Former counterterrorism chief: Trump defeat may prompt right-wing terror attacks

[brihard]

Regarding same- a 17 year old male has been arrested and charged with first degree intentional homicide. Not sure how many counts of same. Once we get a sense of which specific shooting(s) he’s charged with, that will be indicative.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I understood that he was part of a group that was guarding property and one person he shot was holding a gun, another may have been using a skateboard as a weapon. As video of the incident is collected, it may be difficult to prosecute for murder and likely his lawyer will claim self-defense.

 

[Remius]

It matters because there will be more vigilantism if authorities continue to decline to exercise the powers that were delegated to them.  And it won't do to try and push it off as "terrorism".  To describe people defending themselves or their homes or their businesses (their "property") - righteously or mistakenly - as terrorists is to incite them (and others) to vote for the politicians who stand against the disorder.  How badly do people want to unseat Trump?  Badly enough to swallow some of their self-indulgent satisfaction at watching the ongoing temper tantrum?  Badly enough to take the media to task if the media start playing word games in order to try and score political points?

Vigilantism must, like any problem, be correctly identified to be fixed.  And the fix for vigilantism is government-imposed order.

All good points.  Interesting that it seems that he cane to protect “his” property and business from out of state .  He came from Illinois. 

Wisconsin is an open carry state.  What powers to the authorities have to stop this sort of vigilantism? People are free to walk around with guns and stand at public places like gas stations and such.  So how does one stop that when the laws allow it.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Do you have a source for that?

I don't think there are official sources willing to admit or consider the left as dangerous, despite the evidence we can see with our own eyes by following what's going on in current events.

For political reasons, I suspect, law enforcement does not consider the rioting and looting going on in many large U.S. cities to be a problem.

Yet they do media releases warning us about the "far right terror". If the far right is so dangerous, how come the U.S. didn't have the sorts of civil unrest it's experiencing now when Obama was elected or during his two terms? I recall dire warning of white supremacist violence if Obama won a second term. He did, nothing happened. Also, the white supremacists small numbers and pathetic stupidity at Charlottesville is evidence to me that these guys couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and the threat is overblown.

Similarly, if Biden wins I bet nothing happens. Whereas if Trump wins I think we haven't seen anything yet.

The problem is that all of this stuff has become so politicized it is hobbling law enforcement. They're not allowed to acknowledge any threat from the left because that will be decried as racist or crazy conspiracy theorism.

 

[QV]

More and more people are seeing it that way.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

All good points.  Interesting that it seems that he cane to protect “his” property and business from out of state .  He came from Illinois. 

Wisconsin is an open carry state.  What powers to the authorities have to stop this sort of vigilantism? People are free to walk around with guns and stand at public places like gas stations and such.  So how does one stop that when the laws allow it.

If authorities CEASE "to decline to exercise the powers that were delegated to them" the vigilantism will disappear.

Authorities don't need to arrest the vigilantes and they probably can't stop them all. But if they start enforcing the law again and restore peoples' trust that in the authorities and belief that law and order has been restored, you won't see people walking around with ARs just like you didn't see them doing that before the rioting and looting started with (near) impunity.

 

[mariomike]

For an informed opinion,

From the Original Post,

Former counterterrorism chief: Trump defeat may prompt right-wing terror attacks

Sean D. Naylor •National Security Correspondent
August 18, 2020, 3:09 PM GMT-4•10 mins read
https://news.yahoo.com/former-counterterror-chief-trump-defeat-may-prompt-rightwing-terror-attacks-190913288.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr

The former head of the National Counterterrorism Center said he would not be surprised if right-wing domestic terrorist groups stage attacks in the United States around this November’s presidential election.

“It certainly wouldn’t surprise me, particularly if the administration loses,” said Russ Travers, who was the center’s acting director when he was fired by President Trump’s hand-picked acting director of national intelligence.

Trump, who is behind in all national polls, has repeatedly claimed that the expected widespread use of mail-in ballots during a national pandemic will lead to “massive fraud and abuse” and an election result that is “rigged” against him. “The political rhetoric is such that you could very easily see some backlash” from white supremacist or other right-wing terror groups, Travers said.

