Interesting Viewpoint on Terrorists

Humberto S., comment on Yahoo, 11/6/10: 

Most of these Muslim terrorist leaders were either born in the West, or studied and worked in the West for years. 

That's not a coincidence. 

For many of them, the cultural shock was too much. Raised in homes where certain values were held as sacred, realizing the society around them held such values as "barbaric" or "backwards" made them bitter. 

In a way, it's similar to the story of some KKK and Neo-Nazi leaders, who were young Liberals working with the needy in poor areas. They expected to be treated as saviours, and all they got was mistrust and getting robbed and beaten. 

In general, it's the other people's prejudices, when aimed at someone who's idealistic, what turns good intentions into never-ending hatred. 

It's nice to see someone make a coherent and interesting comment on a Yahoo message board. Usually, there's nothing there but mind-numbing tripe and name-calling. In case you're interested, my views on locating likely terrorists can be found here.

Civilian Courts Successfully Handle Terrorists

Next time someone tries to tell you that giving terrorists due process of law isn't feasible, remind him or her that "U.S. courts have, in fact, handled hundreds of terrorism-related cases since 9/11. Of the 828 defendants indicted in the United States on terrorism-related charges, 593 have been processed through the civilian court system, according to NYU Law's Highlights From the Terrorist Trial Report Card... Of the 593 defendants, 523 have been imprisoned...an 88.2 percent conviction rate." (Bob Kemper, Washington Lawyer, March 2010)

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Important Free Speech Case

Click HERE for a transcript from the Supreme Court's oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. [Click on "Full Screen" after the jump to enlarge the text.] 

The Humanitarian case might determine the breadth and scope of power the American government may exercise when it wants to control speech. Amazingly, the case and its complex issues aren't front page news everywhere. Below are some off-the-cuff comments I made after I read the transcript: 

The pro-free-speech lawyer, Cole, didn't do a great job. There was some drama: Scalia verbally smacked Sotomayor when she raised a misguided example, but Breyer played the good knight and saved her. Justice "That's Not True" Alito looked out of his range intellectually. None of the lawyers were able to really answer Ginsburg's very relevant questions. Breyer, as usual, asked the most interesting and intelligent questions. Scalia clearly wants to kick the ball down the road and uphold the statute. Unfortunately, it appears Kennedy, the swing vote, might be leaning towards Scalia's angle due to the unusual fact pattern involved, i.e., the government did not actually convict anyone for exercise of free speech (the case involves an action for declaratory relief, not an actual prosecution or conviction). Surprisingly, Roberts looked like he hadn't yet made up his mind, though towards the end, he seemed to be leaning towards Constitutional avoidance. Unsurprisingly, Thomas never asked a question. 

Actually, come to think of it, neither lawyer did well. The government's lawyer, Kagan, started off very well, but self-destructed at the end, when she suggested the government could prosecute lawyers who submit briefs on behalf of Congressionally-labeled terrorist organizations, even if the briefs relate to tsunami relief or U.N. aid requests. She should have thought harder about her audience. She's talking to a bunch of former lawyers who used to write briefs and in-house advisory opinions for sometimes-not-so-wonderful organizations. Maybe that's why former corporate attorney Roberts seems conflicted. 

After I emailed the transcript to an acquaintance, I sent him more detailed comments: 

The fact that the Justices spent most of their time discussing hypotheticals indicates that no one really knows what kind of conduct is prohibited. If the Justices can't figure out what is covered, then how is an ordinary American supposed to comply with the law? As for Scalia trying to kick the ball down the road, isn't the whole point of a request for declaratory relief precisely to avoid kicking the ball down the road and having to deal with a prosecution? 

What really bothers me is that no one answered Justice Ginsburg's perfectly valid questions. For example, everyone agrees that membership isn't proscribed, but then what? Are we supposed to just show up to a meeting and sit there to ensure we comply with the statute? Kagan seems to say anything beyond being an inactive paper member of an organization could be proscribed conduct, and it's up to the prosecutors to determine the scope of the law. Sorry, but I'd rather have a clear line than a line drawn by the Supreme Court than thousands of politically ambitious D.A.s deciding what constitutes inactive, legal membership in their own discrete jurisdictions. 

Also, I am a member of numerous legal organizations. I've attended annual meetings, communicated with board members, dispensed legal advice to schools they operate, posted on their blogs, etc. For all I know, one of these organizations might have rogue members plotting against the government. If the Court doesn't narrow the law and require a specific intent provision, then I could potentially be prosecuted merely by being an active member of the overall group, despite lacking any malicious intent. Thus, Kagan's argument boils down to this: trust the government, because we won't prosecute someone who isn't really a terrorist. I'm sorry, but if you're a Muslim in 2010, a Japanese-American in 1942, an African-American with Black Panther friends in 1965, etc, it's a little harder to trust prosecutorial discretion. 

Practically speaking, if the conservative Justices have their way, any lawyer with Muslim clients or Islamic non-profit clients must consider dropping all of them as clients. After all, who knows? If one person within an organization is supporting terrorism, then the entire organization becomes suspect, and anyone who has helped the organization, even in good faith, can be held liable for material support. Just my two cents.

Umar Abdulmutallab: Predictable Terrorist?

People are shocked--just shocked--that alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received excellent schooling and came from a well-off family. As I explained back in 2008, the most dangerous terrorists will be educated and more likely to be middle-class or rich than poor. See HERE for the post titled "Terrorism: The Unusual Suspects." 

The most worrisome part? The alleged terrorist's own father alerted authorities to his son's possible extremism, and the son still managed to evade security checkpoints. 

