Skip to main content

tv   Domestic Terrorism Panel at Texas Tribune Festival  CSPAN  October 7, 2019 6:59pm-8:01pm EDT

6:59 pm
and now conversation about domestic terrorism, the panel discussed why there are no federal statutes designating the difference between a domestic and international terrorism, the reason why there should and shouldn't be separate laws for domestic terrorism, the texas tribune
7:00 pm
festival and austin is the host of this hour-long event. law thank you evan, thank all of you for being here, this is titled from within the topic on domestic terrorism, law, couple of quick reminders, this will be 60 minutes total but we will leave plenty of time for questions, we know that some of you have questions you want to ask our no kidding all-star panel here, secondly in previous sessions at the festival we have heard some very interesting ring tones, we would not like to hear any more of those interesting ring tones, so please remember to silence your phones but if you do want to take pictures, taken videos, etc and treat them yes they hashtag at trip fest 19 is how
7:01 pm
you will do that, we will take questions at the end and the microphone will be passed around so if you want to get the attention of the microphone please look around as we move to that portion of the program. quickly i'm david the chief operating officer and i work in the counter terrorism center both before and after september 11th so now we will be revisiting the terrorism issue from a different perspective, but i'm going to bring the best expertise and insight from our panelist,'s bobby is one of the confound areas of law fare who served on the presidents own task force, he is now the chair and law and world affairs at the university of texas where you also directs the center, maryam accord has been the acting assistant for security, the general for national security and 20 years before that the u.s., assist in your, situation is not illegal it's director for the constitutional
7:02 pm
advocacy and protection and visiting professor of law georgetown university law center, one step closer you have lisa monaco, the homeland security and counter-terrorism to barack obama, as well as the assistant attorney general for national security and chief of staff and then director robert, mueller whatever happened to him? >> she's now the co-chair on data security and privacy group, she teaches national security law that new york university security of law and is a security analyst at cnn and last really not least nick the, director of the counter-terrorism center after serving in government positions in the administrations, he is now senior director for national security and counter-terrorism programs at
7:03 pm
the mccain institute for leadership, and the college of law, arizona state university. that is a lot of background ends experiencing to bring on this issue confronting us today. so let's start with what is laying the, stage bobby what is domestic terrorism and what statues do we have to help us address it? >> so the first thing to understand and grappling this is that there can be a difference between what we might describe this the ordinary sense of the phrase and what legal definitions there might be, so let's just start with the common sense understanding which is usually described as something like the following, illegal acts of violence where the mental state of the person conducting this is to have a coercive effect on government policy and or to
7:04 pm
intimidate or terrorists a civilian population, so there is this motivation to distinguish it from a crime, trafficking violence that sort of, thing that is just a common sense understanding, what makes it domestic instead of just heroism in general would be where the nature of the threat actor doesn't have a substantial foreign tie, it's not emanating in the form of direction and control or development of the flaw, etc from abroad, that is to say it is simply one of us doing it here. that is the common sense understanding, as for how it is spoken about and statutes that is where it gets tricky and their lies our issues in this area. at the federal level we have a variety of what might be described as generic violent crime statutes, but then we have a slice of federal
7:05 pm
criminal law that is specific to terrorism, there is a whole laundry list of all the offense is there, most of them are international terrorism focused because that is an area where of course the federal government has to play a lead role. it is widely believed that we don't have a domestic terrorism statute, it is true that we don't have one that is labeled as such and i think we will talk about whether that is an important gap that needs to be closed, simply for the symbolic purposes and all the things that fall from the symbolism, but it's also the case as some of the terrorism statutes actually do apply to domestic terrorism scenarios, so that's a practical matter, when can the federal government get involved, if it is a terrorist attack it is purely domestic but it involves explosives or attacks on certain types of targets, federal if issues,
7:06 pm
transportation hubs, in those scenarios ontario some statutes can be charging, the practical gap, there is two, guns and other forms of violence like weapons used in a vehicle that don't involve explosives, domestic terrorism are used and this method would because, that is not covered in the federal level on they have another way of approaching it is triggered. secondly you may have heard something called the material support statute, it gets complicated because there is more than one of these, but what people of europe is like an embargo that flat out prohibits any provision of support, tangible or intangible to terrorist organization that has been designated as such. we don't do that with domestic terrorist organizations so that is a separate gap and whether any of these gaps should be closed is a separate question and i think we will talk about. >> and quickly you mentioned federal, federal, federal but for an issue where a murder is
