I have held off commenting on the San Bernardino massacre until more was known. Today's WSJ has a number of articles on the emerging picture and the policy dilemmas we faced as we decide what to do to reduce the risk of such horrors.
Devlin Barrett, Damian Paletta and Tamara Audi report on the investigation.
Philip Shishkin and Jon Kamp have this article on the chilling nature of the new threat we face.
Danny Yadron has this post on the tech blog on encryption and its difficulties.
The fact that this massacre happened in California, a state with more stringent gun control than most U.S. states, raises a question as to whether such laws do any good. Dan Frosch and Ashby Jones have this story on how easily the terrorists evaded these laws.
What could we have done differently? What can we do from this point onward? It would have taken a high degree of government surveillance to have detected this couple. I think we are going to have to do it, though. Should we adopt much more stringent limitations on immigration from Islamic countries than we have for other countries? I think we have to talk about that, as uncomfortable as such discrimination may make us. Is there anything we can do about guns and ammunition? We may need to consider banning guns that are easily modified into the kinds of weapons we have already banned. Really, does anyone actually need to buy an AR-15? Perhaps purchases of ammunition should be logged to flag people who are buying way more than any legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose could justify.
These are highly controversial measures, to be sure, and people will claim they violate rights. But 14 people had their right to life violated, and without life all other rights are moot.
Law-enforcement officials said Friday the couple suspected of killing 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., appeared to have been radicalized, inspired by an overseas group to carry out what is being investigated as the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001.Ahmed Al Omran reports, "Supporters of Islamic State carried out the deadly attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people, the militant group said Saturday in an online news bulletin."
James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said that the married couple had shown signs of adopting a radical ideology and "potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations."
Those initial findings transformed what had been a probe into a horrific act with a murky motive into a more clear-cut terrorism investigation, although many facets of the suspects' actions remained unclear, including their choice of a county employees' gathering as a target.
Philip Shishkin and Jon Kamp have this article on the chilling nature of the new threat we face.
U.S. counterterrorism has long focused on people traveling to and from Syria and Iraq. Now, another threat looms from local terrorism sympathizers inspired to violence by Islamic State, but who act without any direct orders, said Lorenzo Vidino, the director of the Program on Extremism at the Center for Cyber & Homeland Security at George Washington University.
People with sympathies but no formal communication or ties with extremist groups can operate under the radar, he said, until they act. "That's the big threat," he said.
Unlike the Paris attacks, which were carried out by people whose friendships and family connections appear to have formed the backbone of one or more terrorist cells, the husband and wife in Wednesday's attack hadn't trained in Syria and, so far, don't appear associated with a terrorist cell.* * *The risk of radicalization has increased, in part, due to better communications technology and widely available encryption tools. "This is the scary part: Technology is such that folks can have secure access to information and plans and have contact with folks located in combat zones in the Middle East," said David Miller, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and a former assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan, who worked on the first prosecution of a homegrown terrorist cell since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "And then you have the technological ease by which people can get information on things like building explosives or how to encrypt communications."
He added: "This is going to continue to be the challenge of our time."
Danny Yadron has this post on the tech blog on encryption and its difficulties.
The fact that this massacre happened in California, a state with more stringent gun control than most U.S. states, raises a question as to whether such laws do any good. Dan Frosch and Ashby Jones have this story on how easily the terrorists evaded these laws.
What could we have done differently? What can we do from this point onward? It would have taken a high degree of government surveillance to have detected this couple. I think we are going to have to do it, though. Should we adopt much more stringent limitations on immigration from Islamic countries than we have for other countries? I think we have to talk about that, as uncomfortable as such discrimination may make us. Is there anything we can do about guns and ammunition? We may need to consider banning guns that are easily modified into the kinds of weapons we have already banned. Really, does anyone actually need to buy an AR-15? Perhaps purchases of ammunition should be logged to flag people who are buying way more than any legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose could justify.
These are highly controversial measures, to be sure, and people will claim they violate rights. But 14 people had their right to life violated, and without life all other rights are moot.
Leave a comment