Don't you feel safe knowing the TSA is profiling people based on their passports (which causes my harmless grandmother to get advanced screening every time she travels), but the TSA can't seem to follow up on a direct tip? 

In the spirit of Mastercard, I leave you with the following "commercial": 

America's military-industrial complex: $626 billion 

Having a parent feel loyal enough to alert authorities to his own son: $0 [Note: imagine if the U.S. had accidentally killed one of the parent's family members--would the father still do the same thing?]

Having a random passenger on a plane brave enough to physically handle a potential terrorist: $0 

Percentage of military's budget that saved Americans from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: 0% 

Believing that killing poor people in the Middle East will make us safer: unknown cost 

Keeping America safe while maintaining Constitutional principles: priceless.

Florida Man Attacks Greek Priest

A few thoughts on this story, about a Marine attacking a Greek priest he mistook for a Muslim terrorist: 

1) The judge set bail at only $7,500? Seriously? 

2) Even though the Marine believed the priest was about to blow himself up, he still pursued him with a tire iron rather than seek a safe distance; and 

3) Hopefully, we can put to rest the idea that demonizing Muslims will only hurt Muslims. That is all. Sigh.

Barry Ritholtz on 9/11

Barry Ritholtz talks about Bush and 9/11 here. A snippet:

When people ask why I dislike the presidency of George W. Bush, it was that colossal failure to rise to greatness on that occasion, and indeed, to engage in a series of decisions that not just in retrospect, but at the time, simply reflected terrible judgment.

Unlike many others, I only blame W in small part for ignoring the warning pre-9/11. But for the catastrophic series of decisions that followed, I hold him 100% accountable.

After 9/11, the entire world supported the United States of America. Iranians held candlelight vigils. NATO pledged immediate support. What the heck happened from September 2001 to November 2008, and why did it take so long for Americans to reject Bush's policies?

The comments on Barry's blog are also worth reading--here's one from "How the Common Man Sees It":

Though we are quite in agreement on economic matters, I am a conservative Christian that disagrees with you on many issues and I have told you so many times.

This one is not one of them.

One of the greatest failings of the modern conservative movement is its inability to admit when it was wrong. The desire to circle the wagons is only making their circle smaller. That provides for even less protection in the long run. I am beginning to believe that conservatives created, or at least inflamed the rebellion of the ’50’s and ’60’s due to rigidness alone. I just hope we learn in time so that we aren’t lost in the wilderness for another generation. The Western world can no longer afford a one party state.

HERE is my post on terrorism, titled, "The Unusual Suspects."

More links:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/zmsamit.html

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_frasca

http://blogs.state.gov/

John Yoo Defends Bush Administration

Professor John Yoo recently wrote an article (WSJ, July 16, 2009) defending President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. Mr. Yoo's reasoning is sound only if Americans desire a world where the Constitution is selectively applied using ethnic or religious criteria.

Mr. Yoo begins by using the government's incompetence as an excuse to ignore civil liberties. He says that post-9-11, we didn't know much about Al-Qaeda, so the best option was to tap everyone's telephones and computers to learn more. He also alleges that compliance with FISA--which requires a judge to approve a wiretap if the target is an American citizen or permanent resident--would have been cumbersome and impractical post-9-11.

Mr. Yoo's arguments have merit. A warrant requests permission to spy on a specific person, telephone number, or email account. If you don't know who the terrorists are or what email/telephone accounts they use because your foreign intelligence services are incompetent, how do you ask a court for a warrant? The only option--at least initially--is to start spying on everyone to narrow the list of likely suspects. Consequently, any discussion about warrantless wiretapping must begin by accepting Mr. Yoo's general premises: getting a warrant is cumbersome, and it prevents law enforcement agencies from identifying terrorists as quickly as possible.

Mr. Yoo damages his credibility, however, by not disclosing other relevant facts: one, existing law does not require a FISA court order to spy on non-U.S. citizens or non-lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens; two, most of the 9-11 terrorists were not American citizens or permanent residents; and three, his argument requires Americans to ignore the 4th Amendment, which protects U.S. persons from unreasonable and unlimited government surveillance.

FISA requires a warrant only when American citizens or permanent residents are involved. The CIA and FBI may intercept communications between two non-U.S. persons without a FISA warrant, as long as they follow certain procedures. While it is true that American residents may engage in terrorism, most of the 9-11 hijackers were not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. As a result, the Constitution's so-called "dysfunctional" warrant procedure had little to do with 9-11.

In fact, the CIA's and FBI's failure to prevent 9-11 was clearly not affected by any Constitutional limits. Think about it: even having access to every email and spoken word doesn't mean anything if our security agencies lack the linguistic and cultural competence to determine what is "noise" and what is relevant. It should also be obvious that any competent terrorist will use code words, so even intercepting every communication with the words "Muslim," "airplane," or "terrorist" won't help anyone find potential hijackers. Thus, Mr. Yoo's intent on creating reasons to ignore the Constitution is misplaced, because the real issue has always been how to properly gather and analyze relevant information.

Most troubling, however, is Mr. Yoo's failure to realize the real effect of warrantless spying--namely, that it gives carte-blanche to law enforcement to single out Americans based on nothing more than their ethnicity or religion. How much do you want to bet that singling out American citizens because of their religion or ethnicity will make them less loyal to America and law enforcement in particular? Why would people belonging to any targeted religion or ethnicity report suspicious persons or activity to law enforcement agencies if they think they will be treated differently than other Americans? Once you follow Mr. Yoo's belief that warrants are not required during wartime, you realize that what he's really saying is that every time there is a war, certain groups of Americans--whether Japanese, German, or Muslim--may be disproportionately targeted based on their religion or ethnic background. Under Mr. Yoo's logic, if Muslim terrorists attack Americans, then the quickest way to find more information is to target all communications involving Muslims or Islamic-related words. In reality, however, allowing the executive branch to selectively apply the 4th Amendment makes it harder to protect Americans.