Travers is not alone in his assessment. An Aug. 17 Department of Homeland Security analysis also warns of possible election-related attacks. “We assess ideologically-motivated violent extremists and other violent actors could quickly mobilize to threaten or engage in violence against election or campaign-related targets in response to perceived partisan and policy-based grievances,” says the document, which was obtained by Yahoo News.

Despite Trump’s declared intent to designate the left-wing activist movement known as antifa as a domestic terror organization, the threat from right-wing groups dwarfs that of their left-wing counterparts in the United States, according to Travers.

More at link

 

[ArmyRick]

I must be a real simple idiot.

For months I have seen the radical left beat people, burn cars, riot in the streets, attempt to take over part of a city (with multiple shootings involved), loot, severely injure and even kill people (including black people, way to stand up for them), burn down buildings, the list goes on and on.

The alleged far right? not much news I see, really pales in comparison to the other side.

Is this hidden far right threat just like that allegation of the kid with a red MAGA hat accused of racism towards natives (who CNN has now had top pay up and made him filthy rich for false accusations) or similar to our hijab cutting incident?

I am not saying their are not racist or white supremacist movements in the USA or even here, but from what I see on the news (all sources) the antifa/radical left is way more prevalent. IMO, antifa is the modern brown shirt movement.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Is this hidden far right threat just like that allegation of the kid with a red MAGA hat accused of racism towards natives (who CNN has now had top pay up and made him filthy rich for false accusations) or similar to our hijab cutting incident? ...

You're right about how prevalent left-wing protest & vandalism is -- and to those who say "it's only a few who are idiots breaking s**t and being violent", well, as someone smarter than me said, you accept the standard you walk by -- but that doesn't mean the right-wing dial setting is zero. 

How many Antifa can you spot in these pictures of masked, armed protesters very directly pressuring legislators politically via threat of violence?

Sources of photos here, here & here.

OP edited to fix duplicate photo

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=milnews.ca]

How many Antifa can you spot in these pictures of masked, armed protesters very directly pressuring legislators politically via threat of violence?
[/quote]

Thats easy. None because the windows aren't smashed and nothing is on fire  ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

I'd argue none of those protestors pictured are using the threat of violence on legislators. A Democrat could walk up to them without fear for their life and have even a heated debate. The same could not be said for the Antifa swarming senators as they left the RNC.

There is a distinct difference between being armed and brandishing that firearm to intimidate people to force political change.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thats easy. None because the windows aren't smashed and nothing is on fire  ;D

Touché  :rofl:

I'd argue none of those protestors pictured are using the threat of violence on legislators. A Democrat could walk up to them without fear for their life and have even a heated debate. The same could not be said for the Antifa swarming senators as they left the RNC.

Good point - agreed (caveated:  probably with most).

There is a distinct difference between being armed and brandishing that firearm to intimidate people to force political change.

Well, one may not have to "brandish" weapons to try to force political change - it may be different points on the spectrum between "brandishing" and "carrying openly* in a place where one does government business", but some would see it on the same spectrum of trying to push political change.

* - Admittedly legally at the time.

 

[Remius]

Reading this thread again. Hindsight is 20/20 but the guy who wrote that article sure had some foresight. Interesting to see the discussion and now under the current climate.

 

[brihard]

Reading this thread again. Hindsight is 20/20 but the guy who wrote that article sure had some foresight. Interesting to see the discussion and now under the current climate.

Indeed. Thanks for reviving this one- I think it'll be more appropriate for some ongoing and, unfortunately, probably future discussions.

 

[Good2Golf]

The entire thread makes for interesting reading.

As well does a follow-on interview with Travers in December noting the significant, almost systematic dismantling of the NCTC’s capabilities, that notably impacted its ability to identify terroristic threats, foreign or domestic...left or right.

