Domestic Terrorism

Candidates Must Address “Low Tech” Terrorism, Corri Zoli Tells Newsday

Terror, civil unrest rise as presidential debate topics

(Newsday | Sept. 25, 2016) The arrest of a suspected terrorist accused of orchestrating two bombings in New York and New Jersey. An Islamic State-inspired stabbing spree at a Minnesota shopping mall. Days of violent protests on the streets of Charlotte, North Carolina, following an officer-involved fatal shooting.

“This is what is now becoming our new normal, and the candidates are going to have to address this.”

In the week leading up to Monday night’s first presidential debate at Hofstra University, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton have been confronted with a string of domestic crises that political analysts say will undoubtedly emerge as issues discussed in the 90-minute faceoff.

Responding to the latest acts of violence at the debate, which is expected to draw a record 100 million viewers, will be “the first and best opportunity” for the candidates to win over disenchanted voters with a commanding performance, said Michael Dawidziak, a Bohemia-based Republican strategist who worked on the presidential campaigns of George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and Steve Forbes …

… Corri Zoli, director of research for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, said that while both candidates have spoken out forcefully against the Islamic State in the wake of recent attacks, both “have been pretty weak” in detailing how they would respond to the ever-changing face of terrorism, which has gone from the al-Qaida model of planning large-scale attacks to the Islamic State approach of smaller-scale ones.

“There are all these players whose tactics are changing,” Zoli said. “What they seem to be doing … is not going after the big targets like airports or large iconic buildings, but going after small-scale soft targets … using opportunistic low-tech strategies … this is what is now becoming our new normal, and the candidates are going to have to address this. It’s no longer just thinking about these big, well-developed terrorist cells that takes months to plan an event” …

To read the whole article, click here.

William C. Banks Speaks to Marketplace About Tracking “Mundane” Bomb-Making Materials

Do we need to track pressure cooker sales?

(Marketplace | Sept. 21, 2016) Bomb-making materials can be so mundane, it’s almost surreal.

“We can’t watch every item on every transaction that all of us are involved in every day.”

“What you’re looking for, basically, is a metal container that can be enclosed and locked down,” said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ahmad Khan Rahami has been accused of placing a series of bombs in New York City and New Jersey last weekend. One thing investigators don’t yet know — the reason behind the bombings. One thing they do: at least two of the devices were made using pressure cookers and cell phones. Similar materials have also been used in previous terrorist attacks, which means that even the pots and pans we have in our own kitchen cabinets can be suspect …

… However, if we really wanted to track the sale of pressure cookers, we could.

“It’s certainly technically possible,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. He says look no farther than fertilizer and Oklahoma City in 1995. Fertilizer was the key component in the massive bombing that killed 168 people.

“After the Oklahoma City bombings, we decided to tag and monitor the sale and use of many of those materials,” Banks said. “We could do that again.”

Except, Banks said, we shouldn’t. “We can’t watch every item on every transaction that all of us are involved in every day,” he said. “Retailers and wholesalers would say ‘every time I sell a pressure cooker, I’ve got to fill out a piece of paper?” Nor, Banks said, “do any of us want to live in that kind of society where everything we do, every item we purchase is tracked by the government in some way” …

To read the complete story, click here.

INSCT Experts Discuss NY/NJ Terrorist Attacks With Media

Cuomo and de Blasio at Odds Again Over Word ‘Terrorism’ to Describe Blast

(Wall Street Journal | 9.19.16) Amid the commotion of the Chelsea bombing, political foes New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio found a fresh fault line: how to define the chaos that erupted across a few blocks in Manhattan on Saturday night.

For each, the focus centered on a singular, emotionally charged term—“terrorism”—and its permutations.

Nearly from the start, Mr. Cuomo cast the events as “obviously an act of terrorism” but said they were “not linked to international terrorism” …

… “There’s a couple of different ways to approach this. There’s the legalistic way, parsing the statutes, and then there’s the instinctual way,” said Nathan Sales, an associate professor at Syracuse University School of Law and a former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“If a bomb goes off in New York City from a pressure cooker, it’s terrorism no matter how you slice it.”

To read the full article, click here.