7:07 pm
using a vehicle oregon or an edged weapon states will prosecute that. >> it's not domestic terrorists are running away because -- >> there is no scenario that will violate state laws so in our own most recent tragedy in all paso here and takes us there is capital word or charges filed, it doesn't matter that we can't file federal domestic charge in order to receive the penalty for that case, going back to previous cases of this in the united states, there is been a lot of talk about what needs to be done and not much has happened because of it. lisa you wrote recently that -- regarding domestic terrorism and confront this threat, what do you think should be done to address these elements of domestic terrorism? >> so thanks for mentioning
7:08 pm
that and at the white house of homeland security and for george w. bush and that piece to put aside political pride -- the partisanship in really do our duty to focus on the most urgent threats we have a nation domestic terrorism, gun, violence attacks on our democracy, all of those are things where we feel we need more bipartisanship and not bipartisanship, so on domestic terrorism in particular i think there's a few things we should do, one we should call it by its, name we need to call it out and here i would say, the good move by the homeland security last week and issuing strategy paper that says and quite clear language from the
7:09 pm
department of homeland security, domestic terrorism and attacks are a threat as foreign terrorism and counter-terrorism, that is given the headlines and tragedy that oh paso indeed in another has faced seems apparent but it hasn't been said, it hasn't been said enough certainly by the federal government or experts at the federal level so we have to call it out, i think we also have to put it on the same priority list, we have to put it on the same plane as foreign terrorism, which is not to say that we should be ignoring or downgrading our approach and our focus on terrorism, i suspect there is a lot of unanimity but i think we have to recalibrate how we collaborate this, because resources focus leadership which gets to one of the things
7:10 pm
that i think we really need to do, one is a domestic terrorism statue, she has written eloquently about this but doing that i think will apply the same tomorrow to acts of violence, the same that we have for foreign domestic terrorism. we also need to restore the job of the homeland security counter-terrorism adviser in the white house, so that role the one i had has been downgraded and the person who serves in the now downgraded function of that job i think has been put into witness protection after he had to make a statement about the sharpiegate.
7:11 pm
>> let's be clear there still is a position there just isn't a report to the president like you did. >> correct he has been down graded within the structure and what does that mean? >> is this all just bureau credit bologna and when i was in that room the idea was president bush started this and you have one person operating in the senior and 24/7 to wake up and to focus on the next foreign leader engagement but on threat to the homeland and to report directly, i can tell you waited and that is why obama gave you a nickname doctor do because every time i saw my spring and bad news, but structure matters.
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
there is also no crime that would apply to stockpile weapons, intending them to be used and condemning a mass shooting for ideological purposes and coercing, so i conceived of a statute and talked with a lot of people on capitol hill, i talked with civil rights and civil liberties groups, i've talked with the oversight board, i've been trying to talk to as many people as they can about this to see if we can't have a proposal that satisfies all the concerns, so the basic outline would be, criminalizing already existed crimes of violence, murder, kidnapping, assault
7:18 pm
with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault, but when done with the intent to intimate or coerce or influence policy of government through coercion and when that in the united states or the u.s. territories this would be terrorism within the territorial jurisdiction of the u.s., i say that instead of domestic terrorism because it would also apply to a terrorist attack on behalf of isis and al-qaeda. this crime of violence in the race to intimidate or coerce, what that would do would enforce not only a predicate for a law enforcement to use the type of tools they used to combat international terrorism, we talk about those, online undercover persona,'s sting operations, things that people criticize were being too aggressive, i understand that but those are things that are aimed at prevention, so it gives law enforcement more of a predicate, they can do something now, but when they
7:19 pm
know that this is a statute that they are predicated on their investigation on, it gives them a route that is more direct as opposed to calling it something else in order to use those tools, it would also allow them for the criminalization of the stockpiling of weapons, knowing and intending that those are to be used in committing a crime of terrorism within the jurisdiction, that is probably more complicated than we want to get into here, and it would involve amending to do that, essentially you may recall the coast guard for stockpiling an arsenal of assault rifles and other weapons in had written extensively about his four-year plan where he would be accumulating weapons and ultimately commit mass shootings intent on creating a white ethnics state, because it wasn't a federal crime he was charged with possession of a
7:20 pm
