"From the River to the Sea"

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries:

Israel has an absolute right to exist as a Jewish, Democratic state and the ancestral homeland for the Jewish people who have faced pogroms, persecution and antisemitism for centuries. The State of Israel, a safe haven for Jews, was viciously attacked on October 7. Echoing slogans that are widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel - such as from the River to the Sea - does not advance progress toward a two-state solution. Instead, it unacceptably risks further polarization, division and incitement to violence. There are millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who legitimately aspire to peaceful self-determination and economic dignity. The continued presence of Hamas undermines that cause, further making clear that the ongoing effort to decisively defeat this brutal terrorist regime must succeed.

Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) Hillary Scholten (MI-03), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), and Norma Torres (CA-35) led a statement on the phrase “from the river to the sea” and the ongoing Hamas-Israel War.

The following members co-signed that statement:  Bera, Ami; Boyle, Brendan; Brownley, Julia; Brown, Shontel; Budzinski, Nikki; Carbajal, Salud; Carter, Troy; Casten, Sean; Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila; Cohen, Steve; Correa, J.; Costa, Jim; Courtney, Joe; Craig, Angie; Davis, Danny; Deluzio, Christopher; Doggett, Lloyd; Golden, Jared; Goldman, Daniel; Gonzalez, Vicente; Gottheimer, Josh; Hoyer, Steny; Huffman, Jared; Ivey, Glenn; Jackson, Jeff; Keating, William; Kilmer, Derek; Landsman, Greg; Lee, Susie; Levin, Mike; Manning, Kathy; Menendez, Robert; Meng, Grace; Moulton, Seth; Mrvan, Frank, Nadler, Jerrold; Nickel, Wiley; Norcross, Donald; Panetta, Jimmy; Pappas, Chris; Peters, Scott; Pettersen, Brittany; Plaskett, Stacey; Porter, Katie; Ruppersberger, C.; Ryan, Patrick; Salinas, Andrea; Schiff, Adam; Schneider, Bradley; Scholten, Hillary; Schrier, Kim; Scott, David; Sewell, Terri; Sherman, Brad; Sherrill, Mikie; Sorensen, Eric; Soto, Darren; Stanton, Greg; Stevens, Haley; Strickland, Marilyn; Sykes, Emilia; Thanedar, Shri; Titus, Dina; Torres, Norma; Torres, Ritchie; Trone, David; Vargas, Juan; Veasey, Marc; Wasserman Schultz, Debbie; Wilson, Frederica.

The text of the statement reads:

We reject the use of the phrase “from the river to the sea”— a phrase used by many, including Hamas, as a rallying cry for the destruction of the State of Israel and genocide of the Jewish people. We all feel deep anguish for the human suffering caused by the war in Gaza. Hamas started this war with a barbaric terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, and neither the Palestinian nor Israeli people can have peace as long as Hamas still rules over Gaza and threatens Israel. 

This war is tragic and deeply painful for everyone, especially those who identify with the land and the people—Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. Every civilian killed, every family torn apart, Palestinian and Israeli, is a tragedy. Every human being deserves dignity and respect, and each of us must do all we can to always see the humanity of the innocent people caught in the middle of this war.

We support Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself — to protect its citizens, secure its borders, and rescue its people held hostage in Gaza. Israel also has the obligation to, as best as possible, protect civilians, and in all its actions adhere to international humanitarian law (notwithstanding Hamas’ complete disregard for the same).

We also recognize the desperate needs of the civilians in Gaza, and fully support doing everything possible to expand safe zones, provide transit corridors, and deliver life-sustaining humanitarian aid. A humanitarian pause of limited space and time, the release of the more than 240 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, the cessation of rockets fired by Hamas at Israel from civilian neighborhoods in Gaza, and the release of all Palestinian civilians being detained by Hamas as human shields in Gaza would go far toward achieving these goals.

We are grateful for President Biden’s extraordinary leadership, for his steadfast support of our ally Israel, and for his unwavering commitment to pursuing a lasting solution to the conflict.

The Hamas Issue and the Spiral of Silence

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel

Emma Pettit at The Chronicle of Higher Education:

In the aftermath of Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel and the country’s subsequent siege on Gaza, the University of Texas at Arlington’s political-science department did what political-science departments often do: It held a Q&A with a scholarly expert.