Anti-Terrorism Experts React to Recent Attacks

(TWC News | 9.19.16) … ”Perhaps he was trying to make a statement,” [INSCT Faculty Member Bill] Smullen continued. “The UN General Assembly started over the weekend and will run this week in New York City, so he could have been trying to tell people who were coming from all parts of the world that America is unsafe.”

But the Director of Research of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, Corri Zoli, says the U.S. is still safe. She says while these attacks are becoming all too familiar, the FBI and other officials are on guard 24/7, doing their best to prevent them. 

“They are doing surveillance on foreign operatives; they are tracking all kinds of communication to make sure if people are planning or operationalizing some kind of cell; they’re doing something about it,” Zoli explained.

Zoli also says there’s been a shift, with attacks targeting smaller communities, many which are hard to prepare for. 

“Local communities like Syracuse, New York, all of a sudden we might start feeling a little vulnerable because of this, because you’re seeing these kind of attacks become low-tech or defused attacks, instead of targeting LA or an airport or whatever,” Zoli said …

For the full article, click here.

Corri Zoli Speaks About the Arrest of Ahmad Khan Rahami with cheddar.tv

Zoli_Cheddar_TV-092016

Suspicion in America: Creating a Problem for a Solution

By Ryan J. Suto

(Re-published from Fair Observer, Aug. 23, 2016) Amid an election full of outlandish statements, Twitter spats, and ad hominem accusations, many important problems facing America have failed to grace headlines. In Suspicion in America, the second of a five-part series exploring issues ignored during the 2016 presidential election season, Ryan J. Suto addresses the danger of continuing the implementation of the CVE program at the federal level. Click here for part 1.

The Obama administration recently led the federal government in pursuing a discriminatory and ineffectual anti-terrorism policy that, at best, adds little to present efforts and, at worst, could alienate and disenfranchise an entire segment of the American population. The next president will inherit this policy, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), facing the decision to abandon or maintain it.

“Terrorism research routinely concludes that there is no known ‘terrorist profile,’ single set of indicators of radicalization, nor a unitary path toward violence that local leaders could be taught.”

CVE is a federal program with the stated goal of providing planning and funding to support the community-based recognition, reporting and, ultimately, prevention of the root causes of violent extremism. In 2015, the White House launched the program with a summit to coordinate efforts with both local and international leaders. As part of CVE, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has begun to train students, teachers and other community members with the hope that they could recognize and prevent violent extremism.

The program’s framework emphasizes cooperation with local officials and has thus launched three pilot programs: one in Boston, another in Los Angeles and the last in Minnesota. Speaking on the subject, George Selim, the head of the new office of community partnerships within the Department of Homeland Security, admitted, “There is no uniform agreement on the best way to tackle terror recruitment and the risk of violence on American soil”—the motivating justification behind the local focus of the program. Despite this recognition, CVE, like the Transportation Security Administration’s SPOT program, is based on no scientific evidence regarding methods of detecting potential extremists or terrorists.

Nonetheless, earlier this year, Senator Cory Booker introduced a new bill to “authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish university labs for student-developed technology-based solutions for countering online recruitment of violent extremists.” More recently, Representative Todd Young introduced a bill to ensure the CVE program is effective via an oversight group. While neither bill has advanced to the president’s desk for a signature, it is clear that both parties have taken up CVE as a noble policy model for bureaucratic growth.

WHAT CVE GETS WRONG

There are at least three policy-based deficiencies of the Countering Violent Extremism program.

First, CVE creates more national security bureaucracy: America now has yet another office, here within the Department of Homeland Security, with the goal of preventing terrorism within our borders. Since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the federal government has been endeavoring to improve coordination among federal agencies and between them and local law enforcement on this singular subject. While overlapping competencies may have the aim of eliminating holes in coverage and jurisdiction, the funding diverted for CVE would be better spent improving the accuracy and efficacy of existing efforts.

Second, CVE inherently assumes that either local community leaders can be effectively trained on detecting future terrorists, or that communities presently turn a blind eye toward potential extremists. However, terrorism research routinely concludes that there is no known “terrorist profile,” single set of indicators of radicalization, nor a unitary path toward violence that local leaders could be taught. Indicators are not simple enough to present during a workshop and expect results without large numbers of false positives. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that American Muslim communities have knowingly harbored any past active or potential terrorists.

