# The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR42536 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 19, 2014 - **Citation:** R42536 ## Text The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress -name redactedSpecialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism February 19, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R42536 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. This latter point is not meant to imply that domestic terrorists should be taken any less seriously than other terrorists. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially list domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist “threats.” These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and anti-abortion beliefs. The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity has received public attention. This boundary is especially highlighted by a number of criminal cases involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to domestic terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands the federal government’s legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (P.L. 102-346). Five discussion topics in this report may help explain domestic terrorism’s significance for policy makers: • Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating more than two-dozen incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in antigovernment extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last several years. • Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax fraud, for example. • Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. • Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the “political wing”) of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech. Congressional Research Service The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress • Prison Radicalization. Prison has been highlighted as an arena in which terrorist radicalization can occur. Some prison gangs delve into radical or extremist ideologies that motivate domestic terrorists, and in a number of instances, these ideologies are integral to fashioning cohesive group identities within prison walls. It must be reiterated, however, that even for gangs that exhibit these ideological dimensions, criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking—not radical beliefs—largely drive their activities. Congress may choose to consider issues in three areas regarding the federal role in combating domestic terrorism. First is the issue of definitions. It is difficult to assess the scope of domestic terrorism because federal agencies use varying terms to describe it. Even more basically, there is no clear sense of how many domestic terrorist attacks have occurred or how many plots the government has foiled in recent years. Second, Congress may review the adequacy of domestic terrorism intelligence collection efforts. For intelligence gathering and program prioritization purposes, there is no standard set of intelligence collection priorities across federal agencies that can be applied to domestic terrorism cases. Also, there likely is no established standard for the collection of intelligence from state and local investigators—aside from suspicious activity reporting. Finally, it may be of value to explore how domestic terrorism fits into the Obama Administration’s community outreach-driven strategy to quell terrorism-related radicalization in the United States. Congress may query the Administration on which brand of domestic terrorists it plans to focus on under the strategy and which local community groups it intends to engage regarding domestic terrorism issues. Congressional Research Service The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Domestic Terrorism Defined............................................................................................................ 2 What Is Domestic Terrorism? .................................................................................................... 3 Toward a Narrower Definition ............................................................................................ 4 Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies” ................................................. 5 Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic Terrorism Threat ............................... 5 Counting Terrorism Cases ................................................................................................... 5 Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity ..................................................... 6 Extremism vs. Terrorism ..................................................................................................... 7 The Lack of an Official Public List ..................................................................................... 9 Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups .................................................................. 9 Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists ................................................ 11 Anarchist Extremists ......................................................................................................... 13 White Supremacist Extremists .......................................................................................... 16 Anti-Government Extremists ............................................................................................ 22 Black Separatist Extremists ............................................................................................... 30 Anti-Abortion Extremists .................................................................................................. 31 Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF.................................. 33 A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?” .............................................................. 33 Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance ............................................................................... 37 Counting Incidents................................................................................................................... 38 Growth in Hate Groups and Anti-Government Extremism ............................................... 40 “Non-Violent” Strategies ......................................................................................................... 41 Direct Action ..................................................................................................................... 41 The ALF: “Live Liberations” and “Economic Sabotage” ................................................. 42 The ELF: “Monkeywrenching” ......................................................................................... 42 “Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes .................................... 46 The Internet and Domestic Terrorists ...................................................................................... 48 A Decentralized Threat ............................................................................................................ 50 Leaderless Resistance........................................................................................................ 51 Lone Wolves ...................................................................................................................... 53 Prison Radicalization ............................................................................................................... 57 Policy Considerations for Congress ............................................................................................... 59 Scoping the Threat ................................................................................................................... 59 Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 59 Designating Domestic Terrorist Groups ............................................................................ 59 A Public Accounting of Plots and Incidents ...................................................................... 61 Intelligence .............................................................................................................................. 61 How Does Domestic Terrorism Fit into the U.S. Countering Violent Extremism Strategy? ............................................................................................................................... 62 Figures Figure 1. Hate Groups and Militia Groups, 2000-2012 ................................................................. 40 Congressional Research Service The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Figure 2. ALF and ELF Guidelines ............................................................................................... 45 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 63 Congressional Research Service The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Introduction Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements1—have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their foreign counterparts inspired by Al Qaeda. This was not necessarily always the case. The FBI reported in 1999 that “[d]uring the past 30 years, the vast majority—but not all—of the deadly terrorist attacks occurring in the United States have been perpetrated by domestic extremists.”2 The U.S. government reacted to 9/11 by greatly enhancing its counterterrorism efforts. This report discusses how domestic terrorists broadly fit into this new counterterrorism landscape, a terrain that in the last 10 years has been largely shaped in response to terrorists inspired by foreign ideologies. This report focuses especially on how domestic terrorism is conceptualized by the federal government and issues involved in assessing this threat’s significance. Today (perhaps in part because of the government’s focus on international terrorist ideologies), it is difficult to evaluate the scope of domestic terrorist activity. For example, federal agencies employ varying terminology and definitions to describe it. Also, domestic terrorism-related intelligence collection efforts have not necessarily received the same attention as similar efforts to counter foreign threats. Beyond these issues, the Obama Administration’s community outreach-driven strategy to quell terrorism-related radicalization in the United States focuses on individuals inspired by Al Qaeda. How domestic terrorism fits into this strategy is unclear. Congress may opt to examine these and other issues related to domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorists may not be the top federal counterterrorism priority, but they feature prominently among the concerns of some law enforcement officers. For example, in 2011, Los Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P. Downing included “black separatists, white supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists” among his chief counterterrorism concerns.3 Also possibly contributing to domestic terrorism’s secondary status as a threat, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. Additionally, many domestic terrorists do not intend to physically harm people but rather rely on alternative tactics such as theft, trespassing, destruction of property, and burdening U.S. courts with retaliatory legal filings. 1 This conceptualization of the term “domestic terrorism” is derived from a number of U.S. government sources detailed in this report. They are further discussed below. This report will not focus on homegrown violent jihadists. However, when referring to such actors, for this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, permanent legal residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. “Jihadist” describes radicalized Muslims using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for belief in the establishment of a global caliphate—a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as a caliph—via violent means. Jihadists largely adhere to a variant of Salafi Islam—the fundamentalist belief that society should be governed by Islamic law based on the Quran and follow the model of the immediate followers and companions of the Prophet Muhammad. 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States: 30 Years of Terrorism—A Special Retrospective Edition, (2000) p. 16. 3 Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011. See also Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak & Joseph Simone Jr. “Surveying American State Police Agencies About Terrorism Threats, Terrorism Sources, and Terrorism Definitions,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3 (2009) pp. 450-475. Freilich, Chermak, and Simone found that domestic terrorist groups featured prominently among the concerns of U.S. state police officials. Congressional Research Service 1 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress While plots and attacks by foreign-inspired homegrown violent jihadists have certainly earned more media attention, domestic terrorists have been busy as well. It is worth noting that in terms of casualties on U.S. soil, an act of domestic terrorism is second only to the events of 9/11. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives and injured more than 500 others. Some estimates suggest that domestic terrorists are responsible for carrying out dozens of incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in anti-government extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last several years. Much like their jihadist counterparts, domestic terrorists are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Prison has been highlighted as an arena that can foster terrorist radicalization, and white supremacy—a set of beliefs held by white supremacist extremists—has long played a role in the activities of several U.S. prison gangs. Sovereign citizen anti-government ideas (that have inspired some domestic terrorists) have also circulated in U.S. prisons. Terrorists are typically driven by particular ideologies. In this respect, domestic terrorists are a widely divergent lot, drawing from a broad array of philosophies and worldviews. These individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white supremacy, and opposition to abortion, for example. However, the expression of these worldviews (minus the commission of crimes) involves constitutionally protected activity. Aware of the lines between constitutionally protected speech and criminality, domestic terrorists often rope themselves off from ideological (above-ground) elements that openly and often legally espouse similar beliefs. In essence, the practitioners who commit violent acts are distinct from the propagandists who theorize and craft worldviews that could be interpreted to support these acts. Thus, terrorist lone actors (lone wolves) or isolated small groups (cells) generally operate autonomously and in secret, all the while drawing ideological sustenance—not direction—from propagandists operating in the free market of ideas. This report provides background regarding domestic terrorists—detailing what constitutes the domestic terrorism threat as suggested by publicly available U.S. government sources.4 It illustrates some of the key factors involved in assessing this threat and concludes by examining potential issues for Congress. This report does not discuss in detail either violent jihadist-inspired terrorism or the federal government’s role in counterterrorism investigations. It is meant to be read in conjunction with CRS Report R41780, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations; CRS Report R42553, Countering Violent Extremism in the United States; and CRS Report R41416, American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, which provide greater context in these areas. Domestic Terrorism Defined Two basic questions are key to understanding domestic terrorism. First, what exactly constitutes “domestic terrorism?” Answering this question is more complicated than it may appear. Some consider all terrorist plots occurring within the homeland as acts of domestic terrorism. According to this perspective, a bombing plot involving U.S. citizens motivated by a foreign terrorist group such as Al Qaeda constitutes domestic terrorism. While this conceptualization may be true at some level, a practical definition of domestic terrorism distilled from federal sources is much 4 This report does not presume the guilt of indicted individuals in pending criminal cases. Congressional Research Service 2 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress narrower. It suggests that domestic terrorists are Americans who commit ideologically driven crimes in the United States but lack foreign direction or influence—whether tactical or philosophical. This conceptualization excludes homegrown individuals directed or motivated by groups such as Al Qaeda. Second, what particular groups are considered domestic terrorist organizations? The U.S. government does not provide a precise, comprehensive, and public answer to this question. Rather, in broad terms, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified a number of general threats that embody this issue. What Is Domestic Terrorism? In the most general statutory terms, a domestic terrorist engages in terrorist activity that occurs in the homeland. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the Bureau) has lead responsibility for terrorism investigations at the federal level.5 The FBI generally relies on two fundamental sources to define domestic terrorism. First, the Code of Federal Regulations characterizes “terrorism” as including “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”6 Second, 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5) more narrowly defines “domestic terrorism” and differentiates it from international terrorism and other criminal activity.7 This definition comes from Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). According to 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), domestic terrorism occurs primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and domestic terrorism involves (A) ... acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping....8 5 28 C.F.R. §0.85. Ibid. 7 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Responses of John E. Lewis [then Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation] to Additional Questions from Senator Obama,” Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-947 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 41. Hereinafter: Responses of John E. Lewis. 8 18 U.S.C. §2331(5). 6 Congressional Research Service 3 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Enforcement—Joint Terrorism Task Forces Aside from the FBI, other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) play a role in enforcement efforts to counter domestic terrorism. These agencies—as well as state and local law enforcement representatives—typically cooperate within the framework of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), multi-agency investigative units led by DOJ and the FBI across the country.9 JTTFs are teams of police officers, federal agents, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists who investigate terrorism and terrorism-related crimes. Seventy-one of the more than 100 JTTFs operated by DOJ and the FBI were created since 9/11. Over 4,400 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and agents—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—work in them. These officers and agents come from more than 600 state and local agencies and 50 federal agencies.10 The FBI considers JTTFs “the nation’s front line on terrorism.”11 They “investigate acts of terrorism that affect the U.S., its interests, property and citizens, including those employed by the U.S. and military personnel overseas.”12 As this suggests, their operations are highly tactical and can involve developing human sources (informants) as well as gathering intelligence to thwart terrorist plots. JTTFs also offer an important conduit for the sharing of intelligence developed from FBI-led counterterrorism investigations with outside agencies and state and local law enforcement.13 Additionally, there is a National JTTF, which was established in July 2002 to serve as a coordinating mechanism with the FBI’s partners. Some 40 agencies are now represented in the National JTTF, which has become a focal point for information sharing and the management of large-scale projects that involve multiple partners.14 Toward a Narrower Definition The definitions cited above are too broad to capture what the FBI specifically investigates as “domestic terrorism.” Besides the statutory definitions regarding the crime of domestic terrorism, the FBI has historically emphasized particular qualities inherent to the actors who engage in domestic terrorism. According to the Bureau, domestic terrorists do not simply operate in the homeland, but they also lack foreign direction.15 In fact, the Bureau’s practical, shorthand definition of domestic terrorism is “Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based extremist ideologies.”16 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) follows this construction.17 9 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America from Terrorist Attack: Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces.” Ibid. 11 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America against Terrorist Attack: A Closer Look at Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces,” May 2009. 12 Brig Barker and Steve Fowler, “The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Officer,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, vol. 77, no. 11 (November 2008), p. 13. 13 Kevin Johnson, “FBI Issues More Top Secret Clearance for Terrorism Cases,” USA Today, August 12, 2010; STRATFOR, A Decade of Evolution in U.S. Counterterrorism Operations, Special Report, December 2009; CRS Report RL33033, Intelligence Reform Implementation at the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Options for Congress. 14 DOJ, “Joint Terrorism Task Force.” 15 James F. Jarboe, [then Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Testimony Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, February 12, 2002. Hereinafter: Jarboe, Testimony. 16 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism in the Post-9/11 Era,” September 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” 17 See Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon,” November 10, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” 10 Congressional Research Service 4 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies” On the surface, the FBI’s shorthand definition for domestic terrorism appears straightforward. However, there is inherent ambiguity to it. Namely, some of the “U.S.-based extremist ideologies” driving what the Bureau views as domestic terrorism have international roots and active followings abroad. The ideologies supporting eco-extremism and animal rights extremism (discussed below) readily come to mind, and people have long committed crimes in their names outside the United States.18 At least in part, their origins lay in the United Kingdom. Nazism— with its German origins and foreign believers—is an element within domestic white supremacist extremism. Anarchism, the philosophy followed by anarchist extremists, also has long-standing European roots. The racist skinhead movement traces its origins abroad—to the United Kingdom—as well. It is unclear exactly what the FBI means when it emphasizes U.S.-based ideologies in its framing of domestic terrorism. Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic Terrorism Threat A few more issues make it hard to grasp the breadth of domestic terrorist activity in the United States. First, counting the number of terrorist prosecutions in general has been difficult in the post-9/11 period. Second, there may be some ambiguity in the investigative process regarding exactly when criminal activity becomes domestic terrorism. Third, the federal government appears to use the terms “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably when referring to domestic terrorism. It is unclear why this is the case. Finally, and most importantly, which specific groups are and should be considered domestic terrorist organizations? The U.S. government does not provide a public answer to this question. Rather, the federal government defines the issue in terms of “threats,” not groups. Counting Terrorism Cases While statutory and practical federal definitions exist for “domestic terrorism,” there is little clear sense of the scope of the domestic terrorist threat based on publicly available U.S. government information. Most broadly, it has been said that in much of the post-9/11 period, the federal courts and DOJ may have applied different parameters when sorting, counting, and categorizing all types of terrorist prosecutions—let alone domestic terrorism cases.19 A 2009 study (critiqued by DOJ) found that the U.S. Federal District Courts, DOJ’s National Security Division, and federal prosecutors rely on different criteria to determine whether or not specific cases involve terrorism at all.20 18 See Gary A. Ackerman, “Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (2003), pp. 155-156. Hereinafter: Ackerman, “Beyond Arson?” 19 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Who Is a Terrorist? Government Failure to Define Terrorism Undermines Enforcement, Puts Civil Liberties at Risk, September 8, 2009, http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/215/. DOJ issued a press release that broadly challenged these findings and suggested that TRAC may have omitted certain statistics in its study. TRAC refuted these claims. For the interchange between DOJ and TRAC, see http://trac.syr.edu/ tracreports/terrorism/219/. 20 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 5 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress A bit more narrowly, in many instances, individuals considered to be domestic terrorists by federal law enforcement may be charged under non-terrorism statutes, making it difficult to grasp from the public record exactly how extensive this threat is. Regarding the prosecution of domestic terrorism cases, DOJ has noted that, “[a]lthough we do have at least one specialized [federal] statute aimed at animal enterprise terrorism,21 domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses; crimes relating to fraud; and threats and hoaxes.”22 In some instances, the crimes committed by people the FBI describes as domestic terrorism suspects do not violate federal law. When this occurs, the Bureau, “support[s] [its local] partners any way [it] can—sharing intelligence, offering forensic assistance, conducting behavioral analysis, etc.”23 Thus, individuals considered domestic terrorists by federal law enforcement may not necessarily be federally charged as terrorists. Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity It may not be possible for investigators to describe the criminal activity involved early in an investigation as domestic terrorism. In these instances, investigators can work toward clarifying the motives of the suspects involved.24 Domestic terrorism cases differ from ordinary criminal activity in key ways. Most importantly, unlike ordinary criminals—who are often driven by selfcentered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy prey—domestic terrorists are driven by a cause or ideology.25 If the motives involved eventually align with the definition laid out in 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), presumably the case becomes a domestic terrorist investigation. In some instances, ideologically motivated actors can also collaborate with profitdriven individuals to commit crimes. To further cloud matters, another category of criminal activity, hate crime, may appear to involve ideological issues.26 However, as described by one federal official, a “hate crime” “generally involve[s] acts of personal malice directed at individuals” and is missing the broader motivations driving acts of domestic terrorism.27 For investigators, distinguishing between “personal malice” and ideologically motivated actions may be difficult in specific cases. This suggests that sorting domestic terrorism from hate crimes depends on the degree of a suspect’s intent. Did the suspect articulate an ideology, belong to a domestic terrorist group, or follow an extremist movement? The grey area between domestic terrorism and hate crime hints that in some instances, suspects with links to domestic terrorist movements or ideologies supporting domestic terrorism may be charged with hate crimes.28 It is unclear to what extent this influences how the government 21 This likely refers to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act from 1992. In late 2006 shortly after the white paper’s publication, this act was amended by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. 