Allow me to explain. Let's assume, as a purely theoretical exercise, that the primary threat of terrorism comes from Muslims. If we agree with Mr. Yoo's statement--that the lack of information about terrorists post-9-11 required suspending the Constitution--then it follows that we need more information about Muslims to protect America. What are the best sources of information about Muslims? People who go to mosques; people who have Muslim friends; people who eat in halal restaurants; and people who understand basic Muslim culture, allowing them to have comfortable interactions with Muslims. What groups of people fit into all of the aforementioned categories? Primarily Muslims. In general, a Muslim is more likely to have information about other Muslims, some of whom may be terrorists, than a non-Muslim. Overall, the best source of information about Muslims probably comes from Muslims themselves.

Once we accept that a) Muslims represent the greatest threat of terrorism (again, this is a purely theoretical exercise); and b) in general, Muslims have the most access to information about Muslims, then it should be follow that we would want to maximize the number of Muslims who are more loyal to the United States. As such, treating Muslims differently than other groups is a terrible idea. When a Muslim reads a webpage about how violent Islam is, do you think he or she becomes more or less likely to report potential terrorist activity to the government? When a Muslim reads that evangelical Christians believe that Islam is the natural enemy of Christianity, does that perception make it more or less likely that he will share information with other Christians? When a Muslim reads yet another anti-Islamic Daniel Pipes article, do you think he suddenly feels compelled to give up his religion and dedicate his life to finding Muslim terrorists? Allow me one last example: when a Muslim reads that his government's top legal advisor believes that the executive branch may spy on Americans without any checks and balances and realizes it means that his communications will be more heavily scrutinized than other Americans, does that make him more loyal or less loyal to America?

Each and every time a Muslim reads an ignorant statement about his religion or about the government spying on a mosque, he trusts his government less. This is a natural reaction. Anyone who believes his fellow citizens think he is not fully American because of his religion or ethnicity will probably isolate himself or associate only with people with similar backgrounds. This logical reaction--to withdraw and self-segregate--leads to less interaction, less openness, and less trust between Americans. We can prove that singling out people based on their religion or ethnic background leads to distrust and a lack of national allegiance by recognizing France's inability to assimilate its Muslim population. The French are notorious for believing that Muslims are not truly French and for attempting to restrict the exercise of Islamic modesty. As a result, in France, discrimination against Muslims is commonplace, which has led to riots. In America, law enforcement's disparate treatment of African-Americans caused riots, including the Watts Riots. (Note: despite America's participation in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq, America has not experienced any Muslim riots.)

When Mr. Yoo proposes to ignore the Constitution during wartime, he's saying it is acceptable to antagonize certain groups and make them less loyal to America during a time when we need all Americans to be more loyal. In order to maximize our chances of gaining viable intelligence regarding suspicious activity, it is vital that all Americans, regardless of their religion or ethnic background, feel loyal to their country and their government. Thus, in the real world, Mr. Yoo's proposed Constitutional interpretation restricts information about potential terrorists by weakening loyalty and increasing distrust of government, making us less safe.

Also, practical consequences aside, if Mr. Yoo is legally correct, why did America's founders specifically include a warrant requirement in the 4th Amendment if they believed the executive branch could freely spy on American citizens during wartime? The founders could have included a wartime exception within the 4th Amendment. They did not.

There is another problem with Mr. Yoo's argument. He states that in wartime, the President may bypass Constitutional safeguards to protect the American people because war requires quick action; however, post-9-11, the United States declared war on "terrorism," not a specific country. Such a war could last another hundred years or more. Without any oversight, who decides when the war is over and how to erase personal information gathered during the surveillance? Does the executive branch get to keep all the personal information it has gathered for the next wartime emergency? Without continuing oversight, who decides what information to keep, how to protect that information, and what information should be erased? What if Congress decides a war is over, but the President disagrees? If the executive branch believes an attack is imminent but does not want to share information with Congress, may it spy on Americans without a warrant? Most important, without a warrant procedure, who decides when to stop surveillance? After East Germany's experience with the Stasi, you would think that an educated person like Mr. Yoo would realize the need for safeguards.

Mr. Yoo's belief that the executive branch may ignore the 4th Amendment during wartime would be more reasonable if the FISA courts were unduly interfering with the terrorism investigations. In reality, FISA courts have rubber-stamped the government's requests for a warrant. From 1979 to 2006, FISA courts approved all but nine wiretapping applications. (See here for the statistics.)

While Mr. Yoo's basic premise is correct--the 4th Amendment is indeed cumbersome--from a practical and legal standpoint, his interpretation of the Constitution makes us all less safe. What is most interesting about Mr. Yoo is his utter lack of self-awareness. One of the most serious threats to the United States right now is North Korea. Mr. Yoo is ethnically Korean. If North Korea attacks Hawaii, will Mr. Yoo mind if the government spies on him and his family, unmolested by the 4th Amendment? He probably won't. Anyone who interprets the Constitution in such a way that approves of an American version of the Stasi clearly expects to be the one doing the monitoring, not ever the one being monitored. Perhaps Mr. Yoo, with his government connections, is more self-aware than I give him credit for.

Bonus: information from wiretapping isn't necessarily helpful. The following newstory further indicates that loyal citizens and their willingness to communicate with the government are essential elements of any effective counter-terrorism operation. From CNN:

Friday's report found that the intelligence gathered [from Bush's wiretapping program] was only a small part of counterterrorism work, and most intelligence officials interviewed for the report had trouble "citing specific instances where PSP reporting had directly contributed to counterterrorism successes."