The idea, said Morgan Marietta, the department chair at the time, was for students to pose their questions to Brent E. Sasley, who studies Middle East politics, and learn from him about the conflict. But the event, held on October 18, was not a calm, scholastic exchange. It was tense. There was some interrupting, shouting, and, according to Marietta, some cursing. At least one student was peacefully escorted out of the room by a police officer.

Days later, Marietta’s dean expressed “concerns” about his performance as department chair and said she might consider removing him from the position if he didn’t accede to a few “preliminary requests,” according to a memo, which Marietta shared with The Chronicle. Those requests included that department events not be scheduled without prior approval, and that he submit a written plan for managing any event seven work days in advance, including “a copy of comments you plan to give by way of introduction.”
\
This was unthinkable to Marietta, who then resigned as chair. “These policies,” he wrote in his resignation letter, “are transparent attempts to halt public talks by political science faculty, curtail the academic freedom of scholars, and quash discussion if it might lead to criticism.” (The Shorthorn, the student newspaper, first reported Marietta’s resignation. He’s still on the faculty.)

An Alarming Survey Finding

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel

In a Harvard-Harris poll, a slight majority of registered voters aged 18-24 aged 18-24 think that Palestinian grievances can justify the Hamas massacre.

Beirut Bombing, 40 Years Ago Today

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel. American officials fear that the conflict could spread to Lebanon.  Today we observe a grim anniversary. 

#OTD 40 YEARS AGO in Beirut "a truck smashed through doors of headquarters building in which our Marines were sleeping & instantly exploded. The 4-story concrete building collapsed in pile of rubble.
More than 200 of the sleeping men were killed in that one hideous insane attack" pic.twitter.com/Di6O9WbS0c

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) October 23, 2023

Biden and Reagan

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel.

 Matt Lewis at The Daily Beast:

I never thought the day would come when I, a die-hard Reagan Republican, would credit a Democratic president for being Reaganesque. Amazingly, it has. Don’t look now, but Joe Biden has been leading with moral authority in the struggle against violent authoritarianism and illiberalism at home and abroad.

While Donald Trump criticized the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden met with Bibi and declared America’s support for Israel to be “rock solid and unwavering.” And while Republican support for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine has eroded, Biden has steadfastly supported them in their plight against a brutal Russian invasion. 

This trend continued during his speech on Thursday night, where Biden sought to unite these two crises. “The assault on Israel echoes nearly 20 months of war, tragedy, and brutality inflicted on the people of Ukraine—people that were very badly hurt since Vladimir Putin launched his all-out invasion,” he said.

Media Fall for Hamas Disinformation

 Elliot Kaufman at WSJ:

It was a lie. Hamas said Tuesday that an Israeli airstrike on a Gaza City hospital killed at least 500 Palestinians. Turns out it wasn’t Israeli, it wasn’t an airstrike, it didn’t hit the hospital, nowhere close to 500 people were killed, and Hamas knew it.

This has been confirmed independently by the Pentagon, according to President Biden and the National Security Council; by an intercept and drone and radar footage released by the Israeli military; and perhaps most persuasively by looking at the hospital in daylight. The evidence indicates that a rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the likely culprit.

The question is why the media and so many others ran with the story of Israeli war crimes. They did so on nothing but the word of the jihadist group that committed the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

“Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say,” read the initial New York Times headline. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) announced on Twitter: “Bombing a hospital is among the gravest of war crimes. The IDF reportedly blowing up one of the few places the injured and wounded can seek medical treatment and shelter during a war is horrific. @POTUS needs to push for an immediate ceasefire to end this slaughter.”

The trend everywhere was to let Hamas drive the story, leading readers astray. “BREAKING: The Gaza Health Ministry says at least 500 people killed in an explosion at a hospital that it says was caused by an Israeli airstrike,” the Associated Press wrote in a tweet seen 13 million times. The Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas. The AP’s subsequent clarification that Israel attributed the strike to a Palestinian rocket has fewer than 200,000 views. But the friendly-fire explanation should always have been plausible and held out as a possibility. Israel doesn’t target hospitals, and it had already counted some 450 Palestinian rockets that fell inside Gaza.

Americans Stand with Israel

 Quinnipiac Poll:

In the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and Israel declaring war on Hamas, an overwhelming majority of voters (85 percent) are either very concerned (49 percent) or somewhat concerned (36 percent) that the war between Israel and Hamas will escalate into a wider war in the Middle East, while 13 percent are either not so concerned (8 percent) or not concerned at all (5 percent), according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today. The poll was conducted from October 12 through October 16.

