tv Homeland Security and Countering Violent Extremism CSPAN August 8, 2017 11:02am-12:02pm EDT
from the secretary of the designate -- the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the designate on august 4, that the house passed house joint resolution 76, signed sincerely, robert f. reeves, deputy clerk. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 481, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on friday, >> and wrapping up the pro forma session. just a day will be september 5 at tuesday. we now go to the heritage foundation for a discussion on countering extremism. >> the preference for local community-led initiatives. the recently departed of the office of community partnerships as the first
program devoted to providing local communities with resources to counter extremism in the homeland. in the last days of the obama $10nistration,dhs announced million of grants to reflect this preference. with the trump administration the reevaluation of these grants have taken place. dhs is now trying to recalibrate cve toward law enforcement. a range of police department have had their cve budgets increased. projects seem to have been sidelined. that is one of the topics we but thereuss today, is much else that needs to be addressed. who are the best partners to work with? should there be a strict
criteria for engagement between partners? do all extreme ideologies need to be tackled as part of cve? what lessons can be learned from european countries? how do we measure success? we should answer these questions soon because there has been more talk about cve than action. we have a truly stellar panel today to address these questions. i'm speaking first -- speaking first will be muhammad fraser-rahim. extremismxpert on issues and a scholar on africa. he served as a senior officer as the u.s. institute of peace, where he served as an expert on cve issues. mr. fraser-rahim speciality are
on intellectual history and africa. he worked for the united states government for more than a decade, in the office of director of national intelligence, providing strategic advice to the executive branch, analytic support to the white house and the national security council. mr. fraser-rahim: is a phd candidate at howard university. from him we will hear seamus hughes, the director of the program at george washington. he is an expert on terrorism and cve. he provides commentary to mediate outlets, including "the new york times," cnn, fox news, and the bbc. he has since applied before the u.s. congress on multiple occasions. he previously worked at the national counterterrorism
center, leading efforts to implement a national cve strategy. he served as a senior counterterrorism advisor for the u.s. senator governmental affairs committee. will you please give a big round of applause, as we will initially hear from muhammad. mr. fraser-rahim: good morning, everyone. how is everyone doing? i want to thank the heritage foundation, particularly robin and his colleagues, a good friend who has come to a dialogue with and particularly i respect with the transatlantic connection of british americans coming together as well. who has worked side by side. for those who are not familiar lliam is anm, qui
organization that works on counter extremism, and we are now in north america. my role is the new north american director and looking at these issues, particularly the threat of violent extremism. certainly in the united states, but globally as well. we are composed of individuals who themselves have been formers. wahaswas a member who recanted views and has gone through a process of deradica lization and rehabilitation himself, and we have others. how do we deal with issues as it relates to preventing violent she missed him globally and in this case the united states? this is very timely. i want to begin with the big
elephant in the room, which is important to highlight, which is the threat of violent extremism varies. this is not just an issue of islamist extremism. this threat varies from far right nationalism, domestic terrorism come and those beginning in islamist-based organizations that offer a very ofrow, strict interpretation islam. it is important to recognize the threat varies and there is a spectrum. i wanted to highlight that up front. that spectrum varies to the point where richard collins iii, and african-american student who was a member and was to graduate from university, was killed by a 2015,nationalist in june in my hometown of charleston, south carolina. roof carried at an attack
of friends of my family at a church. we had the incident in may when in oregon. may 2016 the threat varies. the problem set varies in finding a surgical, calculated , which is at the core of what we are trying to do. seen -- data we have 48 people in the u.s. were killed by far-rightfully and groups as opposed to al qaeda-related groups of 45. the orlando shooting, it is hard to find the exact motive, but there are organizations that can write commentary on this as well. the threat, as we look at this, there is an attorney and --
external reality, whether dealing with this globally, or other locations throughout the world, and we must find ways to address that reality and also how it lands back into the united states as well. highlightrtant to this issue we are dealing with oftentimes has been conflated issues, regardless of the terminology used. let's use this as a common term at this moment, and those who see this as a large terrorism issue as well. oftentimes we see individuals who have one-dimensional viewpoints on this, and that oftentimes limits individuals' perspectives in how we address and find out real and tangible solutions to the response. american muslims in particular are struggling to address this issue as well. muslims like christians like jewish community members have diversity of viewpoints.