Bonus: ROBERT FISK: No, not at all. Look, over and over again, we’ve been told about the enormous sophistication of the intercepts and the surveillance and the satellite pictures and so on. So why have they not got bin Laden 'til now? They were after him when I first met him in 1994. And then they were after him in 1996 when I met him. And then they were after him in 1997. If they have all this information, why didn't they use it? I’m sure they have bits and pieces. But, you see, the problem is that the Americans are blind on the ground. They don’t have—I love these phrases—HUMINT, human intelligence, on the ground in Afghanistan.

Federal Budget Outlays

The Epoch Times had a good chart showing what the federal government projected it would do with our taxes in 2007:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-15/54114.html

Social Security is the largest outlay, with 21% of our taxes going there. Next up is Defense, with 19%. Obama may reduce defense spending to shift more taxes towards infrastructure spending. Doing it this way would allow him not to raise taxes.

Defense hawks may disagree with any decrease in defense spending, arguing that it would cause a decline in domestic security. I do believe terrorists will hit the United States again, but much of the current defense spending is on major projects, like stealth fighters. Meanwhile, port security is inadequate. Consider this simple, low-tech scenario: a terrorist pays two dock workers to put an unmarked package on a ship. The dock workers will be told they are transporting drugs and will be paid a few thousand dollars for their discretion. In reality, the box would contain a major bomb or chemical weapon. The bomb doesn't even have to be inside a box. The terrorists could place a bomb inside an imported car, major appliance, or some other product that has many electrical components, making the bomb harder to detect.

Rather than focus on large-scale projects, such as the next generation of aircraft, which always seem to run over cost, the U.S. should shift more money into intelligence work. More specifically, Obama should hire more workers to 1) supervise America's major ports (e.g., Los Angeles, Miami, etc.); and 2) more effectively monitor the contents of packages before ships on-load and offload them. I realize modern ports have automated systems, but having more hi-tech automation doesn't necessarily lead to higher security.

If you're interested in reading more about Obama and defense spending, here is an interesting article:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17793/

"Terrorists Are Criminals"

The SJ Merc has a great letter in today's paper (December 9, 2009, 9A): 

All Muslim organizations that I am associated with, including the local mosque, have condemned the Mumbai murders, and all Muslims I know are outraged by this incident in which innocent Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews were killed. Yet, people still demand something from Muslims. Terrorists are criminals who represent no one but themselves, and if they happen to embrace the same religion as you or I, then so be it. Religion is intended to teach us about God and how to worship and help others, so people of all faiths must join against the ignorance of terrorism and false accusations. 

Jim Zanghi 

I expressed similar sentiments in an earlier blog post (Anti-Terrorist Sentiment Does Not Require Overt Public Acts): 

When an unarmed black man (Amadou Diallo) in New York is shot 19 times by Christian police officers, does the failure of Christians across the United States condemning the NYPD mean they condone senseless killings? Of course not. Such examples can be made ad infinitum, and it should be fairly obvious that an absence of mass protests or vocal opposition has no relevance as an indicator of general support or non-support. The reasons for silence among most "ordinary Pakistanis" are simple. Muslims in Pakistan don't know the killers in India and don't feel any connection to them. To the 99.9% Pakistanis who live their lives peacefully, there is no connection to the killers in India and therefore no reason to say anything publicly about their heinous acts. 

Countries act against their own interests when they force ordinary citizens to choose between their religion and supporting law enforcement in the battle against terrorism. Governments need to condemn associating terrorism with any single trait, whether religion or race, so as to ensure the broadest possible cooperation among their citizens.

Reason #3947 to Be Libertarian

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance--not just against foreign influence, but also against our own government agents. Our government has spent our money going after a man, Sayed Mousavi, who wanted to promote cell phones in Iran. He also did not report a portion of his taxable income (for which he should be punished financially). The government used a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to convict him. Yet, no one believes this man is a terrorist except perhaps the American government and their lawyers. The most distressing detail is that our government removed Seyed Mahmood Mousavi's American citizenship by claiming he lied on his citizenship application. They apparently used mis-translated documents as evidence. 

To those would say America is a place where all citizens can breathe free post-Obama, the government's prosecution of Mr. Mousavi is a harsh lesson that vigilance must remain high. Even if Obama issues executive orders nullifying enforcement of the Patriot Act, such as canceling Executive Order 13224, more laws exist to harass citizens and non-citizens in America. 

Laura Donohue, a Stanford fellow, once said that counterterrorism activity increases "executive power both in absolute and real terms. This changes the balance of power at a federal level between the branches of government. It changes the relationship between the citizens and the state." Executive Order 13224, mentioned earlier, gave the White House and the Treasury the power to freeze assets of those they suspect of being terrorists and those they suspect have associations with terrorists. In other words, citizens "can have their assets frozen without being found guilty in any court of law for actually having any association with terrorism itself." "Between October 2001 and April 2005, 743 people and 947 organizations had their assets frozen underneath this order. 98% of the people, and 96% of the organizations, appeared to be Arab or Muslim." (Laura Donohue, Commonwealth Club speech, 9/11/08, page 20-21 of the November 2008 The Commonwealth magazine). 

Unfortunately, Obama is not proof that this country has progressed past its religious intolerance. Obama is Christian. Bobby Jindal, another political up-and-comer, converted to Catholicism. If you are not some form of Christian in America, and you have innocuous ties to Middle Eastern countries, the government is apparently willing to charge you with a crime. I realize Mr. Mousavi may have violated a trade embargo, and if he knowingly violated the law, jail-time is warranted. What terrifies me is our government, rather than prosecute him specifically for his violation of the trade embargo, actively expanded its prosecution to remove his citizenship--despite no evidence that he was a terrorist or danger to his community. 