silencer that is on lawful, unlawful possession of drugs because he had drugs in his home and unlawful possession of firearms by a drug addict because he had drugs, these are all five-year offensives and we would call them minor fences, those of us that have been prosecutors and the magistrate judge ruling on whether to detain him prior to trial says i won't be able to detain him, you have not even charged him with the crime of violence, now the u.s. government appeal that to the district court judge that overruled it and said i will detain him but it is a serious concern when you have someone so intent on committing a mass attack, causing massive violence that really there was very little to charge him with, last thing and i know we need to move on, people say what about hate crimes, there are federal hate crimes and the government has been more effectively using those recently that's what you heard
7:21 pm
the attorney general after el paso say to his credit we are investigating this like domestic terrorism but his next breath was to look into whether detergent with a hate crime and you might think, why, that it's because we didn't have terrorism offense 2.2 and hate crime sometime can fill that gap, robert the tree of life synagogue shooter has been charged with federal hate crime, but they are not going to completely fill a gap and they service lately different role within our criminal justice scheme and we can talk more about that if people are interested, it is one option that is a fruitful option and one that is being used it just doesn't completely fall back up. >> so there is that statutory side but there is the mechanics of government, how do they support and surprise you to know that immense amount of hunting and resources were dedicated to this in the federal government and especially countering it and we have nick here who ran of the
7:22 pm
counter-terrorism center and was its deputy for two and a half years before that and has said publicly that absolutely none of that time was directly focused on domestic terrorism, neck how do we understand, that how does the public understand have being the counter-terrorism center was not focused on this threat. >> and then on lawyer of the bunch here so i would fully subscribe to the set of comments made before me that we need a better framework but as a practical matter the way the government faces international terrorism concerns and we have things that have been brought up to me, when i would go abroad and meet my counterparts from other countries and i would think about international versus domestic terrorism, they would look at me as if i was bring some lexicon to the table that made no sense, they didn't
7:23 pm
make any sense, or create any such divide they simply talk about the kind of terrorism they were confronted with, why are you americans complicating this was the sense that i got away from them and thinking about into different ways and secondly when i thought about things like the tree of life synagogue massacre and i thought how are my friends in the white house and administration responding when event happens like that and i knew from my long experience in the white house sitting alongside mary and lisa, i knew exactly how we would've picked and sworn into action had it been the individual tied to isis and al-qaeda we would've had the cia, the defence department, the treasury department every national security agency that you can think of would've been around the table with us trying to figure out what piece of this can we help solve for address, on the other hand as soon as that person identified as a domestic terrorists and not being willing to an isis or
7:24 pm
nokia all the rest of us in the metaphorical sense pushed ourselves back from the table and look to the raid and said fbi over to you, it becomes then is simply an fbi matter to treat this as a law enforcement set of challenges, i don't say this as being critical what i'm saying is we tend to leave them alone on the playing field, to their credit they're amping up their game against that set of issues when you see the testimony talking about that but i think the rest of the government needs to catch up in terms of its ability to contribute to solutions on this. >> just to fill in that part, why do you need a whole of government approach that area. >> because instead 11 no one a tool in the two boxes actually able to deal with any of this is really not terrorism, we
7:25 pm
couldn't bomber fight our way out of this problem nor could we spend our way out of it all these need to be new pieces the intelligence is part of the equation so it's the same with domestic terrorism and marry rightly pointed out that it has stepped up it's game at least rhetorically with the document last week the acting secretary mcaleenan released that says the fbi, the department of homeland security will be approaching these issues, renewed urgency and a sense of rio prioritization, the question is will that follow with the resources and programs, all the things that we use as a metrics to find out if you really serious about something and i thought about my own organization not to dodge your question and i thought oh all of that effort and energy that went to create this and who was told in the early days focus
7:26 pm
overseas, focus on the international terrorism problem and not just simply live where we are today, it makes no sense why would you have your premier counter-terrorism organization with some of the best minds and access to the best information on terrorism related matters and the terrorism concerns and i think we would all agree is at the top now, if you go to communities right now sure you are ready to be worried about this by isis and al-qaeda, that threat is out there but the far more pressing threat as mary suggested by individuals motivated by white supremacist all ideology and hate the ideology or something like that so bringing in this to the game it's not a panacea, it's not a civil bullet and it doesn't mean that you guys are out here and we will fix the problem but it does come closer to what you said, government approaches to
7:27 pm