Third, while CVE emphasizes coordination with local actors, the program itself is still top-down, instead of originating from grassroots efforts. The messaging of this and related federal government anti-terrorism programs, for example, is comical. Catchphrases such as “Think Again, Turn Away” and “Don’t Be a Puppet” ring hollow when originating from a government, viewed as either secular or Christian, that routinely guns down Muslims via drone strikes or detains them for decades without trial …

To read the full blog, click here.

INSCT CAS in Postconflict Reconstruction alumnus Ryan J. Suto (JD/MS/MAIR ’13) currently works for Cydecor, a defense consulting firm based in Washington, DC.

William C. Banks to Moderate ABA Homeland Security Law Institute Panel on “Soldiers on the Home Front”

2016_hsli_brochure_Page_01INSCT Director William C. Banks will be one of the distinguished panelists featured at this year’s American Bar Association AdLaw Section’s Homeland Security Law Institute, taking place Aug. 24-25, 2016, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC. The institute is co-sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security, along with other ABA committees.

Banks will moderate Breakout Session II/Panel A on Thursday, Aug. 25. For this session—called “The Role of the Military in Homeland Defense”—Banks will be joined by John Gereski, Jeffrey Greene, Paul Rosenzweig, and Karl F. Schneider. The panel’s description is taken from Banks’ and Professor Stephen Dycus’ recently published Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military: “When crisis requires American troops to deploy on American soil, the country depends on a rich and evolving body of law to establish clear lines of authority, safeguard civil liberties, and protect its democratic institutions and traditions. Since the 9/11 attacks, the governing law has changed considerably even as domestic threats—from terror attacks, extreme weather, and pandemics—mount. America’s military is uniquely able to save lives and restore order in situations that overwhelm civilian institutions. Yet the military has also been called in for more coercive duties at home –to quell riots and enforce federal laws in the face of state resistance. What are the likely domestic roles and missions of the US military, and how will they be governed by law?”

Other panels at the 2016 Homeland Security Law Institute include: “A View from the Top: Challenges and Changes to America’s Homeland Security Against Terrorism and Homegrown Threats in 2016 and Beyond,” “The SAFETY Act: Managing Critical Risks in an Uncertain World,” “Homeland Security and the Private Sector: A General Counsel’s Perspective,” and “Cybersecurity and the Internet for Things.” The common denominator for the Institute is homeland security and the myriad of legal and policy issues that both the private and corporate lawyer must understand in representing their clients effectively in these and other situations.

Over a two day period, lawyers who practice in some or even all of the disciplines available on the program will be presented with the latest legal tools to give them a professional advantage. The agenda is geared to give the practitioner first hand access to the legal leadership of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a range of areas including cybersecurity, immigration enforcement, emergency response, supply chain, customs enforcement, privacy laws, and US oversight of foreign acquisition of critical American infrastructure. The 2016 keynote will be delivered by DHS Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

  • For additional information about the Institute, click here.
  • For the Institute’s agenda, list of panels, and speakers, click here.

The Military at Home

By Kevin Cieply

(Re-Published from Lawfare, July 20, 2016) 

A review of William C. Banks and Stephen Dycus’s Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military (Harvard, 2016). 

Soldiers on the Home Front explores the potential threat the military poses to our civil liberties and rule of law when the military operates in our homeland. The authors expressly recognize and honor our military members for their service in securing and safeguarding our nation throughout its history and today.  With numerous historical examples, the authors readily acknowledge that throughout history the military has typically respected their proper role and stayed out of the country’s civil affairs.  And when the military has stepped in, it has almost always performed its unique role with distinction.  But occasionally the military has intruded when not needed, almost always at the behest of overeager, even reckless, civilian leaders.  When this has occurred it has invariably involved a significant loss of liberty for our society.  The authors quote Antonio in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice to capture the contemporary relevance of their book: “what’s past is prologue.”

“The authors efficiently demonstrate our country’s initial attempts to strike a proper balance of power that would enable the executive to effectively use the military, but with constraints.”