Also, I've never heard of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It seems that so many laws have been passed, the government can classify any transaction with a Middle Eastern country or charity as illegal. Overly broad laws effectively intrude on personal associations and the right of peaceful assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment. For example, if I believe that my association with others can be used against me in the future, I may alter my behavior and self-banish myself from others who share minority religious or political views. Thus, the Patriot Act and other laws similar to it--which apparently do not require any malicious intent or actual damages--have the effect of violating the First Amendment by their mere existence. 

If you are interested in more information on domestic surveillance laws and activity, get the November 2008 edition of The Commonwealth magazine. One section of Donahue's speech is titled, "Better than the Stasi," referring to domestic law enforcement activities.

Bruce Schnei­er on Terrorism

I don't usually like Jeffrey Goldberg's articles, but this one is hilarious and tragic at the same time:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security 

I couldn’t believe that what Schneier was saying was true—in the national debate over the no-fly list, it is seldom, if ever, mentioned that the no-fly list doesn’t work. 

Gotta love Bruce Schnei­er's honesty and intelligence. Here is his blog: 

http://www.schneier.com/ 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/me_helping_evad.html

Terrorism: The Unusual Suspects

"Who is most likely to be a terrorist?" In 2008, most honest Americans would answer a Muslim male between the ages of 20 and 30 from the Middle East. In reality, however, an effective terrorist is more likely to be an educated, middle-class European resident because of his ability to integrate into Western society. Without the ability to blend in, a terrorist will have difficulty implementing a large-scale attack. If the most dangerous terrorist threat comes from European residents, not Americans or Middle Easterners, then any military strategy that focuses on the Middle East will waste trillions of dollars without much increase in safety.

Let's start with Osama bin Laden. Although he resides in the Middle East, he comes from an affluent family. He has not personally killed Americans on American soil and probably never will, because of his inability to blend into American society. Osama bin Laden's inability to directly kill Americans renders him a lesser, though important, target than others, who can personally attack U.S. citizens on American soil. As we will see, Osama bin Laden is an exception to the list of cross-border terrorists, because most cross-border terrorists do not live in the Middle East.

For example, the persons allegedly responsible for the 7 July 2005 ("7/7") London bombings all lived in the U.K. The alleged ringleader, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was middle class, a college graduate, and married a woman so connected that the Queen invited her mother to a Buckingham Palace party. Another alleged bomber, Shehzad Tanweer, left behind over 225,000 dollars (121,000 pounds) and was a U.K. college graduate. Mr. Tanweer lacked a job related to his sports science degree. Mr. Khan also lacked a job related to his business studies degree, which he received in 1996. All persons who allegedly carried out the London bombings lived in Britain and had most recently lived there, not the Middle East, prior to the attacks.

The persons who murdered Americans on 9/11 on U.S. soil did not live in the Middle East prior to their attack. Most of them actually lived in Germany for years before deciding to commit terrorism. Many of them lacked jobs related to their university degrees. Going down the list of 9/11 participants, a clear pattern emerges of highly-educated, underemployed, long-term European residents--not Middle Eastern residents.

Zacarias Moussaoui, a would-be hijacker, is a French citizen. He did not live in the Middle East when he decided to kill others. He holds a master's degree in International Business from South Bank University in London.

While we will never know his exact devolution, Mohammad Atta, the person most associated with 9/11, did not become fundamentalist until after he came to Hamburg, Germany. Atta lived in Hamburg for at least five years before committing any act of terrorism. He graduated from Hamburg University of Technology and studied for years in Germany without attracting any significant attention. He also lived in the U.S. for around a year before committing any terrorist act.

Said Bahaji, an alleged 9/11 attacker, was a German citizen and lived in Hamburg since 1995. He attended a European electrical engineering university program. He even enlisted in the German army for a few months. He did not live in the Middle East prior to the attacks.

Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi, another alleged 9/11 terrorist, lived in Germany in 1996, and had lived in Hamburg since 1999.

Ziad Jarrah had a wealthy and secularist upbringing and moved to Germany in 1996.  Prior to going to Germany, some sources indicate he attended private Christian schools. [Listed source: FBI, 4/19/2002; McDermott, 2005, pp. 49-50]

Hani Hanjour, another alleged 9/11 hijacker, first came to the United States in 1991, enrolling at the University of Arizona, where he studied English. According to Wikipedia, this was "prior to any intentions for a large-scale attack." He came back to the United States in 1996. According to the timeline, no evidence of radicalization or attack plans happened until he came to Arizona: "It is clear that when Hanjour lived in Arizona in the 1990s, he associated with several individuals who have been the subject of counterterrorism investigations.”

After 9/11, the other major terrorists who have attacked Americans on U.S. soil are the following persons:

Jose Padilla. An alleged terrorist, he was born in New York and lived in America, not the Middle East.

Richard Colvin Reid, the "shoe bomber." He was born and lived in Great Britain, not the Middle East.

Timothy James McVeigh. He was born in New York and was a member of the U.S. Army.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an alleged terrorist. He graduated as valedictorian from a school in Alexandria, Virginia and attended the University of Maryland. He was born in Texas, not the Middle East. His conviction was upheld by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a rare victory for the Department of Justice in domestic terrorism cases. (To be fair, if you review the details of the case, it appears Mr. Ali's trial was highly irregular. The prosecution relied on a confession elicited while Mr. Ali was in Saudi custody.)