Voters (76 - 17 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States.

Republicans (84 - 12 percent), Democrats (76 - 17 percent), and independents (74 - 19 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States.

Voters (64 - 28 percent) approve of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel in response to the Hamas terrorist attack.

Republicans (79 - 19 percent), Democrats (59 - 29 percent), and independents (61 - 32 percent) approve of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel.

There are wide gaps when looking at age. Voters 18 - 34 years old disapprove (51 - 39 percent) of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel in response to the Hamas terrorist attack, while voters 35 - 49 years old (59 - 35 percent), voters 50 - 64 years old (77 - 17 percent), and voters 65 years of age and over (78 - 15 percent) approve.

When it comes to the relationship between the United States and Israel, slightly more than half of voters (52 percent) think the U.S. support of Israel is about right, while 20 percent think the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel, and 20 percent think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel. This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in May 2021 when 35 percent thought the U.S. support of Israel was about right, 25 percent thought the U.S. was not supportive enough, and 29 percent thought the U.S. was too supportive of Israel.

Voters were asked whether their sympathies lie more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians based on what they know about the situation in the Middle East. Roughly 6 in 10 voters (61 percent) say the Israelis, while 13 percent say the Palestinians. This is an all-time high of voters saying their sympathies lie more with the Israelis since the Quinnipiac University Poll first asked this question of registered voters in December 2001. The previous high for saying the Israelis was in April 2010 when 57 percent said the Israelis and 13 percent said the Palestinians. The low for saying the Israelis was in May 2021 when 41 percent said the Israelis and 30 percent said the Palestinians.

When asked who they thought was more responsible for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East, regardless of their overall feelings toward the Israelis and the Palestinians, more than 7 in 10 voters (72 percent) say Hamas and 10 percent say Israel, with 6 percent volunteering both equally, and 12 percent not offering an opinion.

Polls on the Middle East

Hamas has vowed to obliterate Israel and kill Jews.

Public opinion on the current conflict:

Ipsos/ABC:

Almost half of Americans believe the U.S. is doing the right amount to support Israel against Hamas.Forty-nine percent say the U.S. is doing about the right amount to support Israel in its war with Hamas. This is particularly true for Americans over age 50, Democrats, and independents, of whom a majority say the U.S. is doing the right amount.
Over a quarter (29%) of Americans say the U.S. is doing too little to support Israel in its war with Hamas. Republicans are more likely to say the U.S. should provide more support with half expressing that sentiment.

Overall, 18% say the U.S. is doing too much to help Israel in its war with Hamas. Here, too, there is a difference by age, as Americans under age 50 are more likely to feel the U.S. is doing too much, though only a minority feel this way.

U.S. involvement in Ukraine tells a slightly different story. While a plurality (42%) says the U.S. is doing the right amount to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, more say the U.S. is doing too much (33%) rather than too little (22%). These attitudes are consistent with an ABC News/Ipsos poll from January.

 Jennifer Agresta at CNN:

The American public expresses deep sympathy for the Israeli people and broadly sees the Israeli government’s military response to Hamas’ attacks as justified, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, and two-thirds are at least somewhat worried the fighting between Israel and Hamas could lead to terrorism in the US. The poll also finds divisions by party and age in how Americans view the conflict and the US response to it.

...

Half of Americans (50%) say that the Israeli government’s military response to the Hamas attacks is fully justified, another 20% say it’s partially justified and just 8% that it is not at all justified, with 21% unsure. Republicans are far more likely than independents or Democrats to say the response is fully justified (68% of Republicans say so compared with 45% of independents and 38% of Democrats), and older Americans are also much likelier than younger ones to say it is completely justified (81% of those age 65 or older see the response as fully justified, compared with 56% of 50-to-64-year-olds, 44% of 35-to-49-year-olds and 27% of 18-to-34-year-olds). Majorities across age and party, though, say the Israeli response is at least partially justified, with very few Americans of any age or party affiliation saying the response is not at all justified.

A sizable 71% of Americans say they feel a lot of sympathy for the Israeli people over the attacks by Hamas on October 7, with nearly all, 96%, expressing at least some sympathy for them. A broad majority also feel at least some sympathy for the Palestinian people (87%), but fewer feel a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians (41%). Nearly all Americans (84%) express at least some sympathy for both Israeli and Palestinian people as they face ongoing fighting.

