Domestic Terrorism

 by Vasileia Kioutsouki

Far-Right Versus Islamist Extremism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD) is one of the many extremist far right groups that operate in the United Kingdom, but only the second to be proscribed as a terrorist organization. More often than not, the threat posed by the far-right is neglected, especially in comparison with Islamist extremism. There is a general tendency to minimize far-right extremist incidents and the media seem to be rather reluctant to link such incidents to terrorism. This is somewhat disquieting as the far-right has been identified as the fastest growing terrorist threat in the UK, as well as in other liberal democratic countries.

According to new research, those convicted of Islamist extremist related crimes receive prison sentences three times longer than those affiliated with the far-right in the UK. For instance, Islamist extremists convicted of online crimes receive an average of 73.4 months compared to the right-wing extremists who serve approximately 24.5 months. This disparity is due to the failure of the Home Office to ban right-wing extremist groups as terrorist organizations. As well, the UK’s counter-radicalization strategy has been severely criticized for its focus on Islamic extremism although right-wing referrals have exceeded those related to religious extremism.

In the same way, there is disproportionate academic research on far-right terrorism, as indicated by Bart Schuurman study at the University of Leiden. More precisely, a review of the nine leading academic journals within the field of terrorism provided clear confirmation of something suspected all along, namely that far-right extremism is neglected not only by the government and policy makers, but also by academia.

Serious concerns over the proliferation of right-wing ideology worldwide and the lack of attention paid to it by intelligence and security services were raised following a series of high-profile far-right inspired attacks in 2019, primarily those in New Zealand, Texas and Germany. However, despite the 300% increase of far-right terrorism over the past five years, Islamist extremism continues to be the dominant threat in the UK.

Having said that, far right and Islamist extremism could be considered as being two sides of the same coin. Despite their diametrically opposed positions, they seem to reinforce each other. The rapidly growing Muslim community is essentially perceived as a threat to those that espouse far-right beliefs, therefore provoking a violent reaction. At the same time, Muslims in liberal democratic countries feel oppressed and deprived. They seek to participate proactively in the broader struggle against the oppression of Muslim people for that reason.

Notwithstanding their opposing views, both rightists and Islamists share certain common ideological characteristics, such as the anti-Semitic rhetoric and a belief in conspiracy theories. They also pursue objectives of similar nature. Far-right extremists seek to create a homogeneous society exempt of immigrants, or people of different races or religions, likewise, Islamist extremists aim at creating an Islamic Caliphate across the world with no ‘infidels’, namely people of a different religion. In addition, they are both opposed to globalization: Islamists under the fear of losing their cultural identity and right-wing extremists under the risk of losing homogeneity.

What emerges from the above is that despite all their differences, the threat posed by these two types of extremism is of equal importance. Both Islamist and right-wing extremists deserve specific attention and impartiality is an essential ingredient in the strategy of counter-radicalization. A policy which puts a disproportionate emphasis on one could be considered biased and ineffective, therefore making it difficult for experts to tackle either of those. By neglecting or over-emphasizing only one side of the problem, policymakers risk any attempt to effectively respond to such types of extremism.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by Caitlyn Ryan

Extremism Assessment Series: Earth Liberation Front (ELF)

  • Originally established in 1992 in Brighton, United Kingdom, ELF now operates in 17 countries and is thought to be a descendant of the Animal Liberation Front due to their increased cooperation.
  • Uses a “leaderless resistance” model to take the profit motive out of environmental destruction by causing property damage to businesses. The ELF targets companies that “exploit the Earth, its environment, and its inhabitants.”
  • Advocates for “monkeywrenching”, a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. One of their most popular forms of attack is arson.


Summary of Extremist Narrative

The ELF is a completely decentralized group with no hierarchical structure or central leadership. The ELF mainly consists of a network of self-funded cells which carry out attacks under the ELF name. The ELF targets businesses and corporations which are thought to be harmful to the environment, such as companies working in genetic engineering, genetically modified organism (GMO) crops, deforestation, rural cluster and development, and energy production to name a few. They utilize several attack styles, with arson being the most popular form of criminal activity carried out by the group.

History of the Group

The ELF was originally established in 1992 in Brighton, United Kingdom before spreading to the rest of Europe. It is now operating in 17 countries and consists of an entirely decentralized structure. The ELF is known to cooperate with the Animal Liberation Front due to their similarities in radical ideology.

