TT2 Expert Final: U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs

Thanks also to Mikal for hosting this tournament and to anyone who takes the time to read this debate. I apologize for any errors that arose due to my Copy & Pasting from word. At this time, I will attempt to present a broad-picture look at USMGs, and to crystallize the impacts of these points later as the debate Progresses. The question of whether U. S. Militia Groups (USMGs) or Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) pose the greater threat to the U. S. is one that is acting out in the present. Historic trends, while they can sometimes present insight into the future, are not necessary reflective of the security situation as it stands today, in 2014. Furthermore, if we substituted the term "domestic terrorists" for USMGs in the resolution, there would be no real difference. This topic is fundamentally a question of whether domestic terror is more threatening and insidious than foreign terror. Before I get into a discussion of U. S. militia groups in particular, however, I would like to discuss the concept of "danger. " Let"s suppose that you are in a room with 500 other people. There are two threats confronting all of you, and you have no option of escape; you have 30 minutes to respond, and only enough time to deal with one threat in that block of time. The first threat is a knife-wielding maniac, and the second threat is a bomb. You are unsure if the bomb will go off (a 50% chance), but if it does, all 500 people will die. You are sure that the knife-wielding maniac will kill 1 person every minutes. You are evaluating 500 potential deaths vs. 30 guaranteed deaths. The question is, which threat poses the greatest danger? It is my assertion that, in theory, the bomb is the greater threat. There is still a substantial possibility that the bomb will go off (it"s a 50% chance, not a 1% chance), and the risk of harm is almost 17 times greater if the bomb goes off, as compared to the knife-wielding maniac. What I am trying to show, through this example, is that what is the greater threat should not be assessed merely through the frequency of attacks, but rather through the nature of the danger. Additionally, potential harms can still pose greater threats than actual harms. Therefore, there needs to be a holistic judgment of which poses the greater threat to the U. S. Now that I have talked a bit about danger, I can move on to discussing USMGs and the specific threats they pose. USMGs have proliferated alarmingly since President Obama took over the Presidency in 2008. In fact, when Obama was sworn in, there were just 149 militia groups, seemingly a mere blip on our security radar. However, as of 2012, more that 1,200 such groups now exists--that is a 755% increase. [1] Experts believe, in addition, that much of the reason for this massive spike in USMGs is due to racial hatred in the Obama era. [2, 3] In August of this year, a study declared that the Sovereign Citizen Movement (SCM) is the nation"s number 1 terrorist threat, even above FTOs like Al-Qaeda. [4, 5] "The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START), which surveyed 364 officials from 175 law enforcement agencies, America's top perceived terrorist threat is an ideological subculture of extreme opposition to the government known as the sovereign citizens movement. The START survey found that 86 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that sovereign citizens present a serious terrorist threat, compared to 67 percent that said so of Islamic extremists. " [4] The SCM is closely connected to USMGs such as the Praetorian Guard and the White Mountain Militia [4, 5] and, based on the expanded definition I offered in round one, the USMGs we"re talking about can fall under the umbrella of the SCM. There are around 300,000 members of the SCM throughout the U. S. "the sheer size of their number is disquieting. Militia groups by themselves have been ranked the 3rd biggest security threat facing the U. S. [6] The far-right extremism fueling USMGs is ripe with the potential for incredibly explosive violence. Recently, reports indicate that the standoff at the Bundy ranch involving the Bundy meta-militia has actually emboldened right-wing extremists and militias. [7] "The report warns of the potential for more violence, like the recent killing of two Las Vegas police officers by a pair of anti-government zealots--Jerad and Amanda Miller--who spent time at Bundy's ranch. " [7] Along with the explosive growth of these groups, and the increased potential for violence they are posing, the number of actual plots they have undertaken has also increased: "In the last four years we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of conspiracy-minded, anti-government groups as well as in the number of domestic terrorist plots. " Militiamen pose risks to public officials, and have attempted to assassinate several such persons. [1] Some additional examples of recent militia violence include a militia shared in 2012 with "plotting to buy explosives and the ingredients to make a deadly toxin to attack government officials;" a 2002 attempt by a militiaman to kill a federal judge; and a case where "seven people from the"Hutaree Christian militia are on trial for allegedly conspiring to ambush and kill a police officer. They allegedly plotted to follow up the ambush with an attack on the officer"s funeral procession in the hope of killing more officers, and thus sparking a revolt against the U. S. government. Recent evidence presented in trial included a recording"which the militia"s leader, David Stone, 47, says he is going to "start huntin'" police. " [1] If we consider the specific example of the Bundy Ranch [8] we can see the hundred of militiamen from around the country--heavily armed--preventing the U. S. government from enforcing the law. Clearly, such groups have no qualms with getting into a weaponized face-off with authorities and making locals fear for their safety. [9: see video] If enough heavily armed, ideologues confront a government they see as tyrannical, there is an undeniable potential for violence. And these ideologues are even more dangerous when the use the internet as a means to spread their ideology and train others in combat techniques. [10, 11] Even the proximity of USMGs is threatening. Consider: (1) because foreign terrorists have limited access, they're more likely to plan bigger attacks which are easier to identify and stop, and (2) because domestic terrorists have greater access, they're less likely to only plan large scale attacks, and they're more likely to be lone-wolf actors, which are harder to identify. At this point, we can conclude that USMGs pose a serious threat. They are heavily armed, they are militantly anti-government, they are willing to get into tense confrontations with government actors, and they are willing to kill to achieve their objectives. This serious threat is dangerous primary as the "bomb" in this scenario---it has the potential to explode to devastating effect. And, due to the fact that the militiamen are U. S. citizens, the U. S. cannot respond to militia-based violence in the same way as it does to FTO-based violence. Law enforcement do not track USMGs in the same way they do FTOs [1], the government cannot detain militiamen as it does terrorists, and so forth. In a sense, we know that shooting the knife-wielding maniac will stop him, but if we don"t know how to defuse the bomb, the bomb suddenly becomes more dangerous. We are hobbled in our ability to respond to the threat of USMGs vice FTOs, and that should give us pause for thought There are a few key points to make here (1) USMGs are actively spreading their radical ideology, (2) USMGs have used violence in the past, (3) USMGs are on the upsurge in both membership and sheer number of USMGs themselves, (3) USMGs have dangerous lone-wolf elements, (4) USMGs are paramilitary organizations that are often heavily armed, (5) we cannot respond to USMGs as we would to other terrorist groups, and (6) there is a potential for explosive violence erupting from USMGs and their supporters. These are the main takeaways that we should be weighing in this round. In summary, the bomb--the one that has the 50% chance of killing 500 people, the one we aren"t fully equipped to defuse--does indeed pose the greatest threat. Please Vote Pro. 1 - . http://usnews.nbcnews.com... 2 - . http://thegrio.com... 3 - . http://www.trackingterrorism.org... 4 - . https://news.vice.com... 5 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6 - . http://www.dailykos.com... # 7 - . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9 - see video . http://www.youtube.com... 10 - . http://modernmilitiamovement.com... 11 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...