community,islamic are not a monolith at all. they are arabs, southeast asians, african-americans, white converts, and our viewpoints will vary. i will offer some particular programs and efforts that will drive this home in a second. it is important to highlight that this viewpoint, particularly varies, and because there are various vantage wents, it dictates in how find appropriate and effective responses as well. in particular to look at real-world tangible solutions, we have been engaged with, since we started in april, and practical solutions in which we can engage with programmatic effort. one of these efforts is a critical thinking program which we have been working with in washington now and new york and newhe neapolis should -- york, and minneapolis should be
coming in as well soon. practical efforts that address their concerns, whether educational efforts, sounded with religiousl based education as well. there are many perspectives out there as well. we engage with efforts in deradicalization as well. your have been individuals who have been radicalized, and we have worked with them to find appropriate pauses, whether affected by mental health who are or individuals dealing with theological challenges in finding ways they can find alternative expressions. worked withave also and we have assisted with -- you have probably heard of one of the programs with the new dhs awards.
he will be part of this and the d who hasth -- muhamma been one of the recipients of the cve award as they find ways to combat extremism. to wrapould highlight it up, we will have more time for q&a as well, these efforts are a few examples that we are dealing with. they are individuals who are just coming home after being incarcerated for 10, 12, 13 years, and have reached out to do they findr how other ways, whether jobs, employment opportunities, and the challenge is finding resources in place. oftentimes it is limited money that is not available to us to tackle the heart-it inc. issues, and that means
government and communities to work with us as well. the role of monitoring and evaluation. in april of this past year, we know there was this report that came out with gao that talked about finding metrics that are outlace that can help find are we being successful in what we are doing. in this report we saw some of the challenges them straight it -- challenges that demonstrate effective responses. i will stop right there and i am sure we will have more time for q&a. >> thank you, muhammad, and seamus. mr. hughes: my name is seamus , and identity director of the program at george washington university. we focused our recent work on isis in america. we track all cases of
individuals charged with activities in the u.s.. folks as of131 yesterday. there is not a typical profile. my current job is looking at that scope, the threat side of it. i got into extremism about a decade ago. 2008 timeframe. i was a congressional staffer, and my boss task need to figure out what is going on in minneapolis with house of bob' al-shabab's recruitment of men. there is no on the ground, it is freezing cold. i knew a lot of different folks there. and the thing that the find what would be my future career was a meeting with five mothers of individuals rules who had joined out survive -- out of bob in the base -- al-shabbab.
can you help get them back? grieving mothers. that is how it friends me. at some point in those five families' process, there were individuals who were reachable. got on the they blink of an there is little the federal government can do. i workedk back, when on extremism, i worked back to that moment, and never wanting to be in an apartment building talking to family members with this concern. after i left congress, my bluff was called and said, you think you're so smart on tv, why don't you -- i did community engagement as it relates to radicalization. going to community centers around the country. these are very uncomfortable, awkward, delegate conversations that we did a national
counterterrorism center along with a colleague with having these conversations. ,t was more i am seamus hughes i'm a father, i want to talk about kids that are drawn into this. so framing matters a lot on countering extremism. behind the 131 folks who have been arrested, there are 131 folks with brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, folks who could be reached. 1/2hat was for about 3 years i would do that. after three girls in denver, jumped on a plane, got turned around in frankfurt, because their father called every phone number in the phone book. i talked about these issues in the mosque and started
conversation -- started a conversation about this. -- but it wasas incumbent to have a conversation and have these conversations in an open way. that is where i framed how i look at countering extremism, but the national cve strategy can best be defined by a series of fits and starts. in 2009, the obama administration announced empowering local partners, which did not have an acronym. there was a long strategy, and the idea was three parts. one, understand the threat. there was an understanding and recognition there have been bad and bigoted and misinformed training, so how do we get this training to state and locals? engagement at dhs. part the obama
folks would admit they struggle the most with, countering the propaganda the while promoting ideals. those three strategy objectives framed the way they looked at this. did, it didstrategy not give a lead or any money behind it. and so you had something called the group of four. department of homeland security, the fbi, and nctc, coalition of the willing. when i went to denver, it was me and three of my friends working on community engagement. there were more folks who died in isis than engage on these issues. that spoke to the priorities that we put on prevention. after recognizing you cannot cover a country with three people, there was an understanding we should focus on three different pilot cities. the first being minneapolis, l.a., and boston.