What sets the ELF apart from other environmental protest groups is their radical ideology and actions. The ELF follows two trains of thought, the first being “Biocentrism”, which regards all organisms on earth as equal and deserving of moral rights and considerations, and identifies biodiversity and wilderness as an absolute good against which all other actions should be judged.

The second philosophical approach that the ELF follows is “Deep ecology”, which calls for a general rollback of industrialization and the restoration of the ecological balance. While neither of these schools of thought are generally violent or criminal, the ELF uses these philosophies to justify their violent actions as moral. Radical environmentalist groups believe that human beings are the source of the environmental problem and advocate for the destruction of environmentally-harmful corporations and industries.

Current State of the Movement

Following 9/11, the FBI began to focus on all forms of domestic terrorism including eco-terrorism. In 2004, the ELF was ranked as the number one domestic-terror threat in the US, surpassing white supremacists and militias as the FBI’s top priority. A wave of arrests known as “The Green Scare” led to a massive crack down on eco-terrorist groups. Although these eco-terrorist groups have never killed anyone, they have caused massive amounts of property damage as well as economical damage to hundreds of corporations.

According to an article titled The Earth Liberation Front and Environmental Terrorism, the ELF and the ALF are believed to be responsible for over 600 criminal acts between the years of 1996 and 2002, causing more than $43 million in damages. Another article mentioned a string of arsons, including a fire in 2003 that caused $50 million worth in damages to a five-story apartment complex. A banner that was left at the scene of the fire made it clear that it was the work of the ELF, but those who set the fire were never found.

The ELF has an active website where they claimed responsibility for arson attacks and other criminal activity across the US. They also have a training manual that calls itself an “arson guide” for ELF members. The loose structure of the ELF group makes it even more difficult to track down those responsible for their criminal acts.

In recent years, however, the number of attacks carried out by the ELF and other eco-terrorist groups has declined. According to a START article, the number of incidents in the past few years has been significantly lower than in the early 2000’s. Looking at the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), the most recent ELF attack logged in the US was in 2009 in Everett, Washington, where an unknown assailant stole a track hoe and toppled two radio transmission towers. The attack caused more than $2 million dollars in damage and the ELF was prompt to claim responsibility.

The most recent attack logged in the GTD was in Athens, Greece in 2015, suggesting that the ELF’s momentum has dwindled in the US. This may be in part due to law enforcement’s major crackdown on eco-activists across the country. Many of these protesters have faced terrorism charges for acts such as chaining themselves to construction sites to prevent further environmental damage. The increase in eco-activist arrests is seen as a resurgence of “The Green Scare” that was seen in the early 2000’s.

The Extremism Assessment Series is an initiative of Rise to Peace’s Domestic Counter Terrorism Program. It seeks to provide short educational pieces highlighting groups or social movements linked to extremist ideologies and/or tactics. Check back for new additions to the series.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
 by John Wilson

Extremism Assessment Series: Sovereign Citizens Movement

  • The sovereign citizen movement is often disorganized, but organized groups do exist.
  • The spread of this extremist ideology typically exists and is spread on online platforms.
  • While not all followers of the movement are violent, such ideology has led to the murder of law enforcement officers and terroristic threats against government employees.


Summary of Extremist Narrative 

The sovereign citizen movement is based on an assembly of various conspiracy theories, many of which stem from the 14th Amendment and conspiratorial interpretations of it. The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”. Followers of the sovereign citizen movement view this statement as creating two distinct classes of individuals amongst the population residing in the geographic United States. These two classes, de Jure (or rightful citizens) and 14th Amendment citizens, separate sovereign citizens from those who are considered citizens of the federal United States. Because followers of the movement believe that the amendment created two separate classes of citizens, one being superior to the other, they believe that the government has failed to properly represent the republic of the United States, making it an illegitimate government. Any laws or attempts to enforce such laws by such an illegitimate government are then viewed as illegitimate by followers.

Followers of the movement do not believe that they have to follow the laws of the United States, often citing ‘common law’, which has little to no definition and is often based on aspects of biblical and constitutional rulings. As laws after the 14th Amendment are viewed as completely fraudulent in the movement, the followers often cite that the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a federal income tax, need not be followed.