22 Department of Justice, Counterterrorism White Paper, June 22, 2006, p. 59. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, White Paper. 23 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” 24 Responses of John E. Lewis, pp. 41, 42. 25 In some instances such as those involving white-supremacist prison gangs who espouse extremist beliefs, the profit motive may be paramount in their criminal activity. See Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak, and David Caspi, “Critical Events in the Life Trajectories of Domestic Extremist White Supremacist Groups,” Criminology and Public Policy, vol. 8, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 508. Hereinafter: Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events. See also David Holthouse, “Smashing the Shamrock,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Issue 119, (Fall 2005); Camille Jackson, “Nazi Low Riders,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Issue 114, (Summer 2004). 26 For more on hate crimes legislation, see CRS Report RL33403, Hate Crime Legislation, by (name redacted). 27 Responses of John E. Lewis, p. 41. 28 While this discussion focuses on intent, domestic terrorists can exhibit additional traits that distinguish them from (continued...) Congressional Research Service 6 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress understands the threat posed by extremist movements that hold racist beliefs. If some individuals of this ilk commit crimes against police or judges, for example, is the government more apt to label this activity as terrorism while individuals sharing these same racist motivations but targeting ordinary citizens based on race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation are charged with hate crimes? The FBI’s public description of the case of confessed would-be bomber Kevin Harpham exemplifies how difficult it may be to characterize acts as domestic terrorism. Initially the FBI viewed the case as domestic terrorism. In 2011, Harpham, allegedly motivated by white supremacist ideology, left a bomb—which never detonated—along the route of a parade in Spokane, WA, honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The FBI’s Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force led the investigation.29 In prepared public remarks framing the “current state of the terrorism threat” from April 2011, the FBI’s Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division noted that Harpham’s case was one of “several recent domestic terrorism incidents [that] demonstrate the scope of the threat.”30 Harpham eventually pled guilty to committing a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.31 Thereafter, the Bureau described the case as the successful prevention of a “horrific hate crime.”32 Extremism vs. Terrorism Another concept that muddies discussion of domestic terrorism is “extremism.” The latter term is commonly applied to homegrown actors, whether they be domestic terrorists or adherents of ideologies forwarded by foreign groups such as Al Qaeda. National security expert Jonathan Masters has suggested that many law enforcement officials likely view “extremism” as largely synonymous with “terrorism.”33 Masters has also found that there is a “lack of uniformity in the way domestic terrorist activities are prosecuted” in the United States.34 Presumably, using the term “extremist” allows prosecutors, policy makers, and investigators the flexibility to discuss terrorist-like activity without actually labeling it as “terrorism” and then having to prosecute it as such. This flexibility is certainly an asset to prosecutors. They can charge subjects of FBI domestic terrorism investigations under a wider array of statutes and, as a result, not describe the subjects publicly as terrorists. However, for policy makers this flexibility makes it hard to (...continued) other offenders. For example, as part of their involvement in ideological movements, domestic terrorists often are exposed to more tactical training—in weapons, explosives, arson, reconnaissance, paramilitary discipline—than many more ordinary criminals. See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook on Extremism for Law Enforcement, (2007), p. 9. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook. 29 Department of Justice, press release, “Attempted Bomber Arrested,” March 9, 2011, http://seattle.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/ pressrel11/se030911.htm. 30 Mark F. Giuliano, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared remarks delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 14, 2011. 31 Department of Justice, press release, “Attempted Bomber Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime and Weapons Charge,” September 7, 2011. 32 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “MLK Parade Bomber,” January 13, 2012; Department of Justice, press release, “Colville, Wash., Man Indicted for Federal Hate Crime in Attempted Bombing of the MLK Unity March,” April 21, 2011. 33 Jonathan Masters, Militant Extremists in the United States, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February 7, 2011. 34 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 7 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress determine the scope of the domestic terrorist threat. One cannot get a clear sense of scope if some individuals are charged and publicly described as terrorists, others are discussed as extremists, and still others enter the public record only as criminals implicated in crimes not necessarily associated with terrorism, such as trespassing, arson, and tax fraud. What Is Extremism? The FBI’s public formulation of “extremism” suggests two components. First, extremism involves hewing to particular ideologies. Second, it also includes criminal activity to advance these ideologies.35 Thus, according to this construction, an anarchist believes in a particular ideology—anarchism. An “anarchist extremist” is an anarchist who adopts criminal tactics.36 One scholar has indicated a similar bifurcation: First, extremism refers to an ideology outside a society’s key values, and for liberal democracies, such ideologies “support racial or religious supremacy and/or oppose the core principles of democracy and human rights.” Second, extremism can refer to the use of tactics that ignore the rights of others to achieve an ideological goal.37 “Homegrown Violent Extremists” Are Not Domestic Terrorists The FBI and DHS have recently popularized the phrase “homegrown violent extremist” (HVE). It separates domestic terrorists from U.S.-based terrorists motivated by the ideologies of foreign terrorist organizations. (HVEs include some of the actors this report considers as “homegrown violent jihadists.”) According to DHS and the FBI, a HVE is “a person of any citizenship who has lived and/or operated primarily in the United States or its territories who advocates, is engaged in, or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist activities (including providing support to terrorism) in furtherance of political or social objectives promoted by a foreign terrorist organization, but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist organization.”38 35 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Anarchist Extremism, A Primer,” December 16, 2010. The focus of this piece, as the title suggests, is anarchist extremism, not necessarily defining the term “extremism.” Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.” This type of formulation—extremism consists of adherence to ideologies and criminal activity committed in the name of these ideologies—is replicated in the definitions provided within Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” 36 Making things more complex, the broader concept of “violent extremism” has been used by the Obama Administration. According to the administration, “violent extremists” are “individuals who support or commit ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals.” See Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, August 2011, p. 1. 37 Peter R. Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism: Radicalisation and De-Radicalisation in 15 Countries, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, London, 2010, p. 12. In its Guidebook on Extremism for Law Enforcement, Hereinafter: Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism. The Anti-Defamation League has defined extremists as: “people who subscribe to extreme ideologies.” The group goes on to say, “extreme ideologies are those that promote world views so radical that most other people will not agree with them.” See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 3. 38 This definition appears to differ from the conceptualization of “homegrown jihadists” used in this report by (1) only including individuals not directed by a foreign organization and by (2) including all sorts of terrorists motivated by foreign ideologies, not just violent jihadists. See Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Intelligence Bulletin, “Use of Small Arms: Examining Lone Shooters and Small-Unit Tactics,” August 16, 2011, p. 3. Congressional Research Service 8 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress According to the FBI and DHS, an HVE is not a domestic terrorist—they are two distinct categories of terrorist actors.39 The Lack of an Official Public List The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations or individuals.40 The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a group’s exercise of free speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. An unnamed DHS official cited in a news report stated that “unlike international terrorism, there are no designated domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified extremist group leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on by DHS.”41 Constitutionality aside, the lack of a list may also contribute to a certain vagueness in the public realm about which groups the federal government considers domestic terrorist organizations. While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in its Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the “Terrorist Watchlist.”42 The government is much less vague regarding foreign terrorist organizations. They are officially designated as such according to a well-established legally and procedurally proscribed regimen. According to the Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, as of December 2013, the Secretary of State had designated 54 foreign terrorist organizations according to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.43 Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups As discussed above, DOJ and the FBI do not list domestic terrorist organizations publicly and officially. This may complicate the understanding that federal policy makers have of what exactly the government considers “domestic terrorism.” While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism threats to include criminal activity by “animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, anti- 39 Ibid. See (name redacted)avita, “Does the U.S. Have Any Domestic Terrorist Groups?” Homeland Security Watch, June 29, 2010. Hereinafter: Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.” See also R. Jeffrey Smith, “Homeland Security Department Curtails Home-Grown Terror Analysis,” Washington Post, June 7, 2011. Hereinafter: Smith, “Homeland Security.” David E. Heller, “Designating Domestic Terrorist Individuals or Groups,” (Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, 2010). Hereinafter: Heller, “Designating Domestic.” 41 Smith, “Homeland Security.” 42 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorist Screening Center, “Frequently Asked Questions.” See also Timothy J. Healy, Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statement before the House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC, March 24, 2010; Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.” 43 For the legal criteria used to designate a foreign terrorist organization, the legal ramifications of designation, and ancillary effects of designation see Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” September 28, 2012. Hereinafter: Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” 40 Congressional Research Service 9 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress government extremists such as ‘sovereign citizens’ and unauthorized militias, [b]lack separatists, [w]hite supremacists, and anti-abortion extremists.”44 The actors who constitute each of the domestic terrorist “threats” outlined by DOJ draw upon ideologies whose expression largely involves constitutionally protected activity. The FBI safeguards against cases focused solely on constitutionally protected activities. All FBI investigations have to be conducted for an authorized national security, criminal, or foreign intelligence collection purpose.45 The purpose of an investigation may not be to solely monitor First Amendment rights.46 However, it is unclear how DOJ or the FBI arrive at their list of domestic terrorism threats. This poses at least two fundamental questions: • How does a particular brand of dissent become ripe for description by DOJ and the FBI as driving a “domestic terrorism” threat? What criteria are involved in such a process? How many crimes or plots attributed to a specific ideology have to occur to stimulate the identification of a new extremist threat? Is the severity of the crimes linked to an ideology taken into consideration? • At what point do ideologically driven domestic terrorism threats cease to exist? Should there be a means for public petitioning of the government to eliminate various threats as investigative priorities? The below discussion of domestic terrorism threats does not necessarily presume the priority of one over the other.47 It is also important to note that instances of animal rights extremism and eco-terrorism within the last dozen years are more readily available in the public record than cases involving other types of domestic terrorism. The extensive use of such examples in this report does not imply the prominence of animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism over other domestic terrorist threats. 