The book begins, after a brief introduction, with the Redcoats marching “bayonets fixed—into the City of Boston.” After setting the initial scene of the Boston Massacre, the book quickly turns even further back in time, to our English origins, to lay the foundations of our nation’s most treasured and basic concepts, such as the due process as opposed to martial law, the principal of necessity, the use and limitations of a militia, the necessity and yet wariness of establishing a standing army, the need to subordinate the military to civilian rule, as well as the struggle of power between the legislative and executive branches over control of and proper use of our military. 

The chapter covering our nation’s origins provides an effective primer on how the colonists settled America and the framers crafted our Constitution.  The authors efficiently demonstrate our country’s initial attempts to strike a proper balance of power that would enable the executive to effectively use the military, but with constraints.  The chapter takes the reader through the sequence of events that fueled the rebellion, gave birth to our nation, and framed our Constitution.  It ends by explaining the framers’ intent as to the role of the standing federal army, state militias, and the overall division of authority between the federal and state governments.  From the Magna Carta through the Boston Massacre to the Philadelphia Convention, the chapter is quick and engaging.  By the end, the reader has a refreshed and deepened sense of the core concepts of a representative democracy, security for our country, and individual liberty for our citizens, which form the analytical framework the authors use throughout the book. 

The book is then divided into chapters explaining how our nation, throughout its history, has used the military as peacekeepers, cops, jailors, judges, investigators—even as rulers.    The chapter titles alone, and certainly taken together, stir concern.  Inside each chapter lies historical accounts of the most significant and relevant instances of our military being used to control our civil affairs.  The chapters are packed with examples.  Some examples were clearly appropriate uses of military force, others obviously not.  But it is the concentration of the examples, coupled with an analysis as to how those examples fare under our laws, that makes the book so valuable. 

The most extensive and legitimate use of our military in civil affairs, as demonstrated in Chapter 3, has been as Peacekeepers and Cops, categories that include the provision of disaster relief.  Chapter 3 begins by fixing the general boundaries envisioned by the Framers—that the government would, at times, use the military to keep the peace and police civil society—but using the military in this fashion was to be reserved for extraordinary times, when the rule of law or the government as a whole was threatened.  Yet, whether for political compromise, or intentionally building in flexibility for an unpredictable future, or both, the Framers did not provide comprehensive and unambiguous language about the military’s proper role domestically in the Constitution.  Indeed, the authors describe the Framers language as “blurred” and “cryptic.” 

Chapter 3 explains how the Second Congress attempted to flesh-out some of that cryptic language.  Invoking its explicit power under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,” Congress passed the Calling Forth Act of 1792.  It explicitly delegated to the President the power to actually call-up the Militia into federal service in times of Invasion, threat of Invasion, by foreign powers or Indian Tribes, and in times of Insurrection.  The Calling Forth Act, also known as the 1792 Militia Act, was a broad and relatively unrestrained delegation of power to the President to respond to invasions and insurrections.  On a much more limited basis, the Second Congress also delegated to the President the authority to call up the militia to “execute the Laws of the Union.” 

President Washington used this newly gained authority in response to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.  As required under the Calling Forth Act, Washington obtained certification from the judiciary that there was a rebellious force too powerful for ordinary judicial proceedings to handle and that those forces were obstructing federal laws.  He also, as required, issued an order for the insurgents to disperse and cease their unlawful acts of preventing the federal government from enforcing an excise tax on liquors and stills.  When his order was not heeded, Washington called up over 10,000 militiamen from four states, employing them to crush the movement in Western Pennsylvania. 

The authors point out that the unrest was “hardly” a rebellion or insurrection, and that the Pennsylvania Governor, at the time, described the law-breakers as no more than “rioters.”  They conclude that the Whiskey Rebellion was a “problematic precedent” …

To read the complete review, click here.

William C. Banks Quoted by WaPo on Trump’s Terrorist Migrants Claim

Donald Trump’s false claim that “scores of recent migrants” in the US are charged with terrorism

(Re-published from The Washington Post Fact Checker, May 2, 2016) “There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies.”

—Donald Trump, foreign policy address, April 27, 2016

This claim reminded us of rhetoric surrounding resettled refugees facing terrorism charges, in the wake of last year’s Paris attacks. We had found a Democratic lawmaker’s claim misleading when he said that not one of the refugees who resettled in America after 9/11 has been arrested on domestic terrorism charges, and awarded him Two Pinocchios.

