Internal Memorandum
To: Democratic Members, Committee on Homeland SecurityFr:Democratic Staff (Cherri Branson)Re: Full Committee Hearing entitled: “From al-Shabaab to al-Nusra: How Westerners Joining Terror Groups Overseas Affect the Homeland” _____________________________________________________________________________________ On
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
, at
2:00 p.m.
in
311 Cannon House Office Building
, the Committeeon Homeland Security will meet to hold a hearing entitled “
From al-Shabaab to al-Nusra: HowWesterners Joining Terror Groups Overseas Affect the Homeland.”
WITNESSES
Professor Michael Scheuer,
Adjunct Professor Center for Peace and Security StudiesGeorgetown University
Ms. Lauren Ploch Blanchard
Specialist in African AffairsCongressional Research ServiceThe Library of Congress
Mr. Brett Lovegrove
Chief ExecutiveCity Security and Resilience Network (CSARN)
Mr. Richard Stanek
Sheriff Hennepin County, Minnesota
Mr. Richard Mellor
Vice President, Loss Prevention National Retail Federation
(Democratic Witness)Ms. Stephanie Sanok Kostro
Acting Director Homeland Security & Counterterrorism ProgramCenter for Strategic & International Studies
(Democratic Witness)P
URPOSE
The purpose of this hearing is to explore the possibility that American or other Western citizens mayleave their countries of residence, join Al Qaeda affiliated or other terrorist groups fighting in areas of unrest and after returning home, may seek to use tactics and skills learned abroad to launch terrorist
attacks within the United States. Further, because of the defensive and offensive measures currently in place at governmental and military installations within the United States, these individuals or groups mayfind unprotected “soft targets” to be the most appealing targets. In part, it appears that the concept for thishearing is both a response to the terrorist attack at the Westgate Mall in Kenya as well as a continuationof Majority’s examination of the Boston Marathon bombing.Because the hearing concept is not specifically linked to a particular governmental program, specific aimof a terrorist organization or a distinct incident, this memo is not written in the usual format. Below, youwill find a series of questions followed by information which may arise during the course of the hearing.Unfortunately, the issues raised by this hearing could be explored in a meaningful fashion if the federalgovernment shutdown did not prevent the appearance of government witnesses. Without the testimony of officials charged with implementing these important programs, there is little from a policy, legislative or oversight perspective that can be gained.
Why Should Soft Targets Be Considered Significant?
Generally, “soft targets” are locations or events which may become the focus of terrorist attack because of a combination of factors which make them difficult to protect. These factors may include a lack of security (security personnel and/or facility protections) and the need to assure open and public access tofulfill their core function. Additionally, soft targets often have a symbolic significance and are likely tohave a non-governmental purpose. For instance, shopping malls, movie theaters, schools, as well as masstransit and commuter rail facilities are considered the kinds of “soft targets” likely to garner interest byterrorists. “Soft targets” are to be contrasted with “hard targets” which are likely to have a military or governmental function and are equipped with offensive security protections (barriers, metal detectors) and personnel with a defensive response capability.Unexpected and violent attacks on soft targets which cause mayhem and loss of life have occurred withincreasing frequency in this nation. The shooting of Rep. Giffords at a shopping center, the attack on the patrons of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown,Connecticut were all the acts lone wolf actors carried out in places which could be considered softtargets.However, because the actors had no political or religious agenda, these attacks are generally notconsidered terroristic. On the contrary, because the actors alleged to have been involved in the BostonMarathon bombing are believed to have had a political or religious agenda, the attack is considered to bea terrorist attack on a soft target.In the days after the bombing, no terror organization nor individual claimed responsibility for theattack--leading authorities on terrorism investigations to be uncertain about whether this incident wasdirected by Al Qaeda or was an incident of Domestic or Homegrown Violent Extremism. Many expertsquickly dismissed a possible Al Qaeda connection because of their propensity to quickly takeresponsibility for terrorist actions.And while the motivation of the Boston bombing suspects remains unknown, news reports have indicatedthat their motivation appears to have been based on religion, not politics, the purpose of the foreign travelengaged in by one of the suspects remains unclear, the suspects were not involved with any foreign
terrorist organization and the suspects learned to build the bombs used by information gathered on theinternet. However, it should be noted that the facts of this case are likely to remain unclear until theconclusion of the criminal proceedings of the remaining living suspect.
If Soft Targets are a vulnerability, what can be done about it?
Since it is neither practical nor feasible to protect all assets and systems against every possible terroristthreat, the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS) uses risk-informed approaches to prioritize itssecurity-related investments and for developing plans and allocating resources in a way that balancessecurity and commerce.A risk management approach entails a continuous process of managing risk through a series of actions,including setting strategic goals and objectives, assessing risk, evaluating alternatives, selecting initiativesto undertake, and implementing and monitoring those initiatives.In June 2006, DHS issued the NIPP, which named TSA as the primary federal agency responsible for coordinating critical infrastructure protection efforts within the transportation sector. The NIPP alsoestablished a six-step risk management framework to establish national priorities, goals, and requirementsfor Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources protection so that federal funding and resources are appliedin the most effective manner to deter threats, reduce vulnerabilities, and minimize the consequences of attacks and other incidents. The NIPP defines risk as a function of threat, vulnerability, and consequence.Threat is an indication of the likelihood that a specific type of attack will be initiated against a specifictarget or class of targets. Vulnerability is the probability that a particular attempted attack will succeedagainst a particular target or class of targets. Consequence is the effect of a successful attack. An updatedversion of the NIPP was issued in 2009.
With an interest in protecting soft targets, DHS maintains the Homeland Security Grant program.
Homeland Security Grant Program
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent findings issued by the NationalCommission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (“9/11 Commission), Congress authorized risk- based grant programs to help States, high-risk urban areas, and Port and Transit authorities developcritical preparedness and response activities.
1
Transportation Security: Additional Actions Could Strengthen the Security of Intermodal Transportation Facilities,GAO-10-435R, May 2010.
2
Federal Homeland Security Grant funds cannot be used to “harden” non-government owned soft targets. Private-sector owners of soft targets, however, can be included in planning and exercise activities involving soft targets(e.g.: hotels, shopping malls, movie theaters).