 But here too, there are divides by age and party, with younger Americans and Democrats likelier to express a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people than Republicans and older Americans. Majorities across party lines express a lot of sympathy for the Israeli people (78% of Republicans, 68% of independents and 67% of Democrats), but there is a broad gap between the share of Democrats (49%) and independents (47%) who have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people and the share of Republicans who say the same (26%).

The Hamas Charter

The Hamas charter promises to obliterate Israel.

 Bruce Hoffman at The Atlantic:

The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:

1. The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
2. The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
3. The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
4. The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories.

Thus, as fighting rages in Israel and Gaza, and may yet escalate and spread, pleas for moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace are destined to find no purchase with Hamas. The covenant makes clear that holy war, divinely ordained and scripturally sanctioned, is in Hamas’s DNA.

Israel’s Complete and Utter Destruction

The covenant opens with a message that precisely encapsulates Hamas’s master plan. Quoting Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a constituent member (Article 2), the document proclaims, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Lest there be any doubt about Hamas’s sanguinary aims toward Israel and the Jewish people, the introduction goes on to explain:

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious … It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps.

After some general explanatory language about Hamas’s religious foundation and noble intentions, the covenant comes to the Islamic Resistance Movement’s raison d’être: the slaughter of Jews. “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

January 6: Seditious Conspiracy, Domestic Terrorism, Treason

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.ELMER STEWART RHODES III,KELLY MEGGS,KENNETH HARRELSON,JESSICA WATKINS,ROBERTO MINUTA,JOSEPH HACKETT,DAVID MOERSCHEL,THOMAS CALDWELL, andEDWARD VALLEJO, Defendants.Case No. 22-cr-15-APMGOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ANDMOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration.

...

 “[T]he violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy.” United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety.” United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2023). As this Court has explained:

January 6, 2021 was supposed to mark the peaceful transition of power. It had been that way for over two centuries, one presidential administration handing off peacefully to the next. President Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address described “the orderly transfer of authority” as “nothing less than a miracle.” Violence and disruption happened in other countries, but not here. This is the United States of America, and it could never happen to our democracy. Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46, 61 (D.D.C. 2022) (footnote omitted).

But, because of these defendants’ actions, it did happen to our democracy. Rioters injured more than a hundred members of law enforcement and inflicted significant emotional injuries on law enforcement officers and Capitol employees alike. The attack caused substantial damage to the Capitol, resulting in millions of dollars of financial losses. But the cost to our democracy and system of government was incalculable. See United States v. Gardner, No. 21-cr-622 (Mar. 16, 2023), Sent. Tr. at 68 (identifying one of the “victims” on January 6 as “democracy itself”)

...

 In short, the defendants’ conduct displayed a clear, shared intent to stop Congress from certifying the results of the election, including through the organized use of force and the staging of weapons nearby. That conduct—calculated to stop the peaceful transfer of Presidential power for the first time in the nation’s history—is a quintessential example of an intent to influence government conduct through intimidation or coercion and warrants an upward departure pursuant to Note 4. Indeed, the terrorism enhancement in Section 3A1.4 is meant to “punish[] more harshly than other criminals those whose wrongs served an end more terrible than other crimes.” Benkahla, 530 F.3d at 313

Domestic Terrorism on the Rise

GAO, "Domestic Terrorism: Further Actions Needed to Strengthen FBI and DHS Collaboration to Counter Threats."

According to U.S. law, domestic terrorism is generally defined as involving criminal acts dangerous to human life occurring in the U.S. that appear intended to coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tracks cases (which it defines as investigations and disruptions) consistent with its investigative mission. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) tracks incidents which it defines attacks or plots, consistent with its definition of domestic terrorism. From fiscal years 2013 through 2021, the FBI's number of open domestic terrorism-related cases grew by 357 percent from 1,981 to 9,049, From calendar year 2010 to 2021, I&A tracked a total of 231 domestic terrorism incidents, with racially- or ethnically-motivated violent extremists committing the most violent incidents during the time period.

The FBI and DHS I&A collaborate via headquarters staff, fusion centers, and through serving on task forces, to identify and counter domestic terrorism threats. GAO found that they generally followed leading collaboration practices, but challenges remain. For example, FBI and DHS have agreements in place, but they have not assessed if these agreements fully reflect how their personnel should collaborate on their shared charge of preventing domestic terrorism. Due to the rapidly evolving threat landscape, having up-to-date, comprehensive formal agreements would enhance the two entities' collaboration. Further, FBI and DHS I&A have evaluated individual activities but have not consistently assessed the overall effectiveness of their collaborative efforts. Doing so can ensure both agencies are capitalizing on efforts that may lead to improved information to counter domestic terrorism threats.