minneapolis, each one took a different flavor. minneapolis was focused more on what they saw was written causes, resiliency issues, much more of a broad-based engagement, and night basket all kinds of things, right? was focused on community engagement, enhancing the engagement they had there. and boston is much more focused on individualized intervention programs. i got a kid i am worried about who talks about how great isis is, how do i reach that kid? so each city took a different flair. each city did a different flair with no money, so you had a coalition of the willing, department of justice, community partners, ngo's trying to do this. because domestic cve was not defined, it became defined by others. there was an understanding and a growing group of civil rights
and civil liberties advocates who had serious concerns and legitimate concerns about the implementation of cve, and an administration that do not help to find it in a way that made sense rate cve became the catchall phrase. the cause of and solution to all the world's problems. it was set up to have an uphill battle. no, recognizing there was lead and no funding, there was again a reset in the last administration to look at let set up a task force at the department of homeland security, let's put all the group of four in that nice fancy office building, and let's get everyone a room and talk about these issues. three-tou had a times increase of staff working on these issues.
congress had gotten into the game and said let's put money on this. and there was a delay in getting the money out the door because for a variety of different reasons. now flashforwards now, we have a to administration that wants take a positive on this, a strategic pause, take a hard look at it. there are no advocates for cve, so if you are on the right side, you think it is too soft on terror, on the left side, too government overreach, and you have family members grappling with issues with no tools available. this is one of these issues that we cannot figure out how to solve. we have seen and i think we will see in the coming weeks a shift in the new administration, away from broad-based countering extremism programs what they would describe as terrorism prevention programs. i --dividuals, radel
radicalizing to violence, those folks, as opposed to 300 people in the room talking about terrorism. each administration will have successes and failures on these issues, especially in an environment that is so publicized, especially on this issue alone. we will see how this goes. zeros out the grant funding for next year. it reduces the number of people at the dhs task force. cve may not be able to get off the ground as long as it has been around. two other things i wanted to mention, given things to be concerned about, and muhammad, is right, we track all the cases. the average prison sentence for a got arrested arrested for isolated activities is 14.3 years, but we have arrested about 500 folks for terrorism-related activities in the last years. releasedor so haven't
from prison, and because terrorism is a form of crime, there will be recidivism. you have individuals who move back into society and move on. i think of a guy interviewed in boston who had a nice i.t. job and a nice family, and then you have other individuals who are still quite extreme in their beliefs. we have not figured that out as a public puzzle he question. if someone has served their time, do we move on from that, or is there some level of training, monitoring that needs to be approached? the last point in terms of challenges to look at is returning -- we have been fortson -- fortunate to have small numbers compared to our european partners. 131 folks, while unprecedented in the u.s. context, pales in comparison to my european colleagues' fellow countrymen. but there has been a number of individuals who have traveled from here to arak who are
getting -- to iraq you're getting picked up, fleeing to turkey, and we're going to have to figure out what is happening with these individuals. in new york there is one on one intervention. in virginia, we are going to send a guy for 330 years for joining isis. there's no transparency in the system in how we approach this issue. it is something we want to grapple with. with that, i will end my remarks. >> thank you, seamus. thank you both for a fantastic detailed look. i will abuse my position as chair and ask a simple, but tricky question. i wonder if i could get from both of you one practical thing you would like dhs to do that you think cve would improve
policy. despite having spent my career doing broad-based engagement, i will get away from it. i think i did a good job dealing with this issue, but i cannot measure the effectiveness of 200 evil. i'm not sure that will not exasperate the issue. i will move away from broad-based engagement toward more one-on-one intervention programs, which have a host of civil rights and civil liberties --cerns, but some of things of these things are solvable. you have to focus your efforts on that. go back to congress, saying i need -- x amount of money. right now we do not have any of that programming. i would secondm: that. i travel a lot overseas, and they are struggling to find out appropriate measures.