44 Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 59. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” The FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations likely cover these categories as well as lone wolves (lone offenders): extremists who commit crimes without the support of a formal organization or network. Some lone wolves are motivated by the ideologies behind the threats outlined by DOJ, but they can fashion their own ideologies as well. In the past, in the area of domestic terrorism, the FBI has distinguished between “special interest terrorism” and “traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism: “Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements.” It is unclear whether the FBI still uses the categories of “special interest,” “left-wing,” and “right-wing” terrorism. See Jarboe, Testimony. 45 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, redacted, October 15, 2011, p. 4-1 through p. 4-2. 46 Ibid. 47 The discussion lists the threats in the same order as found in Department of Justice, White Paper. Congressional Research Service 10 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists The term “animal rights extremism” covers criminal acts committed in the name of animal rights.48 Environmental extremism—most often referred to as “Eco-terrorism”—includes criminal acts committed in the name of the environment.49 These terms are not applied to groups or individuals involved with environmental movements or animal welfare protection/rights activism within the “confines of civil society and the rule of law.”50 Many of the crimes committed by both animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are perpetrated by independent small cells or individuals who harass and intimidate their victims.51 These cells or lone actors engage in crimes such as vandalism, theft, the destruction of property, and arson. Most animal rights and eco-extremists also eschew physical violence directly targeting people or animals. Regardless, crimes committed by eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists have caused millions of dollars in property damage, and some have involved the intimidation and harassment of victims.52 These two types of extremism are often discussed together, because the two broader radical movements from which they draw their philosophical underpinnings have similar beliefs and overlapping membership. The two movements—the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)— have the greatest reach among animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists. The ALF and the ELF are too diffuse to be called groups. Neither the ALF nor the ELF maintains formal rosters or leadership structures, for example.53 However, each communicates a sense of shared identity and attracts people who commit crimes in its name. They achieve this via “above-ground” wings. Largely using websites, ALF and ELF supporters publish literature highlighting movement philosophies, tactics, and accounts (press releases) of recent movement-related criminal activity. Much of this involves protected speech and occurs in the public realm. Press releases allow “underground” extremists to publicly claim responsibility for criminal activity in the name of either movement while maintaining secrecy regarding the details of their operations. The ALF and the ELF do not work alone. Members of other entities such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) have committed crimes in the name of animal rights, for example. Additional factors tangle our understanding of the ALF and the ELF. People can simultaneously participate in both. This may partly be true because the movements are so amorphous. The two movements also share similar agendas, and in 1993 they declared solidarity.54 All of this can play 48 Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.” For the purposes of this report, “eco-terrorists,” “eco-extremists,” and “environmental extremists” are synonymous. These terms and “animal rights extremism” describe individuals engaged in criminal activity in the name of radical environmental ideologies or animal rights. It is unclear why environmental extremists are frequently dubbed “ecoterrorists” while animal rights extremists do not have a similar commonplace usage applied to them. 50 See Kevin R. Grubbs, “Saving Lives or Spreading Fear: The Terroristic Nature of Eco-Extremism,” Animal Law, vol. 16, no. 2 (2010), p. 353-57. Hereinafter: Grubbs, “Saving Lives.” 51 See Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Putting Intel to Work against ELF and ALF Terrorists,” June 30, 2008. Hereinafter: FBI, “Putting Intel.” 52 Ibid. 53 Both the ALF and the ELF focus on criminal activity as central tenets of their philosophies or operational guidelines, and the FBI emphasizes that criminal activity is a key element in the identities of these movements. See FBI, “Putting Intel.” 54 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Statement of Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining the (continued...) 49 Congressional Research Service 11 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress out confusingly in the real world. For example, an individual can commit a crime and claim responsibility for it online in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. One case especially highlights intersections between the ALF and the ELF. In late 2005 and early 2006, the FBI dismantled a network that, according to DOJ, committed violent acts in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. The group included about 20 individuals and called itself “the Family.” It was reportedly responsible for at least 25 criminal incidents totaling approximately $48 million in damages in the late 1990s and early 2000s and disbanded at some point in 2001, due to law enforcement pressure on the group. The Family was responsible for an arson attack in 1998 at the Vail Ski Resort. Eight simultaneous fires damaged radio towers, ski lift towers, restaurants, and the ski patrol office at the Colorado site and totaled over $24 million in losses.55 Philosophical Underpinnings Both the ALF and the ELF rely on and borrow from a number of philosophical underpinnings to rationalize their beliefs and actions. These help forge a common identity among individuals in each movement. These ideas are also key principles professed by more mainstream animal rights or environmental activists engaged in legal protest. The ALF: Animal Rights and Speciesism. The ALF’s moral code includes the belief that animals possess basic inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this suggests that animals cannot be owned. According to the ALF, the U.S. legal system—which describes animals as property—is corrupt, and there exists a “higher law than that created by and for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends the corrupt and biased statutes of the US political system.”56 Simply put, the rights of one species do not trump the rights of others. To suggest otherwise is to be prejudiced, according to animal rights adherents. For the ALF and other animal rights supporters, the favoring of one species, particularly humans, over others has a name: speciesism. For the ALF, speciesism is a “discriminatory belief system as ethically flawed and philosophically unfounded as sexism or racism, but far more murderous and consequential in its implications.”57 Thus, the movement couches the theft or illegal release of animals used in research or for economic gain as “liberation.” The ALF views the destruction of (...continued) Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-947 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 43. Hereinafter: Statement of Carson Carroll. 55 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Operation Backfire: Help Find Four Eco-Terrorists,” November 19, 2008; Department of Justice, press release, “Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges,” January 20, 2006. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Eleven Defendants.” See also United States v. Joseph Dibee et al, Sentencing Memorandum, CR 06-60069-AA, CR 06-60070-AA, CR 06-60071-AA, CR 06-60078-AA, CR 06-60079-AA, CR 0660080-AA, CR 06-60120-AA, CR-06-60122-AA, CR-06-60123-AA, CR-06-60124-AA, CR-06-60125-AA, CR60126-AA, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, May 4, 2007, pp. 6, 8, 19, 20-21. Hereinafter: U.S. v. Dibee et al. 56 North American Animal Liberation Press Office, “History of the Animal Liberation Movement.” Hereinafter: NAALPO, “History.” 57 Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front,” in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, ed. Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II (New York: Lantern Books, 2004), p. 24. Hereinafter: Best and Nocella, “Behind the Mask.” Best reportedly advises NAALPO, see http://naalpo.posterous.com/our-task-new-essay-by-press-office-advisor-st. P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, The Animal Research War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. xix. Hereinafter: Conn and Parker, The Animal. See also NAALPO, “History” which excerpts Best and Nocella’s work. Congressional Research Service 12 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress laboratory infrastructure or tools as the elimination of items used to enslave species who have the same rights as humans. Intimidation of scientists and employees of businesses tied to animal research or testing is rationalized as confrontation with “oppressors” or those who, in the eyes of movement adherents, abuse and murder animals.58 The ELF: An Ideological Mélange. Eco-terrorists are motivated by a mélange of environmental philosophies. There is no single formula for what constitutes the ideological makeup of an ELF follower, but several concepts likely play key roles in the movement. These are biocentrism, deep ecology, social ecology, and green anarchism. Biocentrism argues for the equality of all organisms.59 Deep ecology suggests that all species are part of “the larger super-organism that is nature.”60 It criticizes industrialization and views modern human impact on the earth as negative and hearkens back to small communities centered on subsistence agriculture.61 Social ecology suggests that hierarchical human society leads to social inequalities and environmental harm. Green anarchism ascribes environmental harm to civilization and domestication and embraces the notion of “rewilding,” or rejecting civilization and returning to a hunter-gatherer state to preserve one’s natural surroundings.62 Anarchist Extremists According to the FBI, anarchist extremists commit crimes in the name of anarchist ideals.63 These ideals include belief that individual autonomy and collective equality are fundamental and necessary for a functional, civilized society. [Anarchism] resists the existing hierarchical structure of society that gives some people authority and control over others. [According to anarchists] authority imbues power, and power always is used in illegitimate and self-serving ways by those who have it.64 Anarchist extremists as well as anarchists engaging in constitutionally protected activity can oppose government, business, or social interests that they view as dangerous. As this suggests, anarchists advocate some form of revolution that realigns authority and power in the societies they desire to transform. However, adherents cannot agree to a single means for attaining revolutionary change.65 As one may assume, anarchist activity is decentralized. In fact, a basic, temporary organizational structure—the affinity group—likely plays a larger role in shaping the work of U.S. anarchists 58 NAALPO, “History.” Stefan H. Leader and Peter Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front and Environmental Terrorism,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (Spring/Summer 2005), pp. 39-40. Hereinafter: Leader and Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front.” 60 Conn and Parker, The Animal, xx. 61 Leader and Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front,” pp. 39-40. 62 Sean Parson, “Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front,” Green Theory and Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy, vol. 4, no. 2 (2008), pp. 54-58. 63 Ibid. 64 Randy Borum and Chuck Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 28, no. 3, (2005), p. 202. Hereinafter: Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action.” 65 Ibid., p. 203. 59 Congressional Research Service 13 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress than any formal long-lasting entities or networks.66 Affinity groups are “autonomous militant unit[s] generally made up of between five-to-twenty individuals who share a sense of the causes worth defending and the types of actions they prefer to engage in. The decision-making process is anarchist, that is to say, egalitarian, participatory, deliberative, and consensual.”67 An affinity group often consists of a circle of friends. The friends coalesce around a specific objective and break apart when they achieve their desired ends. Individual groups can band together in “clusters” and clusters can coordinate their efforts, if need be.68 The ends can be legal or illegal, violent or non-violent, covert or open. These structures have a long history among anarchists, but other movements use them as well.69 Also, anarchists can engage in what they call “black bloc” tactics. These involve secretive planning for public—often criminal—activity in which participants, typically dressed in black, act en-masse.70 Adding to the sprawling nature of the anarchist movement, some adherents also participate in the ALF and the ELF. These three movements share general philosophical tenets such as opposition to globalization and capitalism.71 The FBI has described anarchist extremists as typically being “event driven,” meaning they show up at political conventions, economic and financial summits, environmental meetings, and the like. They usually target symbols of Western civilization that they perceive to be the root causes of all societal ills—i.e., financial corporations, government institutions, multinational companies, and law enforcement agencies. They damage and vandalize property, riot, set fires, and perpetrate small-scale bombings. Law enforcement is also concerned about anarchist extremists who may be willing to use improvised explosives devices or improvised incendiary devices.72 Anarchist extremists in the United States have been involved in illegal activity during mass protests surrounding events such as the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Seattle, WA. Anarchist extremists reportedly committed crimes during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN.73 To coordinate their protests during the convention, some anarchists formed what they called the “RNC Welcoming Committee” (RNCWC).74 In September 2007, the 66 Ibid., p. 207. Francis Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism and the Politics of Affinity Groups,” Anarchist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1 (2010), p. 41. Hereinafter: Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism.” 68 CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective, Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook, (Olympia, WA: CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective, 2004), pp. 28-34. Hereinafter: Anarchist Cookbook. 