the solutions, if you're dealing with the set of challenges, it also means that the department of health and human services to bring resources to bear, it also sees the department of education be part of this, clearly some of this stuff is happening in our schools, including in middle schools and high schools so the whole of government is what you want to be demanding every government whether democrat or republican and i think that is what some of us on stage have been talking about. >> let me go beyond even the government, back to you you have written about the importance getting by and cooperation, working with social media companies to talk about the environment that breeds domestic terrorism, how can we build on that model on working together within the government, sometimes well and sometimes not and build on the successes to improve that relationship with the private sector. >> yeah there's so much of the same threats that all of us in decades of experience have seen in the international terrorism
7:28 pm
front in the fight of against al-qaeda and isis that are now migrating and have migrated to the domestic terrorism front, and the online space is a perfect example, so the individuals are getting radicalized the same way and the domestic terrorism context that they have and we see now unfortunately for years with regard to isis, so when i served in the white house and was working so closely with mary and nick, we were in this focus of individuals radicalizing online and then the nearest wolf to the door was isis and abusing social media platforms which was of course designed to promote free steep each, community, free expression etc and it's literally being abused and turned to a completely opposite purpose by radicalizing and inspiring individuals to
7:29 pm
violence and hate and inspire actual attacks, we are seeing that exact same phenomenon now in the domestic terrorism context and it makes sense when you think about how much time we all spend all nine, so the same individuals who are disaffected, who are looking for some sense of community which is why we've heard the lone wolf terrorist, whether they are inspired by isis or white supremacy, etc they are actually looking for community and finding that unfortunately in a hate filled place on line, so how do we combat, that we have to work with those who know the platform, best that is what we found in the isis example, we also found that government was not the best messenger when it came to countering messages of violence and hate, whether from violence
7:30 pm
and the ku klux klan, that starts the relationship of trust and governmental entities and law enforcement intelligence community and the social media company what we have seen is them doing an actual job, please and airing content from groups like isis, sharing information and it's coming down from places like facebook and twitter, we need to have them do the same thing when it comes to domestic grievances, that is easy to say in a lot harder to do, it's a lot more complicated when it comes to domestic grievances inspiring individuals to violence, it should be quite frankly because we live in a country that prioritizes privileges and protects free
7:31 pm
speech, so it is, i don't say this to minimize how complicated is but we first need to agree that it is a problem. >> i'm going to do something that as a moderator is difficult, i'm going to get personal and try to generate tension among the panelist's, bobby working at the university and you're working with the johnson affairs, they say that you do not examine this in the light of benefits will come pay but the harm said it would cause if improperly administered and although it is hard to imagine if we have debated it along the legislation that is pushed through, what harm could come
7:32 pm
from an ill advised domestic statute. >> when you started off with this quote i was a little nervous but that was all right, so i think what mary is talking, about not surprisingly it is defensible and well considered but it doesn't mean and what we are doing back, so if we want to forecast what were doing wrong at the federal level, a couple of possibilities, here i will channel some of the feedback that i sometimes get when you talk about the same ideas, you know pushback in various quarters, one concern in federalism and as we have pointed out, we are not talking about situations where stuff isn't criminalized, there are usually federal statutes but always statutes where there is a question making people nervous about the point of view of the expansion of the reach of federal law and the privacy of jurisdiction in some cases,
7:33 pm
i think that is a little overstated and their contacts about why it should supersede the state but the bigger concern is one that i think is unlikely to materialize but we hear members mention this as a possibility, in my opening remarks i mentioned that one of the most powerful tools we have is the support statute, at that point it becomes a crime to give any aid to them and even to provide and become a member is subject to the direction and control and if you were to do anything like that at the domestic level you are recording some serious first amendment's association problems and importantly the policy can of worms and the
7:34 pm
pandora box you are doing simply imagining that we have a domestic organization ban mechanism and imagining that you are liking the idea, about the extremists just at full groups they get the ban and now imagine you have someone with the dead opposite policy and political commitments you've got and they have this tool, it's a possible they might ban groups that you think it's outrageous that they are banned, as you say some things are possible that we may not want to see happen so justified in congress on tuesday and in homeland security committee and i want to put a plug and for that organization having that -- (interpreter) taking a bipartisan, approach to this and i went to washington and i was okay, but you came back quickly, that had more to do with the. so i see no sign that
7:35 pm