Theodore John Kaczynski aka the Unabomber. He had no relation with the Middle East. Born in Chicago, he graduated from Harvard University and then earned a PhD. He taught at Berkeley as a professor of mathematics.

We'll include the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings (11/3). No al-Qaeda link has been established with these attacks, but we will include Jamal Zougam, who was convicted of terrorism. He lived mostly in Madrid, Spain--not the Middle East. If you look at this link, you will see that most of the alleged terrorists were born in Spain or Morocco--not the Middle East.

The above persons have or may have been directly responsible for the loss of most American and European lives through terrorism, and it appears not one of them had resided in the Middle East for several years when they decided to attack Americans on U.S. and European soil. Also, most of the terrorists above were not born in the Middle East.

How is it possible that people who should have been the European version of the American Dream--fluent in the host country's language, well-educated, and well-traveled--committed heinous acts? If we can answer that question, we will be much closer to determining how to make ourselves really safe, rather than "take your shoes off at the airport," "don't worry, let us spy on you," and "watch the Homeland Security color codes" safe.

What strikes me most about the terrorists mentioned above, especially the 9/11 terrorists--some of whom were able to get advanced degrees from German universities--is their inability to attain economic success. Richard Reid probably wasn’t middle class, but under Europe's generous-benefit state, he wasn't starving, either. As for the other British-born terrorists, despite having college degrees, some of them worked in a family-owned restaurant after college or spent a lot of time in the British version of the YMCA. One was a youth sports coach and worked in a field unrelated to his college degree.

What is most significant about all of these terrorists is their failure to launch any kind of career, not their birthplace or religion. If religion was the cause of terrorism or its common trait, it would not explain how at least 99% of the one billion Muslims worldwide manage to live peacefully. More saliently, to believe that religion is the common trait of terrorism, you have to believe that Islam, which has been around for thousands of years, suddenly inspired terrorism in the 20th century after centuries of no significant mass violence. (Before you research examples of Islamic violence prior to 1900, remember that World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Bosnia genocide, Mao, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and the Holocaust destroyed the most lives in the 20th century, and no rational person would argue what caused these deaths was the presence of white or German Christians--even though such backgrounds were a common trait in most of the aforementioned killings.) But if it's not religion or race that is the primary cause of terrorism, then what factors should we be reviewing?

Age and gender certainly have something to do with terrorism--almost all terrorists are men between the ages of 18 and 30, and most people agree that after 30, the male tendency to commit violence decreases. In fact, one reason Americans lock up violent men for such long periods of time is to age them out of their violence. In addition, there may be evolutionary aspects that promoted violence in younger men, who had to be strong and physical to fight off invaders and perhaps hunt. But we cannot accelerate age in men, so we have to turn our attention to a factor we can change.

The main factors we should examine are the economy and educational levels. The European residents became terrorists despite fulfilling what they believed were their "dues"--education, graduating in the top of their class, working hard, and even joining the military in some cases. They ended up worse off after their attempt to assimilate. Almost all of them came from affluent families and could have enjoyed a more simpler life had their parents stayed in the Middle East. When Atta, who had a successful father, who graduated at the top of his class, could not find a job as an engineer, he must have felt ashamed and powerless.

This unexpected result would create a problem psychologically for someone who uprooted himself from his native country, did everything he could to assimilate, and failed despite reaching the top levels of academia. It cannot be easy for an educated immigrant with an advanced degree to be unemployed or employed in a job unrelated to his degree and see seemingly lazy soccer hooligans with higher-paying jobs. Put another way, I am not concerned about a migrant Mexican worker committing mass scale terrorism in America; however, the Berkeley professor who can't get tenure or feels disrespected worries me.

Indeed, most researchers agree the 9/11 terrorists became more religious only after residing in Hamburg. I submit to you that when they could not find jobs related to their university degrees, they--having passed numerous benchmarks indicating they should be successful and respected--refused to believe the fault lay with them or their social skills. Consequently, they tried to assert themselves so as not to go gently into that good night.

Of course, I am not saying that being unemployed is a certain indicator of terrorism. But committing a major act of terrorism requires the same set of characteristics for success in jobs and universities: patience, ambition, and a quest for respect. Therefore, common sense tells us that "successful" terrorists will come from the same pool as the more educated population.

While my hypothesis may sound overly simplistic, whenever violent socialists or terrorists come into power, take note of who they kill. Revolutionaries never wipe out or exterminate the poor or uneducated. They know, deep down, the poor and uneducated are not a threat to them or any government. It's always the "intellectuals," the professors, the doctors, and the rich businessmen they kill. This pattern is clear and unambiguous. See Mao, Pol Pot, etc. The self-proclaimed "leaders of the common people" almost always kill people they believe have held them back from true and deserved greatness–and it’s usually the educated and affluent who are affected.

What does this have to do with economics, you might ask? In an economy that elevates service-based professions, most successful people follow a similar pattern: they (e.g. lawyers, doctors, engineers, MBAs, etc.) typically come from educated families themselves, making it more likely that their families can support them emotionally and/or financially while they put in the time after graduation to build up professional networks and skill sets. Eventually, most educated Europeans and educated American families are able to put their children into well-paying jobs, even if their children lack the same level of practical skills as immigrants.

Meanwhile, the system encourages immigrants to go to school, and a good job is expected after graduation. When the terrorists mentioned above did well in school and were relegated to working in a restaurant or having a dead-end job, they probably felt cheated. They may have believed the problem was with a decadent or capitalist society, not with them, because they had played by the rules and had succeeded by any measurable metric (e.g. diplomas, tests).