69 Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism,” p. 43. 70 Anarchist Cookbook, pp. 127-130. 71 Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action,” p. 208. 72 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.” 73 Ibid. For information on reported anarchist criminal activity related to the 2008 Republican National Convention, see Department of Justice, press release, “Michigan Man Sentenced for Possessing Molotov Cocktails,” March 10, 2009; Department of Justice, press release, “Texas Man Sentenced on Firearms Charges Connected to the Republican National Convention,” May 21, 2009; Department of Justice, press release, “Austin, Texas Man Sentenced for Possessing Molotov Cocktails During the Republican National Convention,” May 14, 2009. For information on a matter possibly related to the anarchist criminal activity at the 2008 convention, see James C. McKinley, Jr., “Anarchist Ties Seen in ‘08 Bombing of Texas Governor’s Mansion,” New York Times, February 22, 2011. 74 For an archived version of the group’s website see http://web.archive.org/web/20080907081250/http:// www.nornc.org./. 67 Congressional Research Service 14 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress RNCWC developed a plan to broadly organize the activities of affinity groups intending to disrupt the convention. Law enforcement infiltrated and undermined these efforts, arresting 800 people, including eight involved with the RNCWC.75 Initially, in Minnesota state court, the eight “had been charged with felonies: first-degree damage to property and second-degree conspiracy to riot. Prosecutors added a more serious charge of conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism, which was later dismissed.”76 Five of the eight pled guilty to gross misdemeanor charges in 2010. The others had all of the charges they faced dismissed.77 On April 30, 2012, five men who reputedly had anarchist sympathies were arrested for purportedly scheming to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, OH.78 The plot was apparently timed to coincide with peaceful protest activity arranged by Occupy Cleveland, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Occupy Cleveland representatives have stated that the alleged would-be bombers “were in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.”79 An FBI sting operation led to the quintet’s arrest.80 Purportedly, the group relied on an undercover FBI employee to supply them with two inert bombs that the conspirators believed were functional.81 Criminal acts involving anarchist extremists do not have to be event-driven. For example, DHS has noted that anarchist extremists had set fires at urban development project sites in Vancouver, Canada, and Seattle, WA, in 2013. Anarchist extremists are also suspected in a similar incident that occurred in Grand Rapids, MI in 2011.82 These attacks followed instances of what DHS characterized as “lower-level criminal activity or mischief involving anarchist or ‘antigentrification statements.’”83 In another case that was not “event-driven,” Joseph Konopka, the self-dubbed “Dr. Chaos,” allegedly led a group of boys he called “The Realm of Chaos” in a series of crimes involving vandalism to radio and cell phone towers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2002, he was arrested in Chicago for storing more than a pound of deadly cyanide powder in a passageway in a Chicago Transit Authority subway tunnel.84 He had obtained the 75 Pat Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas Close Book on ‘08 Convention Protests,” Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, October 19, 2010. Hereinafter: Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.” See also Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “The Lessons of St. Paul,” STRATFOR, September 10, 2008. 76 Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.” 77 Ibid. 78 Department of Justice, press release, “Five Men Arrested in Plot to Bomb Ohio Bridge,” May 1, 2012. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Five Men.” David Ariosto, “5 Arrested in Alleged Plot to Blow Up Cleveland-Area Bridge,” CNN, May 1, 2012. 79 Henry J. Gomez, “Bridge Bomb Plot: Suspects Were Active in Occupy Cleveland, Even As Movement Slowed to a Crawl,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 2, 2012. 80 Department of Justice, “Five Men.” 81 Ibid. Four of the conspirators pled guilty “to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce.” See Department of Justice, press release, “Three Men Sentenced to Prison for Roles in Plot to Bomb Ohio Bridge,” November 20, 2012. A fifth was “convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and other charges.” See Kim Palmer, “‘Anarchist’ Convicted in Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot,” Reuters, June 13, 2013. 82 Department of Homeland Security, “Self-Identified Anarchist Extremists Target Urban ‘Gentrification’ Sites with Arson,” July 23, 2013. 83 Ibid. 84 Juliet Williams, Federal appeals Court Overturns Dr. Chaos Conviction,” Associated Press, May 31, 2005; Mike Robinson, “Federal Prosecutors Want ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Remain Locked Up,” Associated Press, March 13, 2002; Meg Jones and Jesse Garza, “‘Anarchist’ Charged Over Cache of Cyanide,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 12, 2002. Congressional Research Service 15 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress material (potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide) from an abandoned warehouse.85 In 2002, Konopka pled guilty in federal court to possessing chemical weapons, and in 2005 he pled guilty to 11 felonies, including conspiracy, arson, creating counterfeit software, and interfering with computers in Wisconsin.86 White Supremacist Extremists The term “white supremacist extremism” (WSE) describes people or groups who commit criminal acts in the name of white supremacist ideology. At its core, white supremacist ideology purports that the white race ranks above all others. WSE draws on the constitutionally protected activities of a broad swath of racist hate-oriented groups active in the United States ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to racist skinheads. Some of these groups have elaborate organizational structures, dues-paying memberships, and media wings. Additionally, many individuals espouse extremist beliefs without having formal membership in any specific organization. A large proportion of white supremacists dualistically divide the world between whites and all other peoples who are seen as enemies.87 Particular animus is directed toward Jews and African Americans. In fact, a common racist and revisionist historical refrain is that the civil rights movement succeeded only because Jews orchestrated it behind the scenes.88 Scholars indicate that white supremacists believe in racial separation and that society discriminates against them. To them, whites have lost “ground to other groups and ... extreme measures are required to reverse the trend.”89 All of this has been encapsulated in a slogan known as the “Fourteen Words”: “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white children.” This was coined by David Lane, a member of a violent terrorist group active in the 1980s. The Fourteen Words have been described as “the most popular white supremacist slogan in the world.”90 Neo-Nazism and its obsession with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany is also a prominent component of white supremacist extremism in the United States.91 The father of American neoNazism, George Lincoln Rockwell, became publicly active in the late 1950s. According to one scholar, Rockwell laid down three concepts that have shaped neo-Nazism ever since. For his followers, he reconfigured the racial notion of “white,” broadening it beyond “Aryan” to include people of Southern and Eastern European descent. Additionally, Rockwell denied the Holocaust. 85 “Man Pleads Guilty to Storing Cyanide,” Associated Press, November 21, 2002. “Judge Sentences ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Prison for Damage to Wisconsin Power Systems, Associated Press, November 30, 2005. 87 Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky, “Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1 (Summer 2006), p. 13. Hereinafter: Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview.” 88 Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009), p. 40. Hereinafter: Zeskind, Blood and Politics. 89 Rory McVeigh, “Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States,” Social Forces, vol. 82, no. 3 (March 2004), pp. 898-899. 90 Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 16. Lane died in 2007 while serving 190 years in prison for his involvement with a terrorist group named the Order. See “Founder of Terrorist Group Dies in Prison,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, May 29, 2007, http://tribstar.com/local/x1155692948/Founder-of-terrorist-group-dies-in-prison. Among other writings, Lane also drafted an influential racist ideological tract titled The 88 Precepts. 91 Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 15. 86 Congressional Research Service 16 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress He also encouraged tying neo-Nazism to religion, and some of his followers took up the obscure creed of Christian Identity.92 Conflict and Conspiracy Aside from racial superiority, a dualistic view of the world, and neo-Nazism, at least two other broad concepts shape white supremacy in the United States. They are the inevitability of violent conflict, and a belief that conspiracies hostile to white supremacy shape the existing world.93 It can be said that WSE broadly shares these concepts with the militia movement (discussed below). The FBI has stated that white supremacists “commonly anticipate” waging war against their opponents.94 For example, the inevitability of RAHOWA—an acronym for “racial holy war”—is a central tenet of the neo-Nazi Creativity Movement, which has its roots in the Church of the Creator, a racist group founded by Ben Klassen in 1973.95 Klassen, who committed suicide in 1993, argued that whites had no choice but to wage war against non-whites.96 Likewise, some white supremacists use racism to interpret apocalyptic imagery from Norse mythology embodied in Odinism.97 Most Odinists are not racists, however.98 Conspiracism has been defined as “the idea that most major historic events have been shaped by vast, long-term, secret conspiracies that benefit elite groups and individuals.”99 Conspiracy theories are not the province of a particular movement or group. Regardless, conspiracy theories can particularly shape the outlooks and actions of white supremacist extremists. Media sources have stated that Richard Poplawski—convicted of shooting and killing three Pittsburgh police 92 Fredrick J. Simonelli, “The Neo-Nazi Movement,” Southern Poverty Law Center. See also Charles S. Clark, “An American Nazi’s Rise and Fall,” American History, vol. 40, no. 6 (February 2006), pp. 60-66; Simonelli, “The American Nazi Party,” Historian, vol. 57, no. 3 (Spring 1995), pp. 553-566. A follower assassinated Rockwell in 1967. For information on Christian Identity, see Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, Terrorism in America (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2009), pp. 47-72; Martin Durham, “Christian Identity and the Politics of Religion,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, vol. 9, no. 1 (March 2008), pp. 79-91; Tanya Telfair Sharpe, “The Identity Christian Movement: Ideology of Domestic Terrorism,” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 30, no. 4 (March 2000), pp. 604623; Anti-Defamation League, “Christian Identity.” 93 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” pp. 12-13 highlights dualism, conspiracism, and apocalypticism as key themes. 94 The Bureau has noted that “warfare” is reflected in beliefs drawn from Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, neo-Nazism, and Odinism. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11, July 7, 2008, p. 4. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist. 95 After Klassen’s 1993 death, the Church of the Creator was revived in an altered form by Matt Hale. For more information see Southern Poverty Law Center, “Church of the Creator.” See also Dobratz, “The Role,” p. 290; and Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4. 96 Ben Klassen, “RAHOWA: The Fighting Slogan of the White Race,” Racial Loyalty, no. 32 (February 1986). 97 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4. Odinism has been defined as either a combination of old Norse religion and Christianity or a belief system that draws exclusively on Nordic mythology. See Jonathan White, “Political Eschatology: A Theology of Antigovernment Extremism,” The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 6, (February 2001), p. 939. 98 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 30. 