Countering Domestic Terrorism

 Adrienne LaFrance at The Atlantic:

Starting late in the evening on June 2, 1919, in a series of coordinated attacks, anarchists simultaneously detonated massive bombs in eight American cities. In Washington, an explosion at the home of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer blasted out the front windows and tore framed photos off the walls. Palmer, in his pajamas, had been reading by his second-story window. He happened to step away minutes before the bomb went off, a decision that authorities believed kept him alive. (His neighbors, the assistant secretary of the Navy and his wife, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, had just gotten home from an evening out when the explosion also shattered their windows. Franklin ran over to Palmer’s house to check on him.) The following year, a horse-drawn carriage drew up to the pink-marble entrance of the J. P. Morgan building on Wall Street and exploded, killing more than 30 people and injuring hundreds more.

...

The spectacular violence of 1919 and 1920 proved a catalyst. A concerted nationwide hunt for anarchists began. This work, which culminated in what came to be known as the Palmer Raids, entailed direct violations of the Constitution. In late 1919 and early 1920, a series of raids—carried out in more than 30 American cities—led to the warrantless arrests of 10,000 suspected radicals, mostly Italian and Jewish immigrants. Attorney General Palmer’s dragnet ensnared many innocent people and has become a symbol of the damage that overzealous law enforcement can cause. Hundreds of people were ultimately deported. Some had fallen afoul of a harsh new federal immigration law that broadly targeted anarchists. One of them was Luigi Galleani. “The law was kind of designed for him,” Beverly Gage, a historian and the author of The Day Wall Street Exploded, told me.The violence did not stop immediately after the Palmer Raids—in an irony that frustrated authorities, Galleani’s deportation made it impossible for them to charge him in the Wall Street bombing, which they believed he planned, because it occurred after he’d left the country. Nevertheless, sweeping action by law enforcement helped put an end to a generation of anarchist attacks.

That is the most important lesson from the anarchist period: Holding perpetrators accountable is crucial. The Palmer Raids are remembered, rightly, as a ham-handed application of police-state tactics. Government actions can turn killers into martyrs. More important, aggressive policing and surveillance can undermine the very democracy they are meant to protect; state violence against citizens only validates a distrust of law enforcement.

But deterrence conducted within the law can work. Unlike anti-war protesters or labor organizers, violent extremists don’t have an agenda that invites negotiation. “Today’s threats of violence can be inspired by a wide range of ideologies that themselves morph and shift over time,” Deputy Homeland Security Adviser Josh Geltzer told me. Now as in the early 20th century, countering extremism through ordinary debate or persuasion, or through concession, is a fool’s errand. Extremists may not even know what they believe, or hope for. “One of the things I increasingly keep wondering about is—what is the endgame?” Mary McCord, a former assistant U.S. attorney and national-security official, told me. “Do you want democratic government? Do you want authoritarianism? Nobody talks about that. Take back our country . Okay, so you get it back. Then what do you do?”

Domestic Violent Extremist Bomb Plot

Rachel Weiner and  Jasmine Hilton at WP:

A neo-Nazi leader recently released from prison has been arrested again and accused of plotting an attack on the Maryland power grid with a woman he met while incarcerated.

Brandon Russell, 27, and Sarah Clendaniel, 34, are expected to make their first appearance Monday in Baltimore and Florida federal courts on a charge of conspiring to destroy an energy facility, which carries up to 20 years in prison.

“If we can pull off what I’m hoping … this would be legendary,” Clendaniel said on Jan. 29, according to the court record. She was speaking to a federal informant, who was having similar discussions with Russell. 

According to prosecutors, their plan was to attack with gunfire five substations that serve the Baltimore area. The charges come after similar attacks on the power grid in North Carolina and Oregon that remain unsolved; the Department of Homeland Security recently warned that the United States is in a “heightened threat environment” and that critical infrastructure is among the “targets of potential violence.”

In conversations about the plot, according to court documents, Clendaniel “described how there was a ‘ring’ around Baltimore and if they hit a number of them all in the same day, they ‘would completely destroy this whole city.’”

