Domestic Terrorism, U.S. DOJ
David B. Deitch, on "Enforcement and Prosecutions of Online Extermism and/or Terrorism in the European and U.S. Context." Deitch is the Domestic Terrorism Coordinator, in the U.S. Department of Justice, in the counter-terrorist section.
Deitch sketches out the changes in the DOJ after 9/11, including 1) renewed focus on counterterrorism, 2) institutional reform that sought to enhance sharing of information, 3) new strategic emphasis on prevention.
There are different levels of Material Support Using the Internet (public opinion, sympathizers, supporters, soldiers, and leaders). Dietch uses a pyramid schematic to sketcht this out, and this puts me in mind of the schematic I developed about "lurkers" and "true believers" online. Nice convergence, there.
Reiterates the global audience aspect of the Internet to disseminate propaganda of an extremist group, and also the logistic goals of the organization.
Advantages of the Internet for extremist groups, anonymity, global audience, very little regulation, inexpensive, easy to re-open (not just web sites, but also listservs, discussion boards, etc.)
Dietch discusses the case of Azzam Publications (formerly on the web as www.azzam.com), which provided support for various Muslim terrorist groups. The other case Dietch mentions Alasr Magazine, of the Islamic Assembly of North America, and their online presence (formerly on the web as www.alasr.ws). He sites the Alasr example as a case where there was a need for international cooperation: server was in Houston, then moved to Canada, author was Egyptian, web masters were in Idaho and in Michigan. In May, 2001, this web site was saying that a modern way to "kill a great number of the enemy" is to "fly a plane into a building."
The next example Dietch is addressing is "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)," a Philadelphia, PA-based animal rights groups (www.shacamerica.com). This is seen as objectionable because the organization posts "targets of the week," but as I understand it these targets are vendors who do business with Huntingdon. I see this as an important distinction, and a problematic equivalence that Dietch is drawing.
His final example is the anti-abortion doctor's web site.
Dietch details the U.S. prosecution tools: 1) "Material support to terrorists" [18 USC, 2339A], 2) "material support to designated foreign terrorist organization," [18 USC, 2339B], 3) "money laundering" [18 USC, 1960], 4) IEEPA violation, [50 USC, 1705(b)] for groups that have special designation as a terrorist organization, 5) "solicitation," [18 USC, 373], and finally, 6) "teaching construction of improvised explosive incendiary device" [18 USC, 842p]. Dietch mentions the last as particularly useful in prosecuting web site cases where extremists publish information about bomb-making.
Deitch sketches out the changes in the DOJ after 9/11, including 1) renewed focus on counterterrorism, 2) institutional reform that sought to enhance sharing of information, 3) new strategic emphasis on prevention.
There are different levels of Material Support Using the Internet (public opinion, sympathizers, supporters, soldiers, and leaders). Dietch uses a pyramid schematic to sketcht this out, and this puts me in mind of the schematic I developed about "lurkers" and "true believers" online. Nice convergence, there.
Reiterates the global audience aspect of the Internet to disseminate propaganda of an extremist group, and also the logistic goals of the organization.
Advantages of the Internet for extremist groups, anonymity, global audience, very little regulation, inexpensive, easy to re-open (not just web sites, but also listservs, discussion boards, etc.)
Dietch discusses the case of Azzam Publications (formerly on the web as www.azzam.com), which provided support for various Muslim terrorist groups. The other case Dietch mentions Alasr Magazine, of the Islamic Assembly of North America, and their online presence (formerly on the web as www.alasr.ws). He sites the Alasr example as a case where there was a need for international cooperation: server was in Houston, then moved to Canada, author was Egyptian, web masters were in Idaho and in Michigan. In May, 2001, this web site was saying that a modern way to "kill a great number of the enemy" is to "fly a plane into a building."
The next example Dietch is addressing is "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)," a Philadelphia, PA-based animal rights groups (www.shacamerica.com). This is seen as objectionable because the organization posts "targets of the week," but as I understand it these targets are vendors who do business with Huntingdon. I see this as an important distinction, and a problematic equivalence that Dietch is drawing.
His final example is the anti-abortion doctor's web site.
Dietch details the U.S. prosecution tools: 1) "Material support to terrorists" [18 USC, 2339A], 2) "material support to designated foreign terrorist organization," [18 USC, 2339B], 3) "money laundering" [18 USC, 1960], 4) IEEPA violation, [50 USC, 1705(b)] for groups that have special designation as a terrorist organization, 5) "solicitation," [18 USC, 373], and finally, 6) "teaching construction of improvised explosive incendiary device" [18 USC, 842p]. Dietch mentions the last as particularly useful in prosecuting web site cases where extremists publish information about bomb-making.
posted by Jessie Daniels at
10:07 AM