99 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 12. For more on conspiracy theories and terrorism see Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller, The Power of Unreason: Conspiracy Theories, Extremism, and Counter-Terrorism, Demos, London, August 29, 2010. Barlett and Miller (p. 24.) suggest that conspiracy theories “are one of a number of factors that can lead to extremism, and can turn extremism to violence.” Congressional Research Service 17 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress officers in April 2009—believed that a Zionist conspiracy controlled government and major corporations in the United States.100 As in Poplawski’s example, anti-Semitism plays a prominent role in the racist conspiracies of many white supremacists.101 These people—as well as anti-government extremists—believe in something they call the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG).102 ZOG refers to the federal government, which adherents contend is “controlled or manipulated by international Jewish interests.”103 On its website, one WSE group has sold versions of a video game titled “ZOG’s Nightmare.” Gameplay involves shooting nonwhites while being chased by a police agency controlled by Jews.104 Racists explain all sorts of personal or social grievances by invoking ZOG.105 One scholar has described ZOG as an omnipresent and omnipotent cabal involving at its heart varying constellations of Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, plutocrats, and multinational corporations. It operates through many social ‘front’ institutions, from the United Nations to Parent-Teacher Associations.... ZOG can be used to explain not only the existence of affirmative action, environmental pollution, and pornography but also why a certain individual made poor grades in school, lost his job, or seems unable to find a partner.106 According to adherents, ZOG is said to control the media, arts, religion, science, and education.107 Loss of Prominent Leaders In the 1980s and 1990s, a small number of figures dominated white supremacist circles. They were intimately linked to their own relatively cohesive organizations. By the early 2000s, these groups fragmented as they lost their leaders. This fragmented situation likely persists. In fact, one study from 2006 has described “a recent crisis of leadership in the hate movement.”108 Two particularly well-known white supremacist figures died in the last decade. William Pierce, head of the National Alliance, died in 2002. Richard Butler, leader of Aryan Nations, died in 2004. Both Pierce and Butler articulated clear ideologies that attracted followers and drew upon resources such as rural headquarters/compounds to sustain their organizations.109 By the early 2000s, the National Alliance even had a substantial revenue stream estimated at $1 million 100 Timothy McNulty, Paula Reed Ward and Sadie Gurman, “Jury Decides Poplawski Should Die for Killing 3 Officers,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 28, 2011. Hereinafter: McNulty et al., “Jury Decides.” See also AntiDefamation League, “Richard Poplawski: The Making of a Lone Wolf,” April 8, 2009. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, “Richard Poplawski.” Sean D. Hamill, “Man Accused in Pittsburgh Killings Voiced Racist Views Online,” New York Times, April 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Hamill, “Man Accused.” 101 Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 13. 102 Also seen as “Zionist Occupation Government.” 103 Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism, p. 93; Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 11, 54, 68-69. Hereinafter: Gardell, Gods. 104 Anti-Defamation League, The National Socialist Movement. 105 Gardell, Gods, p. 68. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Jack Levin, Domestic Terrorism (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006), pp. 48-49. 109 Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events,” 511. Congressional Research Service 18 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress annually generated from a publishing company and record labels it owned as well as dues.110 The deaths of Butler and Pierce exacerbated the downfall of both organizations. The decline of these groups also resulted from a number of other forces, such as infighting among members and pressure from law enforcement and watchdog groups.111 Two prominent white supremacist movements are discussed below. National Socialist Movement (NSM) One white supremacist organization active in the United States is the National Socialist Movement (NSM). It has benefitted from the decline of these other groups as well as new leadership in the form of Jeff Schoep.112 The NSM also capitalized on the expansion of the Internet in the early 2000s. The group, which emerged in 1974, is a descendant of the American Nazi Party, and until the 1990s and early 2000s “it operated only on the fringes of the neo-Nazi movement.”113 As of 2008, the group had around 500 members and close associates throughout the United States.114 The NSM is flexible about membership, allowing its members to also participate in other white supremacist organizations.115 Individuals allegedly tied to the NSM at some point in their lives have run afoul of the law. • In Minnesota in April 2012, Joseph Benjamin Thomas was indicted on drugrelated charges, and Samuel James Johnson was indicted on weapons-related charges. Purportedly the two were tied to NSM—at one point Johnson had served as its leader in Minnesota. The duo had reportedly formed their own white supremacist group, gathering weapons and ammunition and planning to attack the government and other targets.116 In June 2012, Johnson pled guilty to “one count of being a felon in possession of firearms.”117 In July 2012, Thomas pled guilty to “possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of high-purity methamphetamine.”118 • William White, a onetime member of the NSM and founder of his own white supremacist organization, has faced charges in several criminal cases. In December 2013, DOJ announced an indictment of White that included “five counts of making threats in aid of extortion over the Internet and one count of the unlawful use of identification information in furtherance of those offenses.”119 He 110 Ibid., pp. 512, 513. Ibid., p. 516. 112 Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers: Inside the National Socialist Movement, (2008), p. 3. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 115 Southern Poverty Law Center, “National Socialist Movement.” 116 Department of Justice, press release, “Mendota Heights Man Indicted for Distributing Methamphetamine,” April 27, 2012; Department of Justice, press release, “Austin Felon Indicted for Possessing Firearms,” April 27, 2012; Amy Forliti, “Affidavit: 2 Men With Supremacist Ties Had Weapons,” Associated Press, April 27, 2012. 117 Department of Justice, press release, “Austin Felon Pleads Guilty to Possessing an Assault Rifle,” June 6, 2012. 118 Department of Justice, press release, “Mendota Heights Man Pleads Guilty to Possessing Methamphetamine,” July 11, 2012. 119 Department of Justice, press release, “White Supremacist Charged with Sending Online Threatening (continued...) 111 Congressional Research Service 19 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress allegedly threatened a Florida judge, a state attorney, and an FBI agent, with kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder. DOJ claims that White included the families of these individuals in his threats. The officials that White threatened had been involved in prosecuting suspects tied to the American Front, a white supremacist organization in Florida. White apparently hoped that his threats would somehow secure the release of the American Front suspects.120 In January 2011, White was convicted121 of soliciting violence online against the jury foreman in U.S. v. Matthew Hale.122 In April 2011, a federal judge reversed White’s conviction. Upon appeal, the conviction was reinstated.123 In an unrelated case, in December 2009, White was convicted of four counts of communicating threats in interstate commerce and one count of witness intimidation. One of the convictions for communicating threats in interstate commerce was later reversed.124 The witness intimidation charges involved White reportedly attempting to “delay or prevent the testimony” of African Americans in a discrimination case.125 According to publicly available information, in 2005 and 2006 White was involved with NSM, for a time serving as its national spokesman.126 His activity with NSM ceased after he had a falling out with Schoep.127 (...continued) Communications to a Florida Judge, State Attorney, and Task Force Agent,” December 11, 2013. 120 Ibid. 121 Department of Justice, press release, “Self-Proclaimed White Supremacist William White Convicted of Soliciting Violence Against Hale Jury Foreman,” January 5, 2011. 122 Matthew Hale was convicted of soliciting the murder of U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. In the mid 1990s, Hale revived the Church of the Creator fortunes. He changed the organization’s name to the World Church of the Creator, and according to a watchdog group, by 2002 it had more chapters in the United States than any other neoNazi organization. Judge Lefkow had originally ruled in favor of Hale in a trademark infringement case involving the name “World Church of the Creator.” Her ruling was reversed on appeal, and as a result, she had to enforce the higher court’s reversal. Via email and during a conversation, Hale discussed with his security chief the idea of killing Lefkow. Hale did not know that his security chief was an FBI informant. In 2003, Hale was arrested for soliciting the murder of Judge Lefkow, and this, as well as his subsequent conviction on charges related to the case, hastened a downturn in fortune for his World Church of the Creator. Hale is serving a 40-year prison term. After another name change, the group—currently known simply as the Creativity Movement—shows signs of revival under new leadership. See Michael, Theology of Hate, pp. 120-133, 173-188; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Creativity”; Chris Dettro, “FollowUp File: White Supremacist Finds Quiet Life in Prison,” The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Il, October 25, 2010; Larry Keller, “From the Ashes,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 140 (winter 2010), pp. 12-14; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “A Different Breed of Terrorist,” June 6, 2004. 123 Department of Justice, press release, “White Supremacist William White Sentenced to 42 Months in Prison for Soliciting Violence Against Hale Jury Foreman,” February 20, 2013; Laurence Hammack, “Judge Tosses William A. White Verdict,” The Roanoke Times, April 20, 2011. 124 Department of Justice, press release, “Roanoke, Virginia Neo-Nazi Sentenced for Threats, Witness Intimidation,” April 14, 2010. 125 Ibid. See also Laurence Hammack, “Former Neo-Nazi Leader Gets 3 More Months in Prison,” October 23, 2012. 126 Laurence Hammack, “White’s Life on Fringe Puts Him at Center of Storm,” The Roanoke Times, July 26, 2009. 127 Ibid; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Bill White,” 2011. For other cases involving individuals allegedly tied to NSM, see Department of Justice, press release, “Valley Man Enters Guilty Plea for Possession and Transport of an Improvised Explosive Device,” September 27, 2011; Department of Justice, press release, “Valley Man Indicted for Possessing and Transporting Improvised Explosive Devices,” January 26, 2011, http://phoenix.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/ pressrel11/px012611.htm; Rudabeh Shahbazi, “Documents Show Apache Junction Man Planned To Take IEDs to the Border,” ABC 15; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Tip Leads to Sting, Prison for Plotter,” November 29, 2006. Congressional Research Service 20 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Racist Skinheads In the United States, racist skinheads have a legacy stretching back to the early 1980s.128 However, skinhead culture originated in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s and today has a global reach.129 Since the early 2000s, the movement in the United States has been characterized by a proliferation of regional groups or crews rather than a united core organization.130 In law enforcement circles, racist skinheads have a reputation for violence. This is “reinforced by hatefilled white power music and literature.” “[T]hey foster [their reputed toughness] through their appearance (shaved heads or close-cropped hair, white power tattoos) and dress (bomber jackets, ‘braces’ (suspenders), steel-toed boots.)”131 Skinheads emerged as a non-racist movement among British working-class youth in the late 1960s. These early skinheads rejected the hippie lifestyle and embraced elements of Jamaican culture, particularly reggae and ska music. As immigration from South Asia to the UK grew, some white British skinheads embraced racism and neo-Nazism. This racist skinhead variant of the subculture materialized in the U.S. Midwest and in Texas in the early 1980s.132 In the mid-1990s, many U.S.-based racist skinhead groups allied with one another to form the Hammerskin Nation (HSN). HSN eventually developed chapters throughout the United States and in Europe. It had its own annual meeting/concert called Hammerfest, ran a record label, and had a publishing company. In the early 2000s, other groups such as the Outlaw Hammerskins, Hoosier State Hammerskins, and Ohio State Skinheads challenged HSN for preeminence. These groups saw HSN as “elitist.”133 In 2011, by one measure, 133 skinhead groups were active in the United States.134 In January 2010, the FBI released a bulletin that, among other things, emphasized that some racist skinheads formed the most violent segment of WSE adherents.135 This supported the findings in a 2008 FBI assessment.136 Between 2007 and 2009, skinheads were involved in 36 of the 53 violent incidents the FBI identified in the United States as being tied to WSE proponents.137 The Bureau has stated that “violence is an integral part of the racist skinhead subculture.”138 Elements within 128 Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads in America: Racists on the Rampage, p. 3. Hereinafter: Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid., p. 13; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 8. 131 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, pp. 5-6. 132 Michael R. Ronczkowski, Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2007), pp. 40-41. Hereinafter: Ronczkowski, Terrorism. Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 3-4. 133 Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, p. 5. 