i would advise the person-to-person interaction goes a long way. it is something that i know comes up quite a bit in my experience on the african continent, also in europe, so i would deal with that. secondly, it is arts and culture. i know it sounds a bit corny, but i think really engaging people to mainstream against extremism is vital. ist crosses into line of this what government should be doing or not. but having the human experience resonates. pop-culture resonates. appropriateo find ways to balance that out, and the jury will be out on how that is to be done. but we can certainly work with them. cox: thank you. i will open it up to the floor now. if you have questions, not comments, that would be drug. if you could give your name and
affiliation, that would be terribly helpful. i have a question in the front row, and then i will go to the gentleman behind them. >> hi. i advise the british government on their counter extremism policy. a practical one, framing,e issue of definition matters. is there any way you stood on the name countering violent extremism? in britain we change our branding to be looking at extremism. i wonder how you stood on that. i'm a journalist. i have one question about the prisons in the united states. some former or current extremists, and some reports
-- recruiting terrorists. can you comment on that? cox: so we have the name and britons. mr. hughes: in terms of prison radicalization, i have a colleague that sums it up. so we have cases of individuals radicalized to violence in prison. california is a good example. but his not bubbled up to an issue of mass imports. what happens is someone holds an extreme belief in prison and moves on monday get out. my concern is more individuals who have been arrested for providing material support to terrorism and are provided no approach to address what got them into prison to begin with. theyou have seen effective branch look at these issues differently. sometimes we house all convicted
max, and in super sometimes we spread them out, and there are pluses and minuses in this. u.k. structure that goes back and forth. we have not figured that out in a systematic way. in terms of framing, i can describe what jihad is an is, what islamism is. saidwas in a mosque and i i want to talk what is about jihadism, i will lose my audience. it is important to talk about these things in an honest way, but you frame it depending on your audience. and i cannot see the us government moving toward prevention of extremism because there is a host of constitutional issues that would arise that would not be true in other places. the first amendment and things like that. that said, i do not see how you prevent violent stream is of
without preventing she ms. some major. to the extent we asked civil society to step up to the plate, we have to make that happen. we have not. mr. fraser-rahim: i would agree with seaumus on it. the same issue with individuals were incarcerated with drug crimes, or manslaughter, there are not a lot of rehabilitation programs that are in the prison systems that are allowing them to reintegrate back into society. i think that needs to be parsed out a bit more. certainly there are efforts. the bureau of prisons is doing the best of their ability, but it is something that should be explored much more at a national level. i think there needs to probably the -- be a revisiting of vetting process of individuals who are providing that spiritual counsel. just because you have a religious individual, whatever the religion is, does not mean
you have the technical expertise to deal with someone who has been radicalized. there is aentimes -- subject you put a religious person in there, an imam, minister, etc., and they have all the skills to deal with this. i have engaged individuals who probably would have been radicalized themselves. that has to be explored a bit more. in terms of terminology used, yeah, i think depending on the environment, we're probably fighting over tomato or "tomatoh." islamist gets pushed back. best terms tohe capture a very difficult terminology. but again, i think it will vary. i think it will evolve. i do not see changing in the
president administration -- present administration that, but hopefully there will be academics who will come up with solutions. i was in thehen administration, the intelligence committee, every six months or so we got a new executive on cve and they would have a new plan or new name for cve. that is all well and good, the framing issues. but semantics matters a lot. the programs matter more in this context. meaning that if the only hundreds we have for countering extremism is a resiliency exercise, that is not enough to tackle the issue that was at that point rising. i would always encourage my executives to stop focusing on changing the words and focusing on getting resources and folks on the ground. an understanding the strategic background you need to have on this, but i need people at the
end of the day. mr. fraser-rahim: i wanted to add, the terminology of cve. when i have been out throughout the world and in the united states, i do not use the term cve. what do i talk about? building trust, tolerance, allusion, social cohesion, these good terminologies that actually are trying to bring together communities. words matter, terms matter, and we gois important that back to the basics to describe this phenomenon we are all struggling with, and i think if we can find perhaps softer terms and maybe that is the basis then to find a more surgical terminology that we can all maybe agreement. mr. hughes: i am sorry. you do not want to make it so broad that it becomes so amorphous that it comes that catchall phrase. it is a little beget of a