As a result of feeling tricked, these educated, European residents retracted into themselves and became more austere. Their reversion into fundamentalism created a self-fulfilling cycle--it certainly would not have assisted them with better employment prospects. Thus, the economy and education system put these terrorists into an embarrassing position--despite having a good track record of success per the metrics of the society in which they lived, they were similar to the unemployed and uneducated residents. Such a result would not be acceptable psychologically and may have created a need to lash out. It is important to note the terrorists who were born in the Middle East never committed violence and were not radical, for the most part, until after they left the Middle East.

If you don't have programs that employ successful immigrants who play by the rules, there may be an increased possibility of terrorism due to the cognitive dissonance created by what appears to be a "bait and switch." Indeed, a capitalist system based on attracting immigrants to a strange land, having them succeed academically, and then relegating them to the same status as uneducated native-born citizens will not function in the long term. Will it cause terrorism? I don't know--but such a "bait and switch" would explain the cognitive dissonance that caused the 9/11 terrorists to become more religious and violent only after they emigrated to Europe. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists had a documented reputation for any violent incidents when they lived in the Middle East. There are no reports of Jeffrey-Dahmer-like killings or Son of Sam hallucinations. In fact, almost all the data leads to the opposite conclusion--the 9/11 terrorists were chillingly normal for a group of educated, under-employed people.

Having said that, one reason America may not have to worry as much about native-born terrorists is because it is easier to be an entrepreneur in America than almost anywhere else in the world. As a result, an unemployed, educated male in America cannot automatically blame racism or society. The opportunity to open up a business means the government is able to transfer your angst or psychological problems about being unsuccessful unto you, absolving itself of blame (at least as a psychological defense to a cognitive dissonance). Indeed, American Muslims are highly successful. See WSJ article (Stephens/Rago, 8/24/05).

If my hypothesis is correct, America's culture of embracing small businesses and entrepreneurs is a significant weapon in warding off domestic terrorists. Successful educational programs and economic opportunities, not religion and not race, may be the keys to understanding terrorism. This is not as far-fetched as it seems, especially when you consider how much time you spend at your job and how isolated you would be if you were unemployed.

Lest Americans get too pleased with themselves, the "blame-anyone-but-yourself" mentality when faced with failure isn't restricted to potential terrorists; indeed, externalizing seems be to a part of human nature. For example, whenever Americans get worried about the economy, they seek to pass laws to exclude immigrants and other "hostile" races. Americans have a long history of doing this, and you should review the Chinese Exclusion Act to see how easy it is for anyone to lapse into a "blame-the-other" mentality. (Ironically, a recession may be the precise time to work harder to integrate all residents.)

What should we do if age, gender, economic opportunity, and education are the most relevant factors in identifying terrorists? You might be surprised--my answer is government intervention (an admittedly strange answer for a person who leans libertarian, like myself).

Remember: most immigrants are in a vulnerable situation. In a democratic republic, the majority doesn't have to kill whom they believe is their enemy--they can outvote people they believe are hostile. Due to the lack of grass roots organization and necessary critical mass of voters, the political process is inefficient at integrating or serving most new immigrants or minorities in a foreign country. A strong case may therefore be made for more government intervention on behalf of new immigrants who are invited to any country with the promises of jobs if they achieve certain benchmarks. Such programs will be controversial because current residents will complain that taxpayer monies are being diverted to non-citizens. However, America already spends billions of dollars in taxpayer monies stabilizing international governments, including Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. A few additional million dollars shouldn't be controversial if our government promotes a smoother immigration system for educated transplants.

I have sought to prove nothing more than the fact that a man's economic future and age matter more in the calculus of committing terrorism than his race, religion, or birthplace. If correct, Americans should be spending more money on two fronts: one, working with Europeans to create programs assisting all highly educated immigrants or drop-outs who are not employed within six months of graduation or arrival in Europe; and two, more closely tracking under-employment or unemployment among America's H-1B immigrants or other educated invitees. Such programs, unlike the Iraq War or the War on Terror, won't cost a trillion dollars or more in taxpayer monies and will sustain America's position in the world as attracting the best and brightest.

Update on September 11, 2008: Today's SJ Merc had a column by Trudy Rubin titled, "So-called 'war on terrorism' can't be won on a battlefield." Mr. Rubin quotes Al-Qaida expert Peter Bergen, who "believes the terrorist threat to Western countries will come from Europe. Alienated young educated Muslims in Europe were behind the 9/11 attacks, and subsequent bombings in Europe...This fight requires smart long-term strategy, not mass mobilization."

Update on March 15, 2009: if you still disagree with the link between educated, middle-class persons and terrorism, review the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army). Almost all its members, including Sara Jane Olson, were from the middle class and educated.

See also reports about an MIT grad, Aafia Siddiqui, below. Of all the allegations of terrorism, this case is the most interesting to me:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/15/whos-afraid-of-aafia-siddiqui/ 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090402245.html

It's strange and almost unbelievable that an MIT graduate couldn't think of more productive ways to live her life. If true, Ms. Siddiqui herself may show a link between high education, intelligence, and terrorism.

Update on March 29, 2009: the "high intelligence" and "terrorism" link may continue with an OU student, Joel "Joe" Henry Hinrichs III. He was a National Merit Scholar allegedly responsible for the 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing.

Update on April 4, 2009: the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Group) fits the profile above. With the exception of one member, all participants were educated.

Update on May 22, 2009: I wanted to add this link [Editor's note: use Wayback Machine to access link] because it shows that focusing exclusively on Middle Easterners is a flawed strategy. Most of the men in the alleged 2005 plot were Americans with American names: Kevin James, Levar Washington, and Gregory Patterson. All were men under the age of 30.