we are gonna go there but when it comes up and those people that say, fill in the blank out to be designated a terrorist organization, that doesn't mean that they will pass a material support statue but if not why are we designated it. >> that's exactly those concerns that complicate the job that i was just talking about when it comes to the online space, how do, you one person's organization or speech that is offensive to one and odious too many people, may be perfectly acceptable within a free speech context, where you thought about this and the intersection between good legislation and bad legislation and the risk and dangers, the first amendment concerns and the freedom of association concerns, talk through this how do you respond to someone who
7:36 pm
says it's too hard. >> well bobby was being very kind i keep creating attention myself because i've had it with a lot of other conversations, first of all to be clear the thing that i've been writing about or suggesting or designate these domestic groups and i think what he's referencing is self people would've said why don't we do that and i don't think most lawyers think it is a bad idea and we just try to the first amendment challenges would be insurmountable and if you surround them you'd be left with a small fraction of organizations ones that only engage in violence and you can designate it without running afoul to the first amendment but they could say oh now we do all these other things to because hateful speech and this is also a problem mentioning hateful speech is protected by the first moment, of violence is not, imminent balances not so with social media where do you draw that line between what somebody might be saying over the internet that is horrible
7:37 pm
that probably everyone would agree with no matter what you're politics but if it doesn't actually insight imminent violence it is probably protected, but to go back to the things that i've been talking about and forms of the statute i've met with the civil liberties groups and i will be frank they are opposed to it, basically for one a significant reason and that is the distrust they have in law enforcement, they are worried that if they face another statute created that the fbi and other law enforcement will abuse that statute and will target their resources to things that could be labeled a threat by are not the real threat that we are facing right now in america and certainly historically there have been instances of that happening, particularly in communities of color and vulnerable populations and i think we are all probably aware of those abuses and i think it is a
7:38 pm
legitimate concern and i don't downplay it for one minute so my question than what i'm talking to civil rights and civil liberties groups is how do we ameliorate that risk, one of the things that i've suggested is not just congressional oversight but public oversight, so yearly reporting by the fbi, by dhs to congress public, there is no reason this we need to be classified, the number of investigation terrorism, investigations they are opening, or they resulting in criminal charges, and closed by category, exhaust extremist terrorism, white terrorism animal rights terrorism and anarchist terrorism, the categories that will allow the american public and congress to see you no law in force women are you putting your resources towards the actual, threat, are they commensurate with the threat, if you open 100 cases of
7:39 pm
terrorism and 90 are animal rights extremism and the others are human rights that we know something is wrong here so that is possibility in another possibility that i have suggested that is in congressman shifts bill is to have the privacy and civil liberties oversight board review the use of this after they think they have some data to collect because we would get better data about terrorism if we had a statute and right now we have really horrible data, the best thing we have frankly is from the anti defamation league and i don't know but it's not from governmental organizations because there's no clear reporting of it but these kinds of things, the oversight board has been used in the recent years to frankly usually to review surveillance programs and to give it a good hard look, it's a bipartisan
7:40 pm
committee and i met with their staffers recently and they look really hard at what or the civil oversee concerns of these programs, is it being administered correctly and legally and what could be done to provide more transparency to the american public about how these authorities are being used so that is another possibility and then one last thing is i also hear about the possibility creep into this new statute are mocking additional authorities and sometimes i think people are actually thinking about foreign intelligence authorities but right now when we are talking about crimes occurring in the united states we are talking about using criminal tools, that already exist things like you know undercover operation sting operations but other search warrants when appropriate subpoenas the same kind of things that lot forced man used to investigate other
7:41 pm
crimes so it doesn't create any new investigative tools but it would merely allow those tools to be used and they can be used already but i would make a better fit and right now we are trying to fit square pegs into round holes when it comes to law enforcement is trying to do. >> we will turn to questions in a moment, so formulate those, but i want you to reflect on that, in your experience how does that. >> and to take away from this conversation there is room for bipartisan sets of issues, mary had serious conversations with staffers from both sides of the aisle, like bobby there have been hearings that have you clearly see common ground where democrats and republicans who want to find ways to improve our statutory framework, this is not like the gun issue there is a real problem solving sevens and they're very real problems but at least it is a
7:42 pm