History of the Movement

There is no exact doctrine in which sovereign citizens base their beliefs. Nor is there a sovereign citizen group which believes in the exact same ideology as other groups. Several sub-sects exist within the movement, as will be discussed.

Much of the ideology has spread via conspiratorial books, and more recently amongst online blogs and manifestos. Many followers of the movement will consume numerous of these narrative platforms and pick and choose segments to fit their perceived needs best.

The last two decades have also saw a rise in African Americans who have begun to follow certain sub-sects of the sovereign citizen movement. Many African Americans who follow such ideologies follow a distinct movement often referred to as “Moors” or “Moorish”. These individuals believe that their independence comes from obscure treaties signed by the United States in the 1700s.

Because of the conspiratorial belief that laws of the United States are illegit and that they as sovereign citizens do not need to obey them, followers often become engaged in situations with local or state law enforcement. Sovereign citizens are known to make their own driver’s license, vehicle tags, and other common forms of physical identification, further leading to increased law enforcement interaction. While some of these cases end when less hardened believers of the movement realize that they do in fact need to obey the laws of the United States, others have ended in fatal attacks on law enforcement.

Current state of the movement 

While there are some collective sovereign organizations, the overall movement his highly disorganized and made up of many individuals who physically practice their specific beliefs on their own. In certain areas, organized or semi-organized sovereign citizen groups have been linked to white nationalist organizations. The FBI has stated that amongst the criminal activities that followers of the sovereign citizen movement are murder, assault, battery, terroristic threats, and a wide variety of financial crimes. Amongst the more organized sovereign groups, leaders are often in their 60’s and 70’s.

In a study carried out by Brian S. Slater, sovereign citizen legal proceedings saw drastic increases in the last two decades. Measuring from the early 2000s up until mid-2016, Slater noted that such proceedings (to include legal appeals) rose from 4 in 2008 up to 142 in 2016. While this does necessarily represent a rise in violence attributed to the movement, it is concerning that it appears that the movement’s ideology is spreading which may lead to increased violent trends.

Where are Sovereign Citizens operating? 

Several large sovereign movement organizations exist along the east coast of the United States, however, such organizations also exist in several states where some have been associated with select white supremacist organizations.

The Slater study mentioned above lists the following states as having the most prominent sovereign citizen activity:

  • Illinois
  • Wisconsin
  • Florida
  • North Carolina
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • California
  • Pennsylvania
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee

What are the primary recruitment methods into the movement? 

As the movement is largely disorganized, there are no known specific recruitment practices. The ideological narrative has been spread by books in the past and more recently online blogs and by circulated manifestos. Several sovereign citizen online blogs state that there are certain ways a sovereign must declare themselves independent of the United States government, all of which are based on odd legal jargon that is completely incorrect. While not all sovereigns adhere to such a declaration, it is often times the case that proponents of the movement believe that it is needed to officially become a sovereign citizen.

Image Credit: A Title 4 flag typical of the sovereign citizenship movement; as found on related website ‘Fake Freedom’.

The Extremism Assessment Series is an initiative of Rise to Peace’s Domestic Counter Terrorism Program. It seeks to provide short educational pieces highlighting groups or social movements linked to extremist ideologies and/or tactics. Check back for new additions to the series.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by Rise to Peace

Prosecuting “Domestic Terrorism” in the United States

El-Paso Memorial for the victims of the mass shooting that took place on 3 August 2019. Image Credit: Paul Ratje of Agence France-Presse (Getty Images)

Infamously coined ‘lone-wolf’ attacks or acts of violence, the United States has tragically experienced 2 separate mass shooting occurrences this month that claimed the lives of many innocents. The shooting in El-Paso, Texas, carried out by 21-year-old Patrick Wood Crusius, is being treated by United States Federal Prosecutors as “domestic terrorism”. Federal officials, however, have been hesitant to use the term “domestic terrorism” for the reason that although the term is defined in United States law; there exists no actual criminal penalty attached to what would be treated an act or incident of “domestic” or “home-grown” terrorism.

Given this paradox between definition and applicable legal criminal responsibility, how, then, can a mass shooting or any attack conducted by an individual such as Crusius be brought to justice as ‘domestic terrorism’? This article will examine the intricacies of “domestic terrorism” and the stipulation for precise criminal penalties tied to such an act of violence.

