The problem of prosecuting some of the main 9/11 plotters like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is the role of torture and the abrogation of rights, while new threats have been assessed for the likelihood of domestic terror attacks stimulated by the rightward swing of trumpism.
The prosecution of alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others restarts Tuesday, just days before the 20th anniversary of the attacks, stirring new hopes for justice and retribution.
Mohammed and his co-defendants, who have been locked up at the “War on Terror” prison at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for nearly 15 years, will appear in the military tribunal here for the first time since early 2019.
But after a 17-month halt due to the coronavirus pandemic, the proceedings appear likely to continue where they left off, mired in the defense’s efforts to disqualify most of the government’s evidence as tainted by the torture the defendants underwent in CIA custody.
[...]
Since the case started, prosecutors have regarded it as open-and-shut, even without the tainted information reaped from the brutal CIA interrogations.
Instead, prosecutors maintain that the defendants all provided solid evidence of conspiring in the 9/11 attacks during so-called “clean-team” interrogations conducted by the FBI in 2007, after the five arrived at Guantanamo.
But defense attorneys argue that the 2007 interrogations were hardly “clean” because the FBI also took part in the CIA’s torture program, and their interrogations carried a similar menace.
The defendants, still feeling the impact of torture at that time, spoke to the FBI under the real fear that it would start again, the defense contends.
www.france24.com/...
Last month, I recognized many of the same forces driving my fellow Americans into extremism. I’m not equating the Jan. 6 rioters with those fighting to unite the world under a caliphate via a global campaign of terrorism. But domestic radicalism has deep parallels to jihadist terrorism: Both movements are driven by alienation from the political system and a resulting breakdown in social norms. For some groups and individuals, this breakdown leads to violence they see as justified to achieve political ends. Law enforcement officials are taking notice. The Department of Homeland Security now identifies American extremist violence, particularly among white-supremacist groups, as “the most persistent and lethal threat” on our shores. And, at least in recent years, violent acts by right-wing extremists have exceeded those of Islamist terrorists. Since 9/11, 114 people have been killed in attacks by right-wing terrorists in the United States vs. 107 by jihadist terrorists, according to data compiled by New America.
The similarities between domestic and Islamist terror groups are hard to avoid. Followers of both are drawn to a cause greater than themselves that gives them a shared identity and a mission to correct perceived wrongs, by whatever means necessary. At the core of this cause is a profound sense of victimization and humiliation. The terrorists I met from Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and West London all believed that their pride and purpose had been stolen from them — by, in their case, the United States and its allies — and so were drawn to a movement that promised to restore that pride and purpose, even by violence. Today’s American extremists think (because they’ve been told by the former president and other leaders) the system is rigged against them and is bent on dismantling everything they believe in.
America’s radical right extremists and Afghanistan’s Taliban might seem like polar opposites, but their approach to financing, recruiting, propagandizing and fighting are surprisingly similar.
As someone who has worked on national security issues in the U.S. government for more than a decade, I’ve concluded that the U.S. “war on terror” launched in the wake of 9/11 has left us unprepared for the domestic threat that grows by the day. Complicating matters further is that in today’s politically charged environment, the Biden administration will find it difficult to pivot toward the domestic threat. But we must move beyond the narrow obsession with international terror and mitigate the extremist threat at home. Here are five ways to do so:
Fund and expand FBI capabilities: Until recently, the vast majority of FBI resources were devoted to tracking individuals tied to groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. While this is changing, the FBI’s resources are not yet aligned to the rising tide of domestic right-wing extremism. In 2019 congressional testimony, Michael McGarrity, then assistant director of the FBI’s counterterrorism division, said 20 percent of the bureau’s counterterrorism agents worked on domestic terrorism, with the rest devoted to international terrorism — even though, he noted, domestic terrorists carried out more attacks and killed more Americans than international terrorists. More agents devoted to investigating domestic extremists would be an important first step in understanding, and combating, the threat before us.
Update the domestic terrorism statute: …. A stronger terrorism statute would in many cases pave the way for longer prison sentences and provide clearer pathways to prosecution of accomplices — without violating constitutional concerns.
Treat the far-right challenge as a transnational issue. The U.S. intelligence community should adjust its collection priorities to better measure the overseas far-right threat posed by neo-Nazis and like-minded groups. …
Take the fight to social platforms: ...The U.S. government could sanction overseas far-right groups — essentially name them as terrorist entities — as an impetus for domestic social media platforms to shut down these groups’ access. This approach would aim to keep international terror groups from metastasizing in the United States.
Enlist nongovernment help. Finally, the U.S. government needs to encourage and fund private-sector and nonprofit programs that can help stunt extremism, because federal authorities are not viewed as honest brokers in this fight. We must enlist nongovernment groups that have experience at uncoupling individuals from extremism and that work side by side with local leaders to identify at-risk populations and individuals…
www.washingtonpost.com/…