delegate -- delegate balancing act. mcox: i will take more questions. i see a lady in the second row. and then the front row. >> good morning. i'm a college student in maryland. my question is about how both panelists have mentioned a little bit about community outreach. and i'm just wondering what specific aspects of that has been unsuccessful that would lead you to say it is not as effective as one-on-one interaction. mr. simcox: thank you. >> hi. i'm a program officer for civil society and peace building. thank you very much. i had a prescient that maybe both -- act had a -- i had a question. the resiliency programs you oversaw, and my question has
to do with gender composition of your team, and wanting to know if your approach or strategies shifted or changed depending on your target demographics. so if are you engaging children, men, or women? imcox: so we have got committee out rich desktop reach and resilience. mr. hughes: i am a fan of community engagements. it falls in the bucket of good government. government should engage about issues that concerns that. in terms ofcve, trying to reach an individual was radicalized and violent, that might not be your target demographic. that is why i'm saying -- i'm not saying do community gauge, but do not do community engagement under the rubric of cve. in terms of the composition and
how we do engagement, it depended on the audience. by colleague is in the back -- my colleague is in the back checking his fun, but when he was at dhs, depends on the audience,. there is also something powerful about other saying that. depending on the audience we were engaging it, whether a traditional and conservative organization, it may have been my female colleague who would engage with the congregation. it depended on the situation. you do your best to try to get in the door, and then you're just based on the audience. you do not want to be forced into it. an example, i was in a mosque one time where an imam said can you talk to my congregation. i get up there and he said, ladies and gentlemen, he is from
the intelligence community, he is going to talk to. have, looking back on that, build a level of conversation with that man before that conversation so he did not throw me to the wolves. so that takes some levels of trust for folks to know what you are going to say is informed by research, by data, is not takes aly -- but that level of work on the front end, that we do not have a lot of time for. mr. fraser-rahim: i think the point on community, i will use to work in the intelligence community. the department of strategic operational planning, being out there. i am also a generations of muslims in america, and i am an average speaker. -- studied classical
islamic tests in west africa, in the middle east. i finished my phd in this field is up. my experience is from various angles. it is personal, professional, academic as well. so when i am out there and engaging and having less i left the i say, war room, going to the peace room, and now being out working in the nonprofit space. you engage people and connect with them. it is not this distant person named muhammad. it is this distant person muhammad who gave the sermon this past year, who is trained in its addition, who gives the issues a tough perspective, and also muhammad, who engages individuals with individuals who have been ratifies. you have to address -- who have been ratifies.
activists will have their viewpoints. those of us in the policy space will try to analyze it and in a pragmatic way that will give it the nuance as love. also getting to your question. specificou have to be based off of the environment. one of the things we encouraged is to have women side by side, in the issues we are w dealing with. it cannot be all-male panels. in general i think it is important to have this diversity of viewpoints as well, and it is at the core of what i encouragemr. mr. simcox: ok, i say gentleman at the back and i see somebody -- >> good afternoon, i am from the state department. thank you for your comments. wait to see you again.
seamus, you mentioned the jail time is 15 years. what happens to those individuals prosecuted about 15 years ago and they are going to be getting out very quickly? i think if you look at the paintball case, if you look at the lackawanna individuals, some of them either are out or will be getting out. do you think that's enough to jolt the government officials to come cve up with the comprehensive plan for cve or is something else needed? mr. hughes: i do not think so. i do not think it is enough to joel. i was talking to a convicted terrorist who has moved on with his life and is doing good things. that causedthing him to do that. it was self-awareness and deciding what i was 10 years ago is not what i want to do now. individuals that went to jail at the height of al qaeda are coming out at the height of
isis, and what does that mean for engagement? we've seen reporting by foreign policy -- a gentleman issued concerns. we have seen recidivism. one of the highest ranking isis american folks was arrested and spent time in jail, and when he was released, he went to syria and joined isis. not enough of is a wake-up call, i am not sure what will. unfortunately, it is going to have to be a newsworthy event for folks to take a focus on it. i would justhim: add to say 15 years ago we were dealing with al qaeda. now we have the new kids of isis. and so we will have to deal with the reality of isis kids who are getting out. they may be a bit different than al qaeda.
