HLS 6060 DF2 Comments: Response to Robert King’s Post

Comment on these two post as if you were me with a 100 words each, DO NOT COMPARE THE POSTS, and put 3 references for each post, and please seperate the references.
Robert King
The FBI defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (National Institute of Justice, 2017). Terrorism is present throughout the globe and within the United States. Overall, US Domestic terrorism has always been a threat. For example, David Koresh lead a radical religious sect, the Seventh Day Adventists, in Waco Texas. Ultimately, he was killed in an ATF raid along with a large portion of his followers. Waco highlighted right wing extremists in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s. After the events surrounding September 11, 2001 the government focused the threat to the homeland from abroad. People like the hijackers. Domestic extremists were put on the back burner. In this New York times article titled The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat highlights a series of events of an expanding threat of right wing extremists. The article explains a growing threat of right wing antigovernment extremists. The Times, consulted a Police Executive Research Forum which states 74 percent reported extremist groups linked to antigovernment thoughts and philosophies. 39 percent were reported linked to Al Qaeda. Officers were interviewed and stated “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism.” (Kurzman & Schanzer, 2015). For example, the article brings up an attack on law enforcement in Georgia where a sovereign citizen attacked a courthouse shooting at police while he covered his approach with CS gas and smoke. Another attack was when a man walked up to two Nevada Police Officers with a don’t tread on me flag where he shot and killed both officers (Kurzman & Schanzer, 2015). The risk involved in these attacks are different from planned attacks with a ton of moving parts. They are much more difficult to thwart due to one person only knowing of the attack. Bigger threats come with moving parts and multiple people knowing. That’s how they are stopped due to the multiple people having knowledge. Attacks on government especially the police have become more evident today and will only become more of a threat with the discourse in today’s politics which motivates right wing extremists.
References
Kurzman, C., & Schanzer, D. (2015, June 16). The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www(dot)nytimes(dot)com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0
National Institute of Justice. (2017, Janurary 3). Terrorism. Retrieved from Crime and Prevention: https://www(dot)nij(dot)gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Colin Blair
For this week's article, I chose to delve a little deeper into the assessment and management of risk in regards to homeland security. Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Necessary Tools for Homeland Security examines the realities of scarcity and their impact upon the realm of homeland security, and how the initial reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security centered around three variables: threat, vulnerabilty, and consequences (which we've seen in this week's readings). Implied within this is the understanding that DHS cannot protect Americans from all risks, but rather target and prioritize those areas of "...greater concern, like chemical, biological, or nuclear attack." DHS's attempts to quantify risk through probability multiplied by consequences of such an attack attempts to apply a degree of rigor and rationality to such a daunting task, involving an assessment of the threat, current vulnerabilities to the threat, and a criticality assessment that examines the effect a successful attack - be it CBRNE, conventional, cyber, etc. - would have on assets. This can be a confusing, and time-consuming, process, but struggling through this - and engaging the private sector, which accounts for ~85% of critical infrastructure, an important fixture in understanding risk - can help match resources to priorities, reducing the overall risk the nation faces.
On a personal note, I manage this process at the state level, examining the biggest threats to the state and matching capabilities against them for the State of Alaska. This involves collating a lot of data from a lot of various organizations to understand and mitigate against risk, with quite a bit of analysis involved within. The primary issue I've found is applying this theoretical concept to actions an organization can take to tangibly reduce risk - it's something I haven't cracked, nor has anyone else at our Department - at least not yet.
Respectfully,
Colin Blair
Paul Rosenzweig, A.K. (2005, October 25). Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Necessary Tools for Homeland Security. Retrieved from Heritage Foundation: http://www(dot)heritage(dot)org/research/reports/2005/10/risk-assessment-and-risk-management-necessary-tools-for-homeland-security