	Introduction

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists— people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements —have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their foreign counterparts inspired by Al Qaeda. Today (perhaps in part because of the government's focus on international terrorist ideologies), it is difficult to evaluate the scope of domestic terrorist activity. For example, federal agencies employ varying terminology and definitions to describe it. Beyond these issues, the Obama Administration's community outreach-driven strategy to quell terrorism-related radicalization in the United States focuses on individuals inspired by Al Qaeda. Also possibly contributing to domestic terrorism's secondary status as a threat, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. These individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white supremacy, and opposition to abortion, for example. Rather, in broad terms, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified a number of general threats that embody this issue. While not naming specific groups , DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats . In this case, however, they do not rise to that level." Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF

The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and terrorist activity has received much attention in public discussions of domestic terrorism. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374 ; AETA) expanded the federal government's legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act ( P.L. 102-346 ; AEPA). First, domestic terrorists likely have been responsible numerous incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in anti-government extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last several years. Third, domestic terrorists—much like their violent jihadist analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Finally, prison has been highlighted as an arena in which terrorist radicalization can occur, and WSE plays a role in the activities of several U.S. prison gangs. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for killing Americans. Many domestic terrorist incidents have been linked to either animal rights extremists or eco-terrorists. First, on an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals (lone wolves) engage in movement-related illegal activity without any centralized direction or control from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. Second, on another level, the above-ground public face (the "political wing") of the movement propagandizes and disseminates ideology—engaging in protected speech. The ALF, the ELF

The concept of leaderless resistance has been mirrored by other extremist movements in the United States. They have weaknesses. Some prison gangs delve into radical or extremist ideologies that also motivate domestic terrorists, and in a number of instances, these ideologies are integral to fashioning cohesive group identities within prison walls. It must be reiterated, however, that even for gangs exhibiting these ideological dimensions, criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking—not radical beliefs—largely drive their activities. Policy Considerations for Congress

Congress may choose to consider issues in three areas regarding the federal role in combating domestic terrorism: (1) assessing this threat's scope, (2) the adequacy of domestic terrorism intelligence collection efforts, and (3) how domestic terrorism fits into the Obama Administration's efforts to counter radicalization that may lead to terrorism. Finally, there is no clear sense of how many domestic terrorism plots and attacks the government has investigated in recent years. Importantly, for intelligence gathering and program prioritization purposes, "there is no ... standard across federal agencies that can be applied to [domestic terrorism] cases." Also, there likely is no established standard for the collection of intelligence from state and local investigators. Congress may opt to ask the Administration which domestic terrorists it will focus on under the strategy and which communities it intends to engage regarding issues surrounding non-jihadist terrorism.
The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda's attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. This latter point is not meant to imply that domestic terrorists should be taken any less seriously than other terrorists.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially list domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist "threats." These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights, environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and anti-abortion beliefs.
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity has received public attention. This boundary is especially highlighted by a number of criminal cases involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to domestic terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands the federal government's legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (P.L. 102-346).
Five discussion topics in this report may help explain domestic terrorism's significance for policy makers:
Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating more than two-dozen incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in anti-government extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last several years. Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax fraud, for example. Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the "political wing") of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech. Prison Radicalization. Prison has been highlighted as an arena in which terrorist radicalization can occur. Some prison gangs delve into radical or extremist ideologies that motivate domestic terrorists, and in a number of instances, these ideologies are integral to fashioning cohesive group identities within prison walls. It must be reiterated, however, that even for gangs that exhibit these ideological dimensions, criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking—not radical beliefs—largely drive their activities.
Congress may choose to consider issues in three areas regarding the federal role in combating domestic terrorism. First is the issue of definitions. It is difficult to assess the scope of domestic terrorism because federal agencies use varying terms to describe it. Even more basically, there is no clear sense of how many domestic terrorist attacks have occurred or how many plots the government has foiled in recent years. Second, Congress may review the adequacy of domestic terrorism intelligence collection efforts. For intelligence gathering and program prioritization purposes, there is no standard set of intelligence collection priorities across federal agencies that can be applied to domestic terrorism cases. Also, there likely is no established standard for the collection of intelligence from state and local investigators—aside from suspicious activity reporting. Finally, it may be of value to explore how domestic terrorism fits into the Obama Administration's community outreach-driven strategy to quell terrorism-related radicalization in the United States. Congress may query the Administration on which brand of domestic terrorists it plans to focus on under the strategy and which local community groups it intends to engage regarding domestic terrorism issues.