The sad, scary case of the National Counterterrorism Center​

(Article link)

The incoming Biden administration must quickly address a potentially dangerous intelligence problem the Trump administration has allowed to fester — the decline and demoralization of the National Counterterrorism Center, which is supposed to coordinate protection of the homeland but has been starved of resources. Russell Travers, the former acting director of the NCTC, disclosed in an interview with me this week that he filed a “whistleblower” complaint about his agency’s plight with Congress in June 2020. Paraphrasing the complaint, he said it warned that lack of funds and personnel was “steadily, almost imperceptibly undermining the center and increasing the risk” of another attack like that on Sept. 11, 2001, which the NCTC was created to prevent.
Travers revealed new details of the infighting that took place this year under acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell, who served from February to May, when he was replaced by John Ratcliffe. Travers’s complaint, as he outlined it, portrays an intelligence community foundering under mismanagement and political backbiting.

One chilling example: Travers described an NCTC so weakened by budget and personnel shortages that it couldn’t adequately collate information into what’s known as its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, leaving the country potentially vulnerable to undetected attackers. Travers and other experts said this data analytics problem could be handled by private companies with adequate resources that are lacking at the NCTC.

One chilling example: Travers described an NCTC so weakened by budget and personnel shortages that it couldn’t adequately collate information into what’s known as its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, leaving the country potentially vulnerable to undetected attackers. Travers and other experts said this data analytics problem could be handled by private companies with adequate resources that are lacking at the NCTC.


“I was ostensibly the ‘mission manager’ for terrorism, but I had no authority to compel anyone outside of NCTC to do anything,” Travers told me.


Travers said he met March 5 with Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, to “express concerns” about the “chronic inability” of the NCTC to obtain resources, including a hiring freeze imposed by Grenell. Then, on March 13, Travers told Grenell’s then-chief operating officer, Deirdre Walsh, about the conversation with Atkinson. Travers was fired five days later, on March 18.

Grenell’s spokesman claimed that Travers, a career intelligence officer, hadn’t been sacked. But Travers told me such reports were “inaccurate.” Travers was replaced by Christopher Miller, a Trump loyalist, who last month was elevated to become acting defense secretary after Mark T. Esper was “terminated” by President Trump in a tweet.

Behind this year’s game of musical chairs in the intelligence community lies a vexing question about how best to organize counterterrorism intelligence efforts. Terrorism is seen as a receding threat these days, and even Travers agrees that overall resources devoted to it should “shrink.” But how?

Some history is useful here: The NCTC was created in 2004 “to serve as the primary organization” in the U.S. government for analyzing and integrating terrorism intelligence. That was part of a broader reorganization that created the DNI’s office to coordinate the CIA, FBI and other agencies that had failed to “connect the dots” before 9/11.

But from the NCTC’s first day, some questioned whether the government needed a second counterterrorism clearinghouse when the CIA was still maintaining its own Counter-Terrorism Center at Langley. The CIA was supposed to provide analysts and other personnel to the NCTC as “detailees,” but this support was always grudging, increasingly so under Director Gina Haspel.

Travers said that by 2019, the NCTC was suffering a 35 percent decline in detailees from its 2012 level, “undermining the notion of an ‘interagency joint venture.’ ”

Travers and his predecessor at the NCTC, Joseph Maguire (promoted to acting DNI in August 2019 and fired in February 2020 for riling Trump) pressed for an interagency review of the NCTC’s sagging status. Travers told me the basic question was simple: “If the country no longer needs a National Counterterrorism Center, then change the law.”

DNI Dan Coats launched a broad review before he was fired in August 2019. The panel of senior intelligence officials concluded in October 2019 that while the NCTC still had statutory responsibility for overseeing counterterrorism, its technical and other capabilities suffered from “diminishing resources,” especially in its ability to process information, one member explained in an interview this week.

The panel proposed a second phase of the review to assign resources and responsibilities more clearly. But that recommendation was ignored by Ratcliffe, and the NCTC has continued to languish. As terrorism databases grew thinner, it’s lucky the country didn’t face a concerted attack.

The NCTC saga illustrates why the Biden administration requires strong leadership in intelligence matters. Terrorism has probably been over-weighted as a priority for the intelligence community in recent years, but the shift needs to be managed carefully. If NCTC has become redundant, then laws need to be rewritten.
Avril Haines, the proposed DNI, must reimagine intelligence for the digital age. But she’ll need a strong CIA director as a partner, and a willingness to confront hard problems honestly. That’s precisely what didn’t happen in the sad case of the NCTC.