so how do we effectively respond to that? i spoke to one of my kids yesterday you just got out, and he needs a job. he is struggling to find employment. -- struggling with finding opportunities. he is struggling with getting into university. that is the real-world situation that if he has done his time, what are we providing for him? is that our responsibility? i'm leaving that open ended because these are real things we are confronted with. they are individuals who are american citizens and they have to be integrated back into american society. us not providing that, what happens? if you talk to the bureau of prisons, they say, why did the guy who wanted to believe -- to blow me up get special treatment?
do we put resources on individuals who have been convicted with terrorist charges, ron nonviolent nonviolent- or for offenders? these are things that are important that we have not had the conversation in a practical way. x: ok, we have the gentleman in the back. >> hello, good to see you. advisor for the countering violence and extremist tax force at dhs. -parter.twop narrative matters, trust matters, optics matters, and words that are. unfortunately -- words matter. unfortunately, we have an administration that may be perceived by sun communities to be openly hostile -- by some to
be openly hostile. unfortunately, these are the same communities that we need on the frontlines to have that level of trust, because the have been many studies in regard to bystanders and their ability to report and work at the community level to address many of the threats that law enforcement or the intelligence community may not be able to notice. so my question here is, given these obstacles, what do you see as ways to overcome this trust cap for lack of a better term, to ensure that these efforts that were built on continue? and, second, the message terrorism is also playing a significant part in this. most recently, we heard about the would-be attack in minnesota on the mosque. and then you have an administration who is not openly reaching out to communities, addressing this. but then on the second-part
question, what are the potential perils of narrowing the focus of cve strictly to a single ideology and perhaps not addressing the domestic terrorist threat? >> hi. our organization has developed one of the first evidence-based community countering violent extremism programs based out of montgomery county. we have been working with other immunities across the u.s. and internationally trying to train them based on the good practices and lessons learned that we have. when of the things we keep finding is when we talk about communityunity-led, -centric approach, we forget the challenge is that a lot of local civil societies organizations face. a reader struggling because they have limited institutional capacity or limited or social
capital that is necessary to reach out to their local hhs's, health and human services folks, their regional fbi field offices, or even local law enforcement. or maybe they do not even have enough support from us in the community to tackle these issues head on because a lot of the political baggage that is associated with the acronym. in so many words, we are also seeing a shift toward a more law enforcement centric approach, and that seems to be what this current administration is encouraging as well. with that in mind, what kinds of recommendations would you provide for local law that arent agencies interested, that are willing to take the lead on this issue with a particular eye on some of the challenges and lessons learned from the past? mr. simcox: ok, we have the forms --s, nehring
narrowing focus. mr. fraser-rahim: the simplest thing, establishing community leads on partnership. times.t in tight fiscal that can probably help dialogue between law enforcement community and certainly communities themselves. listen, the fact of the matter is, it does have a law enforcement matter to this. but i think it is a denial to say there is an aspect where it is protecting communities, aching sure that public safety insured, but- there is an aspect of this. what on the other side of the coin there are communities needing to find practical ways in which they take ownership and self-police. be no different from my cousin -- shot 19 times in the test
chest and it was the result of black on black crime. that is an unfortunate incident that i have to tell, this is when we were all around 17, 18 years old. there's some responsibility that has to be confronted within the communities themselves in having to take ownership. it is not always pretty, not always sexy. it is sometimes very difficult to look within and look at the reflection. also, just to address your point on domestic terrorism threat. good question. sometimes.tters and it is not an easy -- it is not an easy balance. we do have a threat of domestic terrorism. i have laid out several early in my initial brief talking about roof, certainly in minnesota, events that have transpired in the u.s.