Domestic Terrorism as Understood in the Patriot Act and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Section 802 of the United States of America Patriot Act addresses domestic terrorism. It has been common to mistake Section 802 as a section that concretely defines ‘domestic terrorism’ as a criminal offence on its own. However, Section 802 is not to be interpreted in this way. Section 802 supplements the existing definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act, largely created to expand investigative powers onto an individual (or individuals) should they be suspected of engaging in domestic terrorism. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recognises “domestic terrorism” as an act (or acts) “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature,”.

This brings us to the way in which domestic terrorism has been worded. An individual is recognised as ‘engaging’ in domestic terrorism if they commit an act that “could result in death”, and is in violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States of America, or if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

The legal scope of Section 802 regarding “domestic terrorism” is therefore limited to an act (or acts) that meet the following criteria: (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Consequently, it becomes evident that Section 802 “opens” an act of domestic terrorism to a broad interpretation when proceeding with criminal responsibility and prosecution.

Justice for the El Paso Victims, and the “Future” of “Domestic Terrorist” Acts

John Bash, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, stated that Crusius’ act of violence will be treated as a “domestic terrorist case.” With consideration to the aforementioned, Crusius cannot be literally charged as a “domestic terrorist”. Therefore, in terms of actual criminal penalty and prosecution, Crusius’ horrific act will be charged as a capital murder. In the state of Texas, Crusius may face up to 99 years in prison or even the death penalty, if found guilty.

Horrific mass shootings such as Crusius’ are not a new threat or occurrence in the United States. It has been reported that individual ‘lone-wolves’ have similar backgrounds in terms of personality attributes, isolation from society, profound interests in select extremist groups, to name a few. As examined, prosecuting such an act specifically as a crime of “domestic terrorism” is currently not possible under United States law. The justice system must therefore rely on state laws pertaining to murder and other acts of violence, such as the charge for capital murder, in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Given the increasing prevalence of such mass shootings, it may be soon necessary for “domestic terrorism” to become codified in United States law as a criminal act of its own. However, the legal process of having “domestic terrorism” officially codified may pose issues. The debate regarding a mutually agreeable definition and criteria for what constitutes an act of domestic terrorism, or an individual who will be recognized as a domestic terrorist, will be subject to a broad lens.

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments
 by John Wilson

13 Hours of Extremism: Domestic Terrorism Across the Political Spectrum Highlights Domestic Extremism Concerns

The two perpetrators of the Dayton, Ohio and El Paso mass shootings. (L) Connor Betts (R) Patrick Crusius. Image Source: Eurweb

Between August 3-4 2019, America was horrified by multiple mass killings across the nation. Dozens were left dead and even more injured. At least one of the events is being actively treated as an act of domestic terrorism, while the other appears to be linked to extremism. Below is a summary of the events, a summary of what is known about the perpetrators, and a summary of potential links between the attacks and societal repercussions of the horrific events.

The following summaries of the incidents and individuals are based on statements made by witnesses and relevant officials.

3 August 2019

Patrick Crusius, age 21, drove upwards of ten hours from his home to a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. Crusius exited his vehicle and entered the store where he sought to identify his potential targets based on the desire to kill and hurt as many people of Hispanic descent as possible. At the time of Crusius’ pre-attack surveillance, officials stated that there were between 1,000 and 3,000 people inside the Walmart. Crusius exited the store after satisfaction with the potential number of Hispanic victims inside. Just prior to the attack, a manifesto was circulated on digital extremist forums that highlighted anti-immigrant and racist conspiracy theories. The manifesto is posted under a pseudonym, however, it has largely been linked to Crusius. Crusius then prepared for the attack in or around his vehicle in the parking lot before commencing his plan. He was taken into custody near the scene. Twenty-two people have died thus far with dozens more injured.

4 August 2019

Connor Betts, age 24, appeared to have been active on social media on 3 August 2019. Earlier in the day, on the Twitter account associated with Betts, there was a retweet that called for Joe Biden to “Hurry up and Die”. In the wake of the news breaking about the attack in El Paso, the Twitter account “liked” several tweets that pertained to the attack. On the morning of 4 August 2019, Betts approached a popular bar in Dayton, Ohio, and began to open fire with a rifle. Law Enforcement was quick to respond, killing Betts on scene, but only after Betts managed to kill at least 9 people and injure dozens more. As of this writing, no manifesto or any communication of intent of the attack has been discovered. Prior to Betts’ Twitter account being taken down, it was discovered that Betts often commented support for various left-wing movements, stating his support for Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders. There was at least one retweet in favor of an account linked to the far-left ANTIFA extremist group.