real debate among people who genuinely want to get you a set of solutions that will put us in a position to do more than just use these crimes of violence which i think we set at the beginning it just doesn't make sense to call these things normal crimes of violence when they are carried out in hateful ideology. >> one other thing while we have you would be, the national counter-terrorism center is the interaction with state and travel entities on the issues and previously there is a large gap on, we are sitting here in texas and what could the federal government be doing to build on this and applying it to domestic terrorism issues, well again that radicalization process that we talked about earlier, we spend a lot of time and energy and resources looking about how it unfolded when a young man or woman was recruited, radicalized and mobilized and we've learned overtime that it unfolds more
7:43 pm
less the same way, and more less the same way when it involves a person who is acting on behalf of a white supremacist ideology like that, so there is a lot of learning that is going on and that learning can be shared with mobile large for spin and it doesn't have to be burdened by concerns about classification or this is to top secret to be shared, a lot of it is just science and what it does is put us in a position where communities can become the first line of defense which is what we need to happen, communities that will find their the ones who see and appreciate and understand and can predict when these incidents will happen law before large for spin, that is not a slam against fbi or on enforcement capabilities, these individuals grew up around us and so we are the ones that are most likely need to be equipped with the knowledge where we can say wait a minute, something appears amiss, that person looks to be heading in a bad
7:44 pm
direction, that happens and we can use tools that kick in before the crime and the tools you use before the crime or the ones you want to be using, jim comey used to say remember we had conversations about terrorism if i am involved it's already too late and were not talking about someone being charged with a crime and usually can back your way out of it but ideally you get to a point where you can off ramp or divert someone who may be consuming hateful ideology but they haven't actually gotten to the point of picking up a weapon and doing something about it, this is where the federal government can do more. >> great let's hear what you are curious about, if you have a question raise your hand it's a form of a question not a speech or rant testing
7:45 pm
(inaudible) the question relates with how they will relate to intelligence overall, so great question and an important benefit and another statue on the book, on their domestic statue and it's signaling needs to be a priority for the intelligence community, so the league domestic intelligence organization is the fbi, importantly it is part of the justice department, it is
7:46 pm
tethered to oversight and civil liberties protections that come with being part of the justice department or reporting to congress etc, so first and foremost because of all the things bobby and others have said about the real dangers of getting too far afield when we are talking about speech that is protected by the first amendment, you want to be tethered to a structure, but what it would do is it would signal to the intelligence community, including the fbi that this is a priority, right they have established since 9/11 a tremendous with law enforcement as well as community organizations, as nick pointed out and as mary said the individuals who are going down a dark path and end up committing these heinous acts of violence and in some cases massacre or among us, now none of us here is, would be advocating some type of report
7:47 pm
on your neighbor structure but what we are talking about here is being aware, understanding that the solutions are going to come from committees, they have to work with state and local federal government entities, law enforcement and the, like and that informs what the intelligence community is looking for. >> hello i use these in online forms you see a lot of that stuff in it varies a lot but whose responsibility is it to regulate this anonymity that these hate groups can enjoy. >> all right who as the duty of monitoring online content? >> all start, lisa what our
7:48 pm
engagement with the tech sector to try and get our arms around these problems and the jihadist set of issues and who is a challenge and i said we gave ourselves a be minus or be plus in terms of our performance in their performance and it is that much harder to do this in the states that you were talking about and you are talking about offensive stuff and it is much harder for us as a government to get companies to take that material down but i would say you have to put the burden on the company they are the ones profiting from the platforms and i think they are accepting that responsibility, won a minor indicator is that you're starting to see a migration of people that used to work for people like us to work in those companies and while i hate to see that come from the government of really capable people i also want those people working at places like facebook and google
7:49 pm
because they bring a sensibility about companies that might not exist in quantities that you want otherwise, and i suspected that the point they are going to make there is no entity within the federal government or any state or local government that i'm aware of whose responsibility and authority is to monitor online platforms of the type that you described, that is a direct answer there, there is a lot of good reasons that for that but that is why the onus needs to be on the companies that operate those platforms needs to be on the users of those platforms and there needs to be a lot of communication with government and the law enforcement community based on what you're seeing there, just one quick point and there's a lot of confusion about this but the
7:50 pm