that is a real concern. that is just as important to address as the rising islamist threat that we are confronted with any attacks that are taking place. governments are probably going to be judicious in their response on that, but it has to be pushed on a regular basis. mr. hughes: sure. a positive argument for the sake of conversation. in many ways you could argue that cve focused on the islamist-jihadist approach to terrorism will focus on other forms of terrorism, meaning if you have a white supremacist you're concerned about with a cop, your option is to do intervention programs. if you have young man who is in isis, your options are few and far between. so in many ways you could argue that cve is providing tools for
-- to look at extremism in a way that does not frighten folks that we normally would. and the other argument in terms of other natures of the threat, absolutely, you should be roofsd about the dylann as well as the omar matteneens. there may be programs that may be transferable to jihadists and vice versa. i think you need to prioritize the threat, but you can chew and walk at the same time. in terms of the trust deficit, that is an important question. notrly, the rhetoric has improved in doing committee engagement. we saw organizations refuse grant funding after the new administration. some of that was virtue signaling. some of that was looking at this and saying i was not comfortable with cve to begin with and this bringse an out, and that
the larger question of the framing of cve and a larger question about how it has been defined. again, very fair concerns by civil rights and civil liberties organizations on these issues. but i always go back to that city, that apartment building, to the rec center, and not having options. polarizes the issues, i am still going to talk to grieving mothers, and that is not acceptable as a public wants to be, and we need to figure that out. and the question about recommendations of law enforcement. series of trials and errors, but the bright line between community engagement and law enforcement, and never shared my notes when i went to boston or seattle and met with groups. i do not hand my groups over to muhammad's group. a red line and that would affect things.
you should not share information. you have to be transparent in the of limitation. throwerything out -- everything out on the web, but at least your transparent about it, you can have an honest debate on it, and you cannot youw your critics know that are doing this in the darkness. so you have to be transparent about it. x: another round of questions. the gentleman in the third row. anyone else? just go to you, sir. >> hi. i am to be chief of the embassy in switzerland. and is an international global challenge, just not an american challenge. you said about one-on-one intervention, about dealing with turnees from iraq answer it, community engagement,
i hear the same stories from your colleagues in switzerland, all over europe. you have the same challenges basically. i want to point to a organization that deals exactly with these challenges. it is the global community engagement and resilience fund in geneva. in this context i wanted to ask you, basically, three related questions. what is your experience regarding international cooperation with regard to preventing extremism? where do you see internationally best practices when it comes to preventing extremism? thelast question, where are countries that have done a lot where you can learn from them or we can learn from them? so do you have some really best practices? thank you. simcox: international cooperation, best practices.
which countries are doing this was effectively? mr. hughes: the u.s. has always been five years delay from european partners when it comes to terrorism. upegrown terrorism built sometime after our european partners, and because of that it allows us to learn from successes and failures of other countries. and to the extent you can see that it is important. in terms of best practices, the channel program has been under a bit of scrutiny on this, but the current iteration is one that is worthy of review. channelthe u.k. program. it has its concerns in the beginning, but they are starting to strike a right balance. the problem with the u.k. program in try to translate it here is they are much more like nd,hit it on the front e like a guy starts trolling isis online, that will never rise to
the level of an invasive edition in the u.s. you engage earlier on the process. so we need to build up that civil society front end because the back end is too hard. mr. fraser-rahim: yeah, i agree seamus. there are potentials there. i open that up. also, an effort i was involved with that i would highlight is some of the work that can you is doing. and a -- kenya is doing today. an election today. they looked at what makes teenagers resilient. i will give you a point-to-point. one of the factors with me, what makes communities resilient, was there a security apparatus,
working side-by-side. intergenerational exchange between elder and younger people. it seems rather intuitive, very important. the use exchange -- the youth exchange is open to medication between the issues, the grievances essentially. certainly i would highlight that. and lastly, i would highlight forent was reasons, -- selfish reasons, but something to be considered. i just finished my doctoral dissertation i will defend next month. it is on a 42-year radicalization program in the u.s. it was about a connection of 300 mosques throughout the u.s.. this able was able to reject
black nationalism, lack severances of in 1975, and has produced committee members that have rejected divisive teachings and has not produced a single individual that has been radicalized. i can share you the find endings -- you the findings. the data set you will find interesting. it could be aspects that could be borrowed in other western liberal democracies and other locations of the world. imcox: well, it is not often you can have a discussion on cve and end on an opposite sick -- optimistic note. that ends on a rather optimistic that. i would like to thank seamus and uhammad. -- please give a