 From a 2020 report by the Department of Homeland Security:

The primary terrorist threat inside the United States will stem from lone offenders and small cells of individuals, including Domestic Violent Extremists6 (DVEs) and foreign terrorist-inspired Homegrown Violent Extremists (HVEs). Some U.S.-based violent extremists have capitalized on increased social and political tensions in 2020, which will drive an elevated threat environment at least through early 2021. Violent extremists will continue to target individuals or institutions that represent symbols of their grievances, as well as grievances based on political affiliation or perceived policy positions. 

... 

Among DVEs, racially and ethnically motivatedviolent extremists—specifically white supremacistextremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland. Spikes in other DVE threats probably will depend on political or social issues that often mobilize other ideological actors to violence, such as immigration, environmental, and police-related policy issues.

Blade

NDTV:

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed by the US forces in a drone strike in Afghanistan capital Kabul. Announcing his death in a televised address, US President Joe Biden said no civilian casualties were reported in the operation that was conducted over the weekend.

A senior official in the Biden administration was quoted as saying by news agency AFP that Zawahiri was on the balcony of a house in Kabul when he was targeted with two Hellfire missiles, an hour after sunrise on July 31.

According to the official's account, Mr Biden gave his green light for the strike on July 25 - as he was recovering in isolation from Covid-19.

However, pictures from the Kabul home where Zawahiri was living showed no signs of an explosion, pointing to the use again by the US of the macabre Hellfire R9X.

Also called the "ninja bomb," the missile has become the US weapon of choice for killing leaders of extremist groups while avoiding civilian casualties.

The missile is fired from a Predator drone. It has no warhead, but deploys six blades which fly in at high speed, crush and slice the targeted person.

This is the reason why it's called the "flying ginsu", after the 1980 TV commercial for Japanese kitchen knives that would cut cleanly through aluminum cans and remain perfectly sharp.

Some pictures posted online show the impact of these missiles. One of these old photos on Twitter claims to show a car destroyed by Hellfire R9X in Idlib, Syria.

Pentagon and CIA - the two agencies which undertake targeted assassinations - have never acknowledged the use of the Hellfire R9X missile.

Murder and Extremism

 From the Anti-Defamation League:

• Every year people with ties to a variety of extreme movements and causes kill people in the United States; the ADL Center on Extremism tracks these murders. Extremists regularly commit murders in the service of their ideology, in the service of a group or gang they may belong to, or while engaging in traditional, non-ideological criminal activities.
• In 2021, domestic extremists killed at least 29 people in the United States, in 19 separate incidents. This represents a modest increase from the 23 extremist-related murders documented in 2020 but is far lower than the number of murders committed in any of the five years prior (which ranged from 45 to 78).
• The 2021 murder totals were low primarily because no high-casualty extremist-related shooting spree occurred this past year. Such sprees are the main contributor to high murder totals.
• Most of the murders (26 of 29) were committed by right-wing extremists, which is usually the case. However, two killings were committed by Black nationalists and one by an Islamist extremist—the latter being the first such killing since 2018.
• Most of the 2021 murders were committed by people associated with longstanding extremist movements, such as white supremacy and the sovereign citizen movement. However, 2021 continued the trend of recent years of seeing some murders from newer types of extremism, including QAnon adherents, people associated with the toxic masculinity subculture of the “manosphere” and anti-vaccination extremists.
• White supremacists killed more people in 2021 than any other type of extremist, though not an outright majority, as is often the case. An in-depth look at white supremacist killings over the past 10 years demonstrates the dangers posed by alt right white supremacists and white supremacist prison gangs.

Domestic Terrorism

 From CSIS:

To better understand the trends in U.S. domestic terrorism, CSIS compiled a data set of 1,040 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2021. The 2021 data are new, and they yield several main findings.

First, there was a significant increase in the number and percentage of domestic terrorist incidents at demonstrations in cities in 2020 and 2021. In 2019, only 2 percent of all U.S. terrorist attacks and plots occurred at demonstrations, but this portion rose to 47 percent in 2020 and 53 percent in 2021. The result is that some metropolitan areas of the United States—such as Portland, Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.—are becoming focal points of domestic terrorism, where extremists from opposing sides square off against each other and against law enforcement agencies. This development has created a “security dilemma” in metropolitan areas, where attempts by one side to improve its own security threatens the security of others, leading to further escalation.

Second, U.S. law enforcement agencies have increasingly become a target of domestic terrorists from all sides of the political spectrum. The government, military, and especially law enforcement were the primary targets of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in 2021, composing 43 percent of all attacks. They were most likely to be targeted regardless of perpetrator ideology: they were selected in 48 percent of violent far-left events, 37 percent of violent far-right events, and all Salafi-jihadist events in 2021. This development indicates that U.S. security agencies—particularly law enforcement—are increasingly at risk from domestic terrorism.