basic amendment only applies to government actors, so private social media companies they can be on anything they want and they will not violate the first amendment just like you and your home can ban people from your home if you don't like what they are saying and the others are the same putting aside racial discrimination and things like that, so i think the social media companies look to companies and government to make them do it so they can say to their users that we are being told to do this, but they need to step up and listen to what their users want and you know monitor a little bit better. >> i will just add quick, i do a lot of work and the larger problems of problematic speech online, at the bigger platforms are all to varying degrees engaged on this issue and very actively involved in getting a
7:51 pm
way forward, i don't think they need anything done in this point but it's not where the worst conversation is taking place the good news is as it gets further and further into the dark corners it's harder and harder for the hateful ideologies to find but rather coincidences but it also gets harder and harder to spot them for government actors to see what's up. so you are talking about things like daily stormer, right, and ensure that doesn't want the government to help it and win since the government and i've seen andy lee stormwaters the first results on google when searching up jewish issue, how do we counter that when the tech companies are not being good actors,? >> to the point that all of us are making the platforms and
7:52 pm
search engines have got to see it in their business interest, which means they're users and consumers in mean to demand that of them if they see it in their business interest to push those search results down. >> let me as there is a concern that we can take a lesson here from the fbi successes and spotting americans who have been radicalized by the islamic state, when you go through the analysts indictments and see the story an investigation, almost invariably the opening investigation shot somebody saying publicly and a place that fbi can observe it, something on social media that drew attention and moving to encrypted channels and others that are not nearly as visible and there is also a loss of intelligence there, so less inspiration but less opportunity to watch the scarier conversations.
7:53 pm
>> thank you for joining us, again and i worked in the intelligence community for several years and i know that terrorism and radicalization a dozen faster and it doesn't expand to buttress up against, that so what would you recommendations before either the government or us to try to shrink this window enough that radicalization doesn't seem acceptable. >> what's the quick answer to how to stop radicalization. >> i think understanding the drivers of it would be a start, although i don't think any of us are in social sciences overnight as well equipped as many others real starting this affair bed and maybe abe has more on that but it has to be, i can't emphasize enough it has to be very ground up and not government down as the sun mentioned earlier, in fact when
7:54 pm
the government you know, under president obama and others try to invigorated a program that was called countering violent extremism we got tremendous push back by committees who thought they were being targeted and being terrorism investigations but they are now being targeted for countering and put the responsibility and onus on them for countering extremism in their communities, so there is support for, it support for grassroots organizations, their organizations like life after he did others that work with people that have started on that path to radicalization, towards violence and the communities coming together to talk together about how they can spot the precursors and what they can do, you know some of the obvious things are there, better educational opportunities, better job opportunities, feeling more like you are actually a part of
7:55 pm
a community welcoming and communities that don't feel like they are outcasts and i wanted and welcome, many times we found whether someone who commits a terrorist attack or traveling to join a foreign terrorist organization just like others who are committing theresa track for ideological purposes, they will see these are people that are in search of something, we can be part of something that is bigger than themselves cause their own life was not fulfilling. so we need to provide more things, so we look and feel like they can get behind it, we have climate change in all kinds of stuff that people could be getting behind instead of violent extremism. >> i want you to weigh on this to, you had no experts working on radicalization in the, takeout, ways to cutting off
7:56 pm
the radicalization process. >> and that's why to me we talked positively about the dhs and the strategy that -- to measure whether this administration or for a month administration, are they willing to fund grant programs to the tune of more money, here so this is not big dollar high take it for watching it, but there are non governmental organizations that every large size community that do this work -- that to me is the cost
7:57 pm
of doing business and that is my metric of whether we are serious about doing this so the question has been framed and the outer batteries about what is acceptable discourse and what is the fair playing field and top-down is in the solution and it can make things much worse when rhetoric that is irresponsible and and that has got to stop please join me and thinking our guest. (applause)
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
we have a lot of the military career of alexander hamilton and his relationship with george washington, those that wayne new jersey, it's about an hour in ten minutes. welcome to the washington headquarters, i am so happy that all of you are here if you have not been here before these take a tour with our staff and


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on