Now, Trump says “scores of recent migrants”—which would include refugees—in the United States have been charged with terrorism, and that there are “dozens and dozens” more per public case. Is that correct? The Trump campaign, as usual, did not return our request for additional details.

The Facts

It’s unclear where Trump is getting this information. We could not find the source, even after checking with the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, groups that oppose and support immigration, and experts who keep track of domestic or international terrorism cases in the United States …

… Are there “dozens and dozens more” cases out there for every case made public? William Banks, founding director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, said he doesn’t buy it.

“One implication of his statement is that we’re keeping secrets about terrorism prosecution, and that’s false,” Banks said. “In extraordinary circumstances, indictments might be sealed when there’s a concern about the security of the evidence or safety, of a potential witness, or something like that. But I can’t think of an instance involving terrorism in the United States that might be true” …

To read the whole story, click here.

William C. Banks Discusses “Soldiers on the Home Front”

An introduction the the book and discussion with Dean James B. Steinberg, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. Introduced by Professor Grant Reeher, Director, Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute at SU.

When crisis requires American troops to deploy on American soil, the country depends on a rich and evolving body of law to establish clear lines of authority, safeguard civil liberties, and protect its democratic institutions and traditions. Since the attacks of 9/11, the governing law has changed rapidly even as domestic threats—from terror attacks, extreme weather, and pandemics—mount. Soldiers on the Home Front is the first book to systematically analyze the domestic role of the military as it is shaped by law, surveying America’s history of judicial decisions, constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, military orders, and martial law to ask what we must learn and do before the next crisis.

America’s military is uniquely able to save lives and restore order in situations that overwhelm civilian institutions. Yet the U.S. military has also been called in for more coercive duties at home: breaking strikes, quelling riots, and enforcing federal laws in the face of state resistance. It has spied on and overseen the imprisonment of American citizens during wars, Red scares, and other emergencies. And while the fears of the Republic’s founders that a strong army could undermine democracy have not been realized, history is replete with reasons for concern.

At a time when the military’s domestic footprint is expanding, Banks and Dycus offer a thorough analysis of the relevant law and history to challenge all the stakeholders—within and outside the military—to critically assess the past in order to establish best practices for the crises to come.

Corri Zoli Speaks to Syracuse.com About Brussels Terror Attacks

Syracuse University expert: Brussels attackers exploit Europe’s weakness on security

(Syracuse.com, March 22, 2016) The coordinated terrorist attacks today in Brussels, Belgium struck at the symbolic center of Europe – the headquarters of the European Union and NATO. It shows “the level of vulnerability at the very heart of the system,” according to a counterterrorism expert at Syracuse University.

“We have to take these problems seriously. It’s a global jihadist insurgency. They’re looking for points of vulnerability at any place at any time.”

We sought some context from Corri Zoli, Ph.D., director of Research and assistant research professor at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism. The institute is sponsored by the College of Law and Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs. Zoli’s responses have been edited for length and clarity.

We’ve now seen major coordinated attacks on the European cities of Paris and Brussels. Today’s attack came even though there were heightened warnings. Is there a way to counter this form of terrorism?

Yes, and the U.S. has been doing a pretty good job at doing so. What we’re seeing with the Paris attacks, both in November and the previous January at Charlie Hebdo, and now with Brussels, is EU weakness. The EU, and Belgium in particular, and France, have been slow to adopt a broader strategy to deal with some of their security institutions, especially across boundaries. In the EU, the systems are really weak.

Four days ago they were hearing chatter about this, rolling up networks associated with (Paris attack suspect Salah) Abdeslam, in Molenbeek where he was captured. I think everyone was focused on the capture of him, and not so much broader threats.

They have a weakness on the counterterrorism continuum … It’s fractured across Europe.

And in terms of the response, you can see now citizen reports from airport and metro station that there was a slow response. They need to get up to speed.

How does that compare with the United States?

We’ve done a pretty good job. We’ve had a couple of breaches of our security system, like San Bernardino, but since 9/11 we’ve been pretty effective at reorganizing our security to do interdiction and response very well.

