Daryl Johnson was the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) from August 2004 to April 2010. During his time at DHS, Johnson wrote numerous sensitive intelligence reports on domestic terrorism threats and trends. In April 2009, a report Johnson and his team wrote about right-wing extremism meant only for law enforcement distribution was leaked to the public. During the resulting controversy, the report was withdrawn by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Johnson eventually left his post, he says, after DHS dissolved his team and reassigned everyone to other topics. The next year Johnson founded DT Analytics, a domestic terrorism consultancy. Johnson is also the author of Right-wing Resurgence: How a Domestic Terrorist Threat is Being Ignored, published in September 2012. Johnson spoke with Security Management about the domestic terrorism threats potentially facing the United States during the next four years, whether DHS takes those threats seriously enough, and whether the intelligence community should monitor the Web for extremism.
Also the sheer number of extremists and supporters is concerning. While it’s true that only a small percentage of those people act violently or carry out criminal activity, the large pools of potentials should raise a red flag and cause concern. Also the violent intent of many of these groups remains. A lot of groups believe in weapon stockpiling and a lot of them do not recognize the federal firearms and explosives laws, so the ability to inflict mass violence—a mass-casualty shooting—for instance, is quite high within these groups.
Do you feel like there’s going to be an American version of the Norway terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik?
I think we are ripe for that. The conditions and capabilities certainly exist for something like that to occur. The only reason why it hasn’t occurred is that the people who are out there haven’t risen to that level where they want to kill that many people at this time.
Is one of the lessons of Norway that one person nursing his toxic ideology can use the technologies of a sophisticated society to do an incredible amount of damage?
Right, because weapons have evolved. You go back 50 years, they didn’t have the military-type weapons that we have today for sale on the open market. We’ve perfected the tradecraft of making firearms. They shoot faster. They have higher capacity magazines. All of these things are easily available while computer technologies, such as the Internet, have greatly facilitated the spread of extremist propaganda, recruitment efforts, and networking.
Outside of the policy realm, are there other variables you would keep track of to determine whether right-wing extremism could increase in severity?
If we have any type of law enforcement operation that goes amok, similar to Ruby Ridge or Waco, that could easily agitate extremists and cause more of them to embrace violence. Judicial decisions are another one. If we have the emergence of a charismatic leader, let’s say within the white supremacist movement or in the sovereign citizen movement, this could cause people to get more passionate about their cause or more desperate.
Currently, what domestic extremist movement or group poses the gravest threat to homeland security?
The white supremacist movement has been historically the one which carries out the majority of the violent acts that actually translate into killing people. The number one threat is people aligned or affiliated with white supremacy, whether it’s through their Islamophobia or their xenophobia or through their racism or anti-Semitism. The Sikh temple shooting over the summer is an example of this.
The Sovereign Citizens—a movement that doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the government and believes that the government is actually evil—certainly engage in a high-level of criminal activity, but a majority of it is considered white-collar crime. They’re very active, and they are one of the larger movements right now. But the movement back in the early to mid-90s tended to be a white, male-dominated movement and then African Americans jumped on the Sovereign-Citizen bandwagon later in that decade.
But now, since about 2008, it transcends the political spectrum. So you have people in the Occupy Movement, who are socialist-leaning leftists, using Sovereign Citizen tactics. You have people on the far-right. You have multiple ethnicities. We’ve had Arab Americans practice it. So its appeal has gotten wider. And it poses a significant issue with the judicial system as well as law enforcement when they come into contact with these people.