134 See Mark Potok, “The Year in Hate and Extremism,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 145 (Spring 2012), p. 46. Hereinafter: Potok, “The Year.” Potok notes that this count of skinhead groups “understates their numbers” because “skinheads are migratory and often not affiliated with groups.” 135 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence Possibly Decreases But Racist Skinheads Remain the Most Violent, January 28, 2010. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence. 136 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism: Skinhead Violence on the Far Right, December 10, 2008. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism. 137 Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence, p. 4. 138 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5. Congressional Research Service 21 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress the fractious movement even target one another.139 These criminal acts are typically unrehearsed and opportunistic, targeting nonwhites and “other religious and social minorities.”140 An apparent recent exception involved greater levels of planning. One man was convicted and two others pled guilty in a Connecticut case that involved the illegal sale of firearms and homemade grenades. The scheme included multiple meetings between late 2008 and early 2010 to negotiate the transactions, prepare the firearms, and assemble the grenades. The trio was tied to a skinhead group known as Battalion 14 (originally called the Connecticut White Wolves). They sold the weapons to a convicted felon working as an FBI cooperating witness. The informant posed as a member of the Imperial Klans of America, a Ku Klux Klan organization. Two others in the case, including the leader of Battalion 14 and a man not tied to the group, were acquitted of charges.141 Anti-Government Extremists As mentioned above, DOJ considers both unauthorized militias and sovereign citizens as antigovernment extremists. Neither militia membership nor advocacy of sovereign citizen tenets makes one a terrorist or a criminal. However, in some instances both militia members and sovereign citizens have committed crimes driven in part by their ideologies. Militia Extremists The militia movement emerged in the 1990s as a collection of armed, paramilitary groups formed to stave off what they perceived as intrusions of an invasive government.142 Central to this is a fear of firearm confiscation by a federal government thought to be out of control. Some adherents also believe in anti-Semitic and racist ideologies.143 Regardless, most militia members engage in constitutionally protected activity. Militia groups typically coalesce around a specific leader. Groups can run training compounds where they rehearse paramilitary tactics, practice their survival skills, and receive weapons instruction and lessons in movement ideology. Some militia groups also maintain websites for recruitment and fundraising.144 Extremists within the movement who run afoul of law enforcement “tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands 139 Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 5, 16. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5. 141 Department of Justice, press release, “Milford Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Making Grenades and Selling Guns Intended for White Supremacist Group,” May 5, 2011, http://newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/ nh050511.htm; Michael P. Mayko, “Two Acquitted in White Wolves Conspiracy Case,” Connecticut Post, December 2, 2010; Michael P. Mayko, “White Wolves Called ‘Home Grown Terrorists,’” Connecticut Post, November 16, 2010; Anti-Defamation League, “Connecticut White Supremacists Indicted on Firearms and Explosives Charges,” March 24, 2010. For another case allegedly involving racist skinheads, see Amy Pavuk and Henry Pierson Curtis, “Details Emerge in Osceola Skinhead Race-War Case,” Orlando Sentinel, May 8, 2012. 142 Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts, Version 1.0, (Tallahassee, Florida: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2005), p. 49; Hereinafter: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism. 143 Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center, “Sovereign Citizens and Militia Information,” August 19, 2008, p. 1. 144 Lane Crothers, “The Cultural Foundations of the Modern Militia Movement,” New Political Science, vol. 24, no. 2 (2002), p. 231. Hereinafter: Crothers, “The Cultural.” 140 Congressional Research Service 22 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices.”145 Segments of the militia movement believe that the U.S. government is either run by some hidden conspiracy or is an overreaching sham. Some see a “New World Order” controlling U.S. institutions such as the media and the federal government. They contend that this is partly fostered by international organizations such as the United Nations. From this perspective, these organizations sap American sovereignty. Some militia supporters believe that agents of an unauthentic “Shadow Government” are interested in seizing lawfully owned firearms as part of a plan to undermine democracy.146 Importantly, others in the militia movement hold that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.147 One scholar has noted that some militia members assert that they have “the right to organize, purchase and use firearms, and enforce the law against agents of the government who behave unconstitutionally.”148 A small minority of Americans who held anti-government fears formed militias largely in response to two incidents in the early 1990s. These were confrontations between federal law enforcement and private citizens at Ruby Ridge, ID, and at a site near Waco, TX.149 Both involved warrants related to firearms violations. • In August 1992, Randy Weaver and his family were engaged in an 11-day standoff with federal law enforcement agents. Randy Weaver had failed to appear in court on firearms-related charges in 1991. Subsequently, an unsuccessful operation to arrest Weaver led to the death of his 14-year-old son and a U.S. Marshal. It also precipitated the standoff. During the standoff, Weaver and a friend were shot and wounded. An FBI sniper also shot and killed Weaver’s wife, Vicki.150 Weaver was eventually found guilty of failing to appear in court on the gun charges that played a role in the standoff. In October 1993, he was sentenced to 18 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. In 1995, Weaver received a $3.1 million settlement in a wrongful death suit filed against the U.S. government.151 The events at Ruby Ridge helped precipitate the militia movement, whose members tend to view Randy Weaver as a hero and demonize the federal government.152 • The militia movement also emerged because of the 51-day standoff between federal law enforcement and a religious sect named the Branch Davidians near 145 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Focus on Militia Extremism,” September 22, 2011. Lane Crothers, Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Security (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 57. Hereinafter: Crothers, Rage on the Right. 147 Crothers, “The Cultural,” pp. 226-228. 148 Ibid., p. 228. 149 Ibid., pp. 230-231. See also Michael Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs: The Branch Davidians and the Radical Right,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 19, no. 1 (2007), p. 120. Hereinafter: Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs.” See also Steven M. Chermak, Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement, (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2002). 150 Stuart A. Wright, Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 142-148. Hereinafter: Wright, Patriots. Weaver has been described as a survivalist who believed in the Christian Identity religion. See Barkun “Appropriated Martyrs,” p. 118. He has also been described as holding white supremacist beliefs and was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 78-79. 151 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 90. 152 Wright, Patriots, pp. 149-152; Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 92-97; Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs,” pp. 120121. 146 Congressional Research Service 23 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress Waco.153 On February 28, 1993, an unsuccessful attempt by ATF agents to arrest the sect’s leader, David Koresh, initiated the events near Waco. He was wanted on suspicion of federal firearms and explosives violations.154 Four ATF agents and six Branch Davidians died in a gunfight during the operation.155 Protracted discussions followed between federal negotiators and Koresh. These failed. On April 19, federal agents assaulted the Davidian compound, which caught on fire. At least 75 Branch Davidians perished in the assault.156 If the incidents involving the Weavers and the Branch Davidians helped form the militia movement, Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, helped usher in a temporary decline.157 In the bombing’s aftermath, militia groups received greater law enforcement scrutiny.158 The bombing claimed 168 lives, and until 9/11 was the largest single act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The militia movement included 441 groups in 1995. By 2000, this number was reportedly down to 72.159 Although McVeigh’s bombing cannot fully account for a dip in militia activity, it impacted the movement by causing some groups to temper their rhetoric while others grew more extreme, and militias became more marginalized.160 The militia movement has experienced a recent resurgence. One watchdog group has attributed this partly to a rise in anti-government anger since 2008.161 According to another organization, the number of militias in the United States jumped from 42 in 2008 to a recent high of 334 in 2011 (see Figure 1). This resurgence may exhibit a key difference from its precursor. Social networking websites have encouraged looser organization of smaller, largely web-based cells.162 Several examples highlight how some militia adherents have allegedly engaged in criminal activity since 9/11. • In November 2011, the FBI arrested four retirees, Samuel J. Crump, Ray H. Adams, Dan Roberts, and Frederick W. Thomas, who allegedly formed a fringe militia group and planned violent attacks on government officials. The group, based in northern Georgia, purportedly had ties to an unnamed militia organization. According to DOJ, the quartet “discussed multiple criminal activities, ranging from murder; theft; manufacturing and using toxic agents; and assassinations in an effort to undermine federal and state government and to 153 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 104. Department of Justice, Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas, October 8, 1993. The Branch Davidian sect emerged from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and was formed in 1929. The two severed official ties with one another in 1934. David Koresh was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 100-101. 155 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 105. 156 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 110. 157 McVeigh was not a militia member, but he interacted with others who were. 158 Devlin Barett and Eileen Sullivan, “FBI Sees Little Chance of Copycat Militia Plots,” Associated Press, March 31, 2010. 159 Potok, “The Year,” p. 42. 160 Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 138, 147. 161 Anti-Defamation League, Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies, the Resurgence of the Militia Movement, November 16, 2009. 162 Ibid. 154 Congressional Research Service 24 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress advance their interests.”163 Between June and November 2011, Roberts and Thomas met with an FBI undercover agent to negotiate the purchase of matériel for the plot: “a silencer for a rifle and conversion parts to make a fully automatic rifle, as well as explosives.”164 In October, plotters reportedly discussed making ricin, a deadly poison derived from castor beans.165 In April 2012, Roberts and Thomas pled guilty to conspiring to obtain an unregistered explosive device and silencer.166 Crump and Adams were found guilty of “conspiring to make ricin to be used as a weapon in January 2014. Also, they were found guilty of one count each of possessing a biological toxin for use as a weapon.” Adams was acquitted of “attempting to develop, produce and possess a biological toxin.”167 • In June 2012, three individuals were found guilty in Anchorage, AK of conspiracy and firearms charges related to a scheme purportedly led by Francis “Schaeffer” Cox.168 He and his followers allegedly plotted “a potential retaliatory response to any attempt by law enforcement to arrest Cox, who had an outstanding bench warrant for not attending a trial over a misdemeanor weapons charge.”169 They were members of the Alaska Peacemaker’s Militia based in Fairbanks, AK, and also held sovereign citizen beliefs. The plotters supposedly codenamed their plan “241 (two for one),” because they reputedly intended to kill two government officials for every militia member killed in the operation.170 The above alleged activities are not necessarily indicative of trends toward violence in the larger militia movement, and in one prominent case, DOJ failed to convince the presiding judge of serious charges revolving around a purported violent plot. In March 2012, a federal judge acquitted members of a Michigan Militia group known as the Hutaree on charges of seditious conspiracy or rebellion against the United States and conspiring to use weapons of mass 163 Department of Justice, press release, “North Georgia Men Arrested, Charged in Plots to Purchase Explosives, Silencer and to Manufacture a Biological Toxin,” November 1, 2011. 164 Ibid. 165 Craig Schneider, “Documents: Men with Castor Beans, Guns Worried about Getting Caught,” Atlanta JournalConstitution, November 6, 2011. 166 Department of Justice, press release, “North Georgia Men Plead Guilty to Plot to Purchase Explosives and a Silencer,” April 10, 2012. 167 Kate Brumback, “Jury Finds 2 Georgia Men Guilty in Ricin Plot,” Associated Press, January 17, 2014. 168 Department of Justice, press release, “Guilty Verdicts in USA v. Cox, Barney, and Vernon,” June 19, 2012. 