This has come at a cost. We’ve invested enormous amounts of public funds standing up the Department of Homeland Security. We’ve spent a lot of money and a lot of human capital on this.

Look at the NYPD, how they’ve developed a whole range of responses – on the law enforcement side, the joint operations side. Their joint counterterrorist force is well-connected with federal agencies. We’re doing well especially in large urban areas, with NYPD leading the pack.

But we’re still not invulnerable, as San Bernardino shows you.

What message are the terrorists sending by attacking Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union and NATO?

The targets are very symbolic. Think of the World Trade Center. The Pentagon.

This is an attack that strikes at the heart of Europe and shows the level of vulnerability at the very heart of the system.

What makes it even tougher for Brussels is that they have a real density of extremist groups and communities … Brussels has per capita the largest output of foreign fighters to Syria and ISIS. A good portion of them are networked with Molenbeek.

At the same time, you have a city infiltrated with extremist agents in a way that the federal government has not properly interdicted.

I don’t think it’s only Belgium and only Brussels. The EU has fallen down generally on its security strategy for some time.

(Zoli referred to “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic magazine’s interview with President Barack Obama about his foreign policy.) He talks about the EU being “free riders,” not fulfilling security obligations, not fulfilling their commitment to NATO. The EU has really kicked the can down the road.

… The one state doing a good job is Britain. It is the exemplar in the pack. But then again, they are having a national conversation about leaving the EU for a lot of reasons.

The EU security problem is not going to get better until they devote resources to counterterrorism.

What role does Europe’s refugee crisis play in this?

The really sad piece of that is that jihadists and extremists are utilizing the refugee flows to mask their travel. Most of these attackers were EU nationals, second generation often. … We’re not necessarily seeing refugees playing a role (in terrorist attacks). It wouldn’t surprise me if it were again EU nationals who are the ones getting radicalized. It’s easier to get radicalized in Europe than when you’re growing up in some of these places (where there’s so much hardship) …

Having said that, I do think there is a way in which Europe has to come up with a better way to close loopholes around extremists who are using refugee status and movement as a way to conceal their work.

The U.S. doing a pretty good job. In San Bernardino, there was a visa loophole exploited. But we’ve done good job …

These are known vectors where people get in and can do damage. EU has not developed a good security policy about this.

… But the average migrant or refugee coming from Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq … the vast majority of those folks are not involved in terrorist activities. The very small minority of people are doing this …

How should the U.S. respond?

We have to take these problems seriously. It’s a global jihadist insurgency. They’re looking for points of vulnerability at any place at any time. There was an attack today in Mali, there have been attacks in Turkey. If EU does not have good security for its transport – planes and airports and ports – then those folks can get pushed along the transportation chain and we could have to deal with them in Dulles or JFK or Canada.

If there are holes in their security apparatus, because we live in a globalized world, other people have to deal with this.

We’re doing this right now. Rep. (John) Katko is thinking about how to deal with this from the airport side. (Katko has introduced a bill that would improve security at foreign airports with direct flights to the United States.) (He’s asking) how do we anticipate that? The fact we’re trying to anticipate that is a measure of our sophisticated and strong our security apparatus is …

To read the full article, click here.

Other Media Appearances

Syracuse University professor says terror groups have “significant” networks in Belgium (CNY Central, March 22, 2016)

“… Corri Zoli is the Director of Research for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. Zoli believes Belgium and Molenbeek in particular has become a breeding ground for jhiadists. Six of the terrorists who attacked paris last year had ties to Molenbeek

‘You must have a significant local network inside the city of Molenbeek to be sheltered from extreme law enforcement measures for that long. They have a culture problem and they need to deal with it,’ said Zoli.

Zoli says that while many people in the U.S. report suspicious or potential terrorist activity to law enforcement, that level of cooperation is not as common in Europe …”

Central NY Native Studying in Belgium Discusses Attacks (TWC News, March 22, 2016)

“… But according to a local expert from the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, Belgian officials have not acted quickly enough to address the ongoing terror threats.

‘So that’s the big problem. They’ve been on their back feet,’ said SU Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism Director of Research Corri Zoli. ‘They’ve been a little slow to react to the problem that they’ve had inside their own communities … ‘”