militia group itself may not communally become physically violent, it can serve as a sort of support group, feeding the ideology of the few among them who intend to move from thoughts and words to actions.

The targets of these radicals have been consistent for decades: the more politically inclined target government buildings associated with tax collection or law enforcement. The religious fundamentalists target abortion providers, particularly Planned Parenthood facilities. The racial purists attack notable individuals or centers focusing on a particular ethnicity or religion, particularly Jewish synagogues.

Where would one draw the line between hateful speech and inciting violence? Between a militia group and a terrorist organization? Between the act of a lone-wolf rightwing extremist and a terrorist attack? These seemingly philosophical questions have a very real impact on which tools law enforcement has available to detect and prevent ideological violence before the perpetrators have the opportunity to execute their plans.

The Patriot Act in particular allows law enforcement significant leeway in dealing with terrorist investigations; however, there is a definite reluctance to apply that term to domestic extremist groups. The indictment of the Hutaree, for example, charges them with being an “anti-government organization which advocates violence against local, state, and Federal law enforcement.” The group was charged with Seditious Conspiracy and Attempt to use Weapons of Mass Destruction as well as several weapons-related charges, but there was no mention of the word terrorism.

While politics and public relations are certainly partial causes for this reluctance, law enforcement is no doubt also taking care to ensure it does not produce a counterproductive backlash. Waco and other incidents in the early 1990s created the perception of a government crackdown on militias; the response was a drastic surge in militia membership. Even the possibility of tightened gun-control laws is sufficient to send sales of weapons and ammunition skyrocketing. If law enforcement made an observable effort to categorize more domestic ideological groups as terrorists, it would almost certainly result in more frequent attacks.

Perhaps the largest game-changer in this conversation is the Internet, which has the potential to exacerbate the closed-group mentality that fosters potentially violent ideologues. Chat rooms and websites on every manner of topic allow one to surround themselves only with those who hold their opinion. A man sitting in a predominately African-American neighborhood can have a bustling internet social life communing only with neo-Nazi white supremacists. A global community of many thousands would be there to validate his opinions, make them seem typical, even suggest avenues to push them further into extremes. He can create a life where he nearly never needs to be exposed to contrary points of view, where no one would see the potential for very real violence.

Our whole media structure is following the internet, increasingly allowing individuals to customize their data intake to suit their philosophy. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, one can find news channels, newspapers, radio talk shows, and internet social groups catering to one's worldview. This will greatly complicate the problem of predicting militia and hate group related violence in the United States. Soon, a mere counting of militia groups or hate groups will no longer give an accurate assessment of the severity of the threat. For that, one would have to immerse oneself in their virtual communities, read their blogs, listen to their talk shows, and continually revise one's definition of 'normal'.

Domestic Terror

After nearly a decade of the word ‘terrorism’ being virtually synonymous with ‘foreign extremist’ in the United States, the March 2010 arrest of nine Hutaree militia members for “conspiring to levy war” against the U.S. government has once again thrust domestic security risks into the forefront of the national conversation.

Much of the Hutaree’s philosophical foundation is shared by many of the estimated 130 armed militia groups in the United States. While they vary in priority from group to group, many of these ‘patriot’ militia groups share the same elements: fear of government authority (specifically fear of the government disarming civilians), Christian fundamentalism, nationalism, and racism.

The overwhelming majority of these militia groups pose no real risk, resembling highly political gun clubs more than paramilitary organizations. However, the incendiary rhetoric they espouse has ultimately resulted in violent actions in the past. Easily the most notable is the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 persons and injured nearly 700 more. This, the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to the September 2001 attacks, was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, both of whom were associated with the militia movement.

From the Hutaree Website: “Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment…We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren’t. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming.”

The militia movement has always been present in the United States, dating back to the first years of rebellion; indeed, virtually all militia members see in themselves kindred spirits with the ‘everymen’ who took up arms against the British during the Revolutionary War. The movement has, however, waxed and waned in popularity, generally along economic lines. The Waco incident, along with the economic recession of the early 1990s, inspired a huge resurgence in militia enrollment (as well as serving as the primary inspiration of Timothy McVeigh). By the end of that decade, radical militias had all but vanished; the economy was recovering, a strict conservative was in the White House, and the national focus was soundly on a foreign threat.

The Fringe of the Fringe

Any ideological organization provides a certain closed group dynamic, a safe bubble in which one can openly embrace and talk about opinions that in the larger society might be greeted with repulsion, confusion, or anger. This shifting of 'normal' results in jarring culture shock when someone from these small societies is suddenly thrust into the larger. One who might only be a slight outlier in a militia meeting room could be viewed as a near sociopath by the standards of society at large. Thus, while a militia group itself may not communally become physically violent, it can serve as a sort of support group, feeding the ideology of the few among them who intend to move from thoughts and words to actions.

The targets of these radicals have been consistent for decades: the more politically inclined target government buildings associated with tax collection or law enforcement. The religious fundamentalists target abortion providers, particularly Planned Parenthood facilities. The racial purists attack notable individuals or centers focusing on a particular ethnicity or religion, particularly Jewish synagogues.

Where would one draw the line between hateful speech and inciting violence? Between a militia group and a terrorist organization? Between the act of a lone-wolf rightwing extremist and a terrorist attack? These seemingly philosophical questions have a very real impact on which tools law enforcement has available to detect and prevent ideological violence before the perpetrators have the opportunity to execute their plans.

The Patriot Act in particular allows law enforcement significant leeway in dealing with terrorist investigations; however, there is a definite reluctance to apply that term to domestic extremist groups. The indictment of the Hutaree, for example, charges them with being an “anti-government organization which advocates violence against local, state, and Federal law enforcement.” The group was charged with Seditious Conspiracy and Attempt to use Weapons of Mass Destruction as well as several weapons-related charges, but there was no mention of the word terrorism.

While politics and public relations are certainly partial causes for this reluctance, law enforcement is no doubt also taking care to ensure it does not produce a counterproductive backlash. Waco and other incidents in the early 1990s created the perception of a government crackdown on militias; the response was a drastic surge in militia membership. Even the possibility of tightened gun-control laws is sufficient to send sales of weapons and ammunition skyrocketing. If law enforcement made an observable effort to categorize more domestic ideological groups as terrorists, it would almost certainly result in more frequent attacks.

Perhaps the largest game-changer in this conversation is the Internet, which has the potential to exacerbate the closed-group mentality that fosters potentially violent ideologues. Chat rooms and websites on every manner of topic allow one to surround themselves only with those who hold their opinion. A man sitting in a predominately African-American neighborhood can have a bustling internet social life communing only with neo-Nazi white supremacists. A global community of many thousands would be there to validate his opinions, make them seem typical, even suggest avenues to push them further into extremes. He can create a life where he nearly never needs to be exposed to contrary points of view, where no one would see the potential for very real violence.

Our whole media structure is following the internet, increasingly allowing individuals to customize their data intake to suit their philosophy. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, one can find news channels, newspapers, radio talk shows, and internet social groups catering to one's worldview. This will greatly complicate the problem of predicting militia and hate group related violence in the United States. Soon, a mere counting of militia groups or hate groups will no longer give an accurate assessment of the severity of the threat. For that, one would have to immerse oneself in their virtual communities, read their blogs, listen to their talk shows, and continually revise one's definition of 'normal'.