169 Department of Justice, press release, “Superseding Indictment Returned by Federal Grand Jury Against FairbanksArea Men for Conspiracy to Kill Federal Officers,” January 23, 2012; Sam Friedman, “Details Emerge in Alleged Plot to Kill Alaska State Troopers, Judge,” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 3, 2011. Cox has also been described as a sovereign citizen (discussed below). See Sam Friedman, “The Schaeffer Cox File: The Trail of a Young Man,” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, April 10, 2011. For a related case see Department of Justice, press release, “Salcha Couple Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officials,” August 27, 2012; Department of Justice, press release, “Couple Charged with Conspiracy to Murder Judge and Federal Firearms Crimes, Two Others Indicted for Conspiracy to Possess Destructive Devices and Illegal Weapons,” March 17, 2011. 170 For examples of other militia adherents involved in crime, see Meghann M. Cuniff, “Health Problems Reduce Militia Leader’s Sentence,” The Spokesman-Review, August 11, 2011; Bill Morlin, “Idaho Militia Leader Sentenced for Weapons, Bombs,” Hatewatch, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 9, 2011; David Cole, “Militia Member Sentenced on Federal Firearms and Explosives Charges,” Coeur d'Alene Press, August 9, 2011; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil: The Case of the Wrong Package Falling into the Right Hands,” April 9, 2004; Scott Gold, Case Yields Chilling Signs of Domestic Terror Plot,” Los Angeles Times, January 7, 2004. Congressional Research Service 25 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress destruction. The judge also cleared the accused Hutaree members of weapons crimes related to the conspiracies.171 The case garnered headlines in March 2010, when nine Hutaree members were indicted for allegedly preparing to violently confront U.S. law enforcement.172 Their supposed plotting included the murder of a local law enforcement officer and an attack on fellow officers who gathered in Michigan for the funeral procession. According to DOJ, the Hutaree discussed the use of explosives against the funeral procession.173 Audio recordings by an undercover FBI agent of reputed Hutaree leader David Brian Stone capture him discussing the New World Order and how, “it’s time to strike and take our nation back so we will be free of tyranny.... The war will come whether we are ready or not.”174 According to DOJ, the group had a hit list that included federal judges, among others.175 However, during the trial an Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that the Hutaree had not formed a “specific plan” to attack government targets.176 U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts stated that, “The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level.”177 Three Hutaree members pled guilty to firearms charges.178 Sovereign Citizen Movement The FBI defines the sovereign citizen movement as “anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States. As a result, they do not accept any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.”179 However, simply holding these views 171 Ed White, “Michigan Militia Members Cleared of Conspiracy,” Associated Press, March 27, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/critical-charges-dropped-michigan-militia-16013255?singlePage= true#.T3MB5kd_lLc. Hereinafter: White, “Michigan Militia.” 172 Department of Justice, press release, “Nine Members of a Militia Group Charged with Seditious Conspiracy and Related Charges,” March 29, 2010. 173 Ibid. 174 Corey Williams and Jeff Karoub, “Prosecutor: Undercover FBI Agent Infiltrated Militia,” Associated Press, March 31, 2010. 175 Dan Harris, Emily Friedman, and Tahman Bradley, “Undercover Agent Key Witness Against Hutaree Militia Members,” ABC News, April 1, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/undercover-agent-credited-hutaree-militia-bust/ story?id=10257584. 176 Robert Snell and Christine Ferretti, “Key Charges Dropped Against Hutaree Militia,” Detroit News, March 28, 2011. 177 White, “Michigan Militia.” 178 See Department of Justice, Press Release, “Members of the Hutaree Militia Plead Guilty to Weapons Charges,” March 29, 2012; Matthew Dolan, “Defendant in Michigan Militia Case Changes Plea to Guilty,” December 6, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577080630555077796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. When the Hutaree suspects were arrested in the case, some militia members in Michigan did not support the group’s alleged scheming. For example, a member of another militia group in Michigan provided information to authorities regarding the whereabouts of a fugitive Hutaree militia member. See Kirk Johnson, “Militia Draws Distinctions Between Groups,” New York Times, March 31, 2010. Also, a militia leader from Michigan has said that the Hutaree case, “caused a rift in the militia movement about whether this is the sort of group we want to rally behind or if what they were doing was outside the scope of what’s acceptable.” See Robert Snell, “Militias Split over Defending Hutaree,” Detroit News, March 31, 2011. 179 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement,” April 13, 2010. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign Citizen.” Congressional Research Service 26 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress is not a criminal act, and numerous movement adherents solely exercise their beliefs via constitutionally protected activities. The ideas behind the movement originated during the 1970s with a group known as the Posse Comitatus and enjoyed some popularity in extremist circles during the 1980s and 1990s.180 Early on, the movement featured white supremacist elements, but this has not kept some African Americans from subscribing to its ideals in recent years.181 In the 1990s, the movement attracted 250,000 followers and was marked by the FBI’s standoff with a group known as the Montana Freemen that lasted 81 days.182 Current estimates suggest a membership of 300,000.183 For the most part, the sovereign citizen movement is diffuse and includes few organized groups.184 The FBI suggests that sovereigns “operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork [critical to some of their schemes], or socialize and talk about their ideology.”185 The movement involves leaders described as “gurus” who proselytize online, in print publications, or via inperson seminars. These gurus rouse followers into believing a conspiracy theory in which the legitimate federal government has been replaced by a government designed to take away the rights of ordinary citizens.186 This shares the same broad interplay between concepts of legitimate and illegitimate rule seen in the New World Order and WSE theories about ZOG. Gurus can also promote illegal techniques that individuals can use to supposedly cut their ties to the federal government or avoid its reach, particularly when it comes to taxation.187 Sovereign citizens reject the legitimacy of much of the U.S. legal system.188 Many believe that the 14th Amendment “shifted the nation from its original common-law roots with states’ rights to 180 Anti-Defamation League, “Sovereign Citizen Movement;” Casey Sanchez, “Return of the Sovereigns,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 133 (spring 2009). 181 Sarah Netter, “Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens Taking Foreclosed Homes Using Phony Deeds, Authorities Say,” ABC News, August 23, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-battling-sovereign-citizens-squattingforeclosed-homes/story?id=11445382. See Leah Nelson, “Sovereigns in Black,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011). 182 Patrik Jonsson, “‘Sovereign citizens’: Is Jared Loughner a sign of revived extremist threat?” Christian Science Monitor, March 9, 2011. 183 Ibid. 184 One sovereign citizens group is the “Republic for the united States of America” (RuSA) which is based in Alabama. RuSA is a successor to a group known as the Guardians of the Free Republics (GFR), which in 2010 mailed letters to the governors of all 50 U.S. states urging them to leave office. See Southern Poverty Law Center, “Sovereign President,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011). In March 2013, the group’s selfproclaimed president was convicted of “conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009 federal income tax return, and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding.” See Department of Justice, Press Release, “Self-Proclaimed President of Sovereign Citizen Nation Convicted in Alabama of Federal Tax Crimes,” March 25, 2013. 185 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (September 2011). Hereinafter: FBI Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens.” 186 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, August 9, 2010, pp. 2-6. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless. 187 Ibid., p. 6. 188 However, this reportedly does not keep some sovereign citizen extremists from cashing government paychecks. See J.J. McNabb, “Working for the Man: Anti-Government Extremists Who Cash Government Paychecks,” Forbes, March 5, 2012. Congressional Research Service 27 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress a federal corporation that legally enslaved everyone.”189 According to movement members, the amendment ushered in an illegitimate federal government by supposedly abrogating individual rights and replacing them with a system that “grant[ed] privileges through contracts such as marriage and driver’s licenses, gun permits, and property codes.”190 By ignoring all sorts of laws, avoiding taxes, disregarding permit requirements, and destroying government-issued identification documents, some sovereign citizens have tried to cut formal ties with what they perceive as an illegitimate regime.191 Sovereigns have filed court documents stating that they are not U.S. citizens.192 They have also created bogus financial documents to harass or defraud their enemies. (For more information, see the ““Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes” section in this report). Sovereign citizens have in some instances created fictitious entities and used fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver licenses. In 2009, a federal jury found three men guilty of conspiring to use and sell fraudulent diplomatic credentials and license plates that they believed allowed “their customers [to] enjoy diplomatic immunity and [to] no longer ... pay taxes or be subject to being stopped, detained, or arrested by law enforcement personnel.”193 In 2003, Ronald K. Delorme developed the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America194 into a sovereign citizen group.195 It is a sham Native American tribe that anyone can join to try and avoid taxes and government-imposed costs, such as auto registration fees. For example, news reports indicate that in June 2010, a sheriff’s deputy in Florida pulled over John McCombs when the law enforcement official noticed a Pembina Nation Little Shell license plate on the motorcycle McCombs was driving. According to publicly available sources, McCombs presented a fraudulent letter of diplomatic immunity and an invalid Pembina Nation Little Shell vehicle registration.196 Some sovereign citizen fraud appears to be motivated by economic opportunism rather than ideology.197 This includes “pyramid schemes, other investment schemes, bogus trust scams, real estate fraud, and various types of tax frauds [as well as] more esoteric scams ... ranging from immigration fraud to malpractice insurance fraud.”198 In November 2011, husband and wife Monty and Patricia Ervin were convicted in federal court of conspiring to defraud the United States as well as three counts of tax evasion. In addition, the federal jury convicted Patricia of structuring transactions to avoid bank reporting requirements.199 The couple allegedly had not 189 Tom Morton, “Sovereign Citizens Renounce First Sentence of 14th Amendment,” Casper Star-Tribune, April 17, 2011, http://trib.com/news/local/casper/article_a5d0f966-7ed0-549f-a066-b1b2c91f9489.html. 190 Ibid. 191 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, pp. 4-5. 192 Lance Griffin, “‘Sovereigns’ Gain Attention of Law Enforcement,” Dothan Eagle, May 21, 2011. 193 Department of Justice, press release, “Jury Convicts Three Men of Conspiracy To Use Fake Diplomatic Identification,” August 31, 2009. 194 The group is not a federally recognized tribe. 195 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless; Chris Gerbasi, “Tribal Claims Causing Charlotte Controversy,” Sarasota Herald Tribune, July 25, 2010; “Punta Gorda Man Arrested for Driving with Pembina Nation Plate,” WINK News, June 1, 2010. 196 Ibid. 197 For a discussion of redemption as a scam, see Federal Bureau of Investigation, Common Fraud Schemes, http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud. 198 Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, p. 24. 199 Department of Justice, press release, “Self-Proclaimed ‘Governor’ of Alabama and Wife Convicted of Tax Fraud,” November 4, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed.” Congressional Research Service 28 The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress filed federal income tax returns between 2000 and 2008, denied their U.S. citizenship, and dubbed themselves “sovereign” when the IRS investigated.200 The Ervins earned more than $9 million from investment properties they owned.201 A group of self-proclaimed sovereign citizens in North Georgia was indicted in March 2011 for using sovereign schemes to allegedly steal millions of dollars worth of real estate.202 In a few recent cases, avowed sovereign citizens have been involved in violent altercations with law enforcement officers. According to a September 2011 FBI publication, since 2000 “loneoffender sovereign-citizen extremists have killed six law enforcement officers,” and the Bureau sees sovereign citizens as a growing threat to U.S. law enforcement.203 • Perhaps the most publicized example of alleged sovereign violence directed at police occurred in 2010. In May of that year, two self-professed sovereign citizens were involved in a violent confrontation with West Mem [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR42536. Public record. Not legal advice.