Third, there was an increase in the percentage of attacks and plots by anarchists, anti-fascists, and other likeminded extremists in 2021. While white supremacists, anti-government militias, and likeminded extremists conducted the most attacks and plots in 2021 (49 percent), the percentage of attacks and plots by anarchists, anti-fascists, and likeminded extremists grew from 23 percent in 2020 to 40 percent in 2021. This rise has occurred alongside an increase in violence at demonstrations. However, although there was a historically high level of both far-right and far-left terrorist attacks in 2021, violent far-right incidents were significantly more likely to be lethal, both in terms of weapon choice and number of resulting fatalities.

Mass Incapacitation and Appointment of House Members

 

In case of a terror attack or other disaster that causes a mass incapacitation of the House, the law provides for expedited special elections.  Some favor constitutional changes to provide for other means of filling the seats.  At The Hill, former representatives F. James Sensenbrenner and David Dreier argue against such measures.

Describing the unique character of the U.S. House of Representatives in Federalist Paper 52, James Madison, wrote: “[I]t is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people. . . . Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.” Madison also warned “[w]here elections end, tyranny begins.”

...

Gubernatorial appointment of U.S. representatives would invite partisan intrigue and legal challenge. Presently, Democrats hold a 12-seat majority in the U.S. House (221-209), among the most narrow of margins in recent history. Currently, 28 of 50 governor’s mansions are occupied by Republicans. If governors could appoint U.S. representatives, some might delay appointments while others expedite the process for partisan gain. This disparity would deny to citizens their constitutional rights to representation and the equal protection of the laws. The second general approach to jettisoning the direct election of U.S. representatives is more dubious than the first. These proposals would amend the Constitution to empower U.S. representatives to surreptitiously create a list of designated successor(s) to be appointed in the event of the elected representative’s death or incapacitation. Allowing members of Congress to choose their own successors invites opportunism and confers to a hand-picked designee the privilege of office and advantage of incumbency that must be earned from voters, not capriciously granted. Covert, dynastic succession of office is more emblematic of North Korea than the world’s greatest representative democracy.

The Threat of Domestic Terrorism

 Josh Meyer and Kevin Johnson at USA Today:

Washington failed to create a national strategy to counter right-wing extremism until the deadly siege of the U.S. Capitol last January triggered an urgent reassessment of the threat, according to USA TODAY interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and a review of government documents. Federal agencies were slow to recognize the threat rising from the homeland and work together to counter it. Resources were poured into international terrorism while domestic extremist groups grew and operated in the open. Some key programs at the Justice Department and elsewhere were launched, stopped and then restarted. Investigators frequently lacked key sources to help them infiltrate movements and thwart attacks. Overlaying all of that, current and former officials say, was the fact that the U.S. government lacked a coordinated and sustained strategy to combat right-wing extremism. Now, one year after the assault on the Capitol, many of those officials question whether Washington is up to the task of containing a problem that has embedded itself deeply into the fabric of America.

...

In recent years, after authorities said right-wing domestic terrorists were a threat on par with the Islamic State group, the National Counterterrorism Center expanded its purview. It now has a small unit to help the FBI and DHS on domestic extremism. Now, “it’s not just militant Islamists but also militias in Michigan,” said Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and former lead National Counterterrorism Center staffer on U.S. efforts to counter violent extremism.

United 93 in 2021

Remarks by President George W. Bush at the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Transcript of remarks from September 11, 2021 commemorating the 20th anniversary of 9/11.
September 11, 2021

Thank you very much. Laura and I are honored to be with you. Madam Vice President, Vice President Cheney. Governor Wolf, Secretary Haaland, and distinguished guests:

Twenty years ago, we all found – in different ways, in different places, but all at the same moment – that our lives would be changed forever. The world was loud with carnage and sirens, and then quiet with missing voices that would never be heard again. These lives remain precious to our country, and infinitely precious to many of you. Today we remember your loss, we share your sorrow, and we honor the men and women you have loved so long and so well.

For those too young to recall that clear September day, it is hard to describe the mix of feelings we experienced. There was horror at the scale of destruction, and awe at the bravery and kindness that rose to meet it. There was shock at the audacity of evil, and gratitude for the heroism and decency that opposed it. In the sacrifice of the first responders, in the mutual aid of strangers, in the solidarity of grief and grace, the actions of an enemy revealed the spirit of a people. And we were proud of our wounded nation.