Update on August 2009: As the George Sodini shooting demonstrates, the ignored male can be the most dangerous beast of all. Sodini's case is particularly interesting, because he was much older than 30 years old and had plenty of money (at least 225K, which he tried to bequeath to the University of Pittsburgh).

Update on September 10, 2009: A British jury convicted British-born Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain, and Assad Sarwar of conspiring to murder by setting off liquid bombs smuggled aboard seven North American-bound airliners. See here.

Update on December 28, 2009: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab recently attempted to blow up a plane. According to the AP's Jon Gambrell, he "received the best schooling," from various elite schools, including the British International School in West Africa and the University College London. 

This article also has the following insight: “'There remains in London a problem of assimilation for outsiders. The society is closed. The city is open, but the people are not,'” argues Mr. Fandy." It's hard not to see that a European residency is highly correlated with recent radicalized immigrants.

Update on January 18, 2010: Cuneyt Ciftci staged a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in March 2008, killing four people, including two American soldiers. He was born in Germany. (From WQ, Winter 2010, page 45.)

Update on May 5, 2010: From this Guardian story: Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen, "came from a wealthy family. He earned an MBA. He had a well-educated wife and two kids and owned a house in a middle-class Connecticut suburb."

Added on May 30, 2012: see Karim Thami el-Mejjati, a French citizen born in Morocco to a wealthy Moroccan father and a French mother.  Casablanca is known as a very open, secular city and similar to many European cities.  Karim was either a medical or engineering student.  Press accounts indicate that growing up, he liked the United States and was a fan of Clint Eastwood.  He married a law graduate who worked at a Casablanca medical school. He was a secular European prior to 1991, and by then, he had enjoyed vacationing at various European resorts.  According to his wife, Fatihah Mohammed Al-Taher Hosni: "I married Al-Majati on September 25, 1991 [he would have been around 24 years old]. All the events I've told you about so far took place in within a year. I believe it was God's will that I brought Al-Majati back to Islam, because before the veil issue, both of us were Muslims in name but not in practice...At the time, we were both Westernized, similar to other young non-religious Moroccans who aspired to get a good job and live abroad. For both my husband and I, our connection to God and Islam was almost non-existent."

Added on July 20, 2012: James Holmes was a graduate student in the neuroscience program at the University of Colorado Medical School campus in Aurora, CO.  The 24 year-old Holmes was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa and Golden Key honor societies.  On July 20, 2012,  Holmes used several weapons to kill 12 movie-goers and to injure about 60 of them in a movie theater.  According to MSNBC, a "neighbor, Tom Mai, told The Los Angeles Times that Holmes was a shy, well-mannered kid who was very active in the church. He had trouble finding work after college, Mai said, and then went off to graduate school."

Update on January 19, 2011: Reza Aslan, in Beyond Fundamentalism (2009, 2010) echoes some of my thoughts:

"[L]ack of integration is hardly an issue for Europe's jihadists. Hasib Hussain was, by all accounts, well integrated into British society, as was the leader of the 7/7 attacks, Mohammed Siddique Khan...Jamal Zougam, the man thought to be responsible for placing the explosions on a Spanish commuter train that killed 191 people on March 11, 2004, was a fairly successful businessman in Madrid. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the murderer of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was a highly educated British-born Pakistani from a well-adjusted middle-class family.

These men are doctors, lawyers, and engineers, the best and brightest...Jihadism attracts the same kind of person who, in other circumstances and with different challenges, would have joined an antiglobalization or civil rights movement." (pages 146-147, "Generation E," paperback edition)

Update on April 19, 2013: (Boston Marathon alleged bombers) Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, a naturalized U.S. citizen, attended the Cambridge Rindge and Latin high school in Massachusetts.  In May 2011, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts awarded him a $2,500 scholarship to pursue higher education and honored the award recipients at city hall.

"I like the USA," Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] was quoted as saying in The Sun of Lowell, Mass. "America has a lot of jobs. That's something Russia doesn't have. You have a chance to make money here if you are willing to work." (From AP, Jeff Donn, April 19, 2013)

From WSJ (4/22/13, Alan Cullison): "[H]is [Tamerlan Tsarnaev's] boxing career stalled, he drifted in and out of community-college courses...he didn't have a job..."

"It was hard because you realize that you used to be somebody there, but here, you're a nobody," said Maret Tsarnaeva, the brothers' aunt.

Update on January 8, 2015: re: attack against France's Charlie Hebdo newspaper on January 7, 2015, at least one of the attackers was known to authorities: "Attorney Vincent Ollivier said his client, Cherif Kouachi...22, lived his entire life in France and was not particularly religious... He drank, smoked pot, slept with his girlfriend and delivered pizzas for a living. His parents, Algerian immigrants, are dead." (From Mark Houser, May 29, 2005--almost ten years before the attack.)

Bonus: "Most of the future 9/11 hijackers are middle class and have relatively comfortable upbringings, even though, after 9/11, some people in Western countries will say one of the root causes of the attacks was poverty and assume that the hijackers must have been poor. The editor of Al Watan, a Saudi Arabian daily, will call the hijackers 'middle class adventurers' rather than Islamist fundamentalist ideologues."  From here. [Update: possible broken link] 

Update on February 15, 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/bergen-terrorism-root-causes/index.html  (Peter Bergen, "The bourgeois terrorist," published 2/27/15)

In "his important 2004 book 'Understanding Terror Networks,' psychiatrist Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer, examined the backgrounds of 172 militants who were part of al Qaeda or a similar group. Just under half were professionals; two-thirds were either middle or upper class and had gone to college; indeed, several had doctorates."