What Do We Know About the Perpetrators?

 Patrick Crusius

Few people from Crusius’ personal life have come forward since the attack, therefore less is known about him. However, Crusius appears willing to speak with law enforcement following his arrest, and the manifesto that has been linked to him is telling. Crusius admitted to law enforcement officials that he purposefully targeted Hispanics in his attack. In the manifesto, a sociological/political theory known as “The Great Replacement Theory” is discussed, which is essentially an anti-immigrant ideology that calls for the separation of races. It has been linked to white supremacist attacks internationally and has at least a marginal following amongst white supremacist groups worldwide. Accounts have been discovered on extremist forums that are believed to belong to Crusius. A LinkedIn account believed to have belonged to Crusius shows that he had been unemployed for at least the last five months. The account, which has been taken down, stated that Crusius was largely uninterested in a career but was interested in computer software, as he stated that he spent most of his days on a computer anyway. It was not immediately clear if Crusius had any education after high school, and his economic and social life was not apparent.

Connor Betts

Multiple people have come forward who reportedly knew Betts, most painting an image of a dangerous individual. It has been reported that Betts had been suspended from high school at least once in reference to possession (and believed production) of a “hit list” and “rape list”. Betts was a musician and had at least some college education. He was a self-described “leftist” and “atheist”, but was described by peers as a loner and outcast. Multiple sources have reported that Betts had an obsession with mass shootings for some years. A female has come out and stated that she was dating Betts, but had broken up with him in May of 2019 over his concerning behavior. It is not clear if Betts was working at this time and his economic situation is unclear.

Potential Link Between the Attacks in El Paso and Dayton

As was mentioned earlier, a Twitter account linked to Betts ‘liked’ several tweets in regard to the El Paso attack, just hours before launching his own attack in Dayton. The attack in El Paso was rumored to be inspired by white supremacist ideology relatively quickly after the news broke and was subsequently confirmed as more information came out throughout the night. It is possible that Betts was inspired to launch an attack in furtherance of far-left extremism in response to the far-right attack in El Paso. That being said, it is unclear whether the attack in Dayton was pre-planned. As had been reported, Betts was obsessed with mass shootings for some time, however, his online links to the far-left cannot be ignored. His apparent following of the events in El Paso potentially link the two attacks as a form of tit-for-tat extremism between individuals on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Online Extremism: A Domestic Issue

 Both Crusius and Betts were active, at least in part, in online communications with extremist accounts or forums. Crusius has been linked to the publication of the Manifesto as discussed above and has been connected to profiles in extremist forums on websites such as “8chan”. Betts’ link to online extremism has been less clearly defined, but on at least one occasion he was connected to an ANTIFA account and shared a message in furtherance of the group.

While it is too early in the investigation to begin making definitive judgements about the level of influence such digital extremism had on either Crusius and Betts, it is clear that there is a connection between their actions and the extremist rhetoric that they consumed.

Preliminary Recommendations

 It is too early for exact political and/or policy recommendations to be relevant. Both investigations remain active. However, as the attacks appear to be linked to the far end of both sides of the linear political spectrum, adding more rhetoric in an attempt to further politicize the event may serve to further radicalize individuals with like-minded ideas. People of influence on either side of the political spectrum should consider this when crafting their messaging to avoid further influence for extremism.

Digital extremism communications represent a real challenge for policymakers. Preventing the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally against the ideals of the United States, however, as events such as the ones discussed above demonstrate the potential dangers associated with the ideal. It is recommended, that any ‘red flag’ laws that are implemented should expressly allow for the admittance of online forum discussions in consideration of individual cases. Domestic law enforcement agencies must also develop capabilities for monitoring such forums that are linked to extremist ideologies. Intelligence-led policing must be brought to the forefront of the discussion as the leading chance for preventing domestic terrorism events.

John Patrick Wilson is the Director of the Domestic Counter-Terrorism Program at Rise to Peace with experience in law enforcement, political research, and counter-violent extremism research. 

in Rise to Peace blog / United States 0 comments