In these memories, the passengers and crew of Flight 93 must always have an honored place. Here the intended targets became the instruments of rescue. And many who are now alive owe a vast, unconscious debt to the defiance displayed in the skies above this field.

It would be a mistake to idealize the experience of those terrible events. All that many people could initially see was the brute randomness of death. All that many could feel was unearned suffering. All that many could hear was God’s terrible silence. There are many who still struggle with a lonely pain that cuts deep within.

In those fateful hours, we learned other lessons as well. We saw that Americans were vulnerable, but not fragile – that they possess a core of strength that survives the worst that life can bring. We learned that bravery is more common than we imagined, emerging with sudden splendor in the face of death. We vividly felt how every hour with our loved ones is a temporary and holy gift. And we found that even the longest days end.

Many of us have tried to make spiritual sense of these events. There is no simple explanation for the mix of Providence and human will that sets the direction of our lives. But comfort can come from a different sort of knowledge. After wandering long and lost in the dark, many have found they were actually walking, step by step, toward grace.

As a nation, our adjustments have been profound. Many Americans struggled to understand why an enemy would hate us with such zeal. The security measures incorporated into our lives are both sources of comfort and reminders of our vulnerability. And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.

After 9/11, millions of brave Americans stepped forward and volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. The military measures taken over the last 20 years to pursue dangers at their source have led to debate. But one thing is certain: We owe an assurance to all who have fought our nation’s most recent battles. Let me speak directly to veterans and people in uniform: The cause you pursued at the call of duty is the noblest America has to offer. You have shielded your fellow citizens from danger. You have defended the beliefs of your country and advanced the rights of the downtrodden. You have been the face of hope and mercy in dark places. You have been a force for good in the world. Nothing that has followed – nothing – can tarnish your honor or diminish your accomplishments. To you, and to the honored dead, our country is forever grateful. (Applause.)

In the weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks, I was proud to lead an amazing, resilient, united people. When it comes to the unity of America, those days seems distant from our own. A malign force seems at work in our common life that turns every disagreement into an argument, and every argument into a clash of cultures. So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear, and resentment. That leaves us worried about our nation and our future together.

I come without explanations or solutions. I can only tell you what I have seen.

On America’s day of trial and grief, I saw millions of people instinctively grab for a neighbor’s hand and rally to the cause of one another. That is the America I know. (Applause.)

At a time when religious bigotry might have flowed freely, I saw Americans reject prejudice and embrace people of Muslim faith. That is the nation I know. (Applause.)

At a time when nativism could have stirred hatred and violence against people perceived as outsiders, I saw Americans reaffirm their welcome of immigrants and refugees. That is the nation I know. (Applause.)

At a time when some viewed the rising generation as individualistic and decadent, I saw young people embrace an ethic of service and rise to selfless action. That is the nation I know. (Applause.)

This is not mere nostalgia; it is the truest version of ourselves. It is what we have been – and what we can be again.

Twenty years ago, terrorists chose a random group of Americans, on a routine flight, to be collateral damage in a spectacular act of terror. The 33 passengers and 7 crew of Flight 93 could have been any group of citizens selected by fate. In that sense, they stood in for us all.

The terrorists soon discovered that a random group of Americans is an exceptional group of people. Facing an impossible circumstance, they comforted their loved ones by phone, braced each other for action, and defeated the designs of evil.

These Americans were brave, strong, and united in ways that shocked the terrorists – but should not surprise any of us. This is the nation we know. (Applause.) And whenever we need hope and inspiration, we can look to the skies and remember.

God bless.

END

United 93

 A decade ago, former President George W. Bush dedicated the United 93 National Memorial at Shanksville, Pennsylvania:

From the text:

For 10 years, our troops have risked and given their lives to prevent our enemies from attacking America again. They've kept us safe; they have made us proud; and they have upheld the spirit of service shown by the passengers on Flight 93.

Many years ago in 1863, another President came to dedicate a memorial site in this state. He told his audience that:

In a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. For the brave souls who struggled there, it consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.

He added, "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."

So it is with Flight 93.

For as long as this memorial stands, we will remember what the men and women aboard the plane did here. We'll pay tribute to the courage they showed, the sacrifice they made, and the lives they spared.

The United States will never forget.

May God bless you all.