The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

By Christi Parsons and Brian Bennett, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s top Homeland Security official on Sunday warned Americans to be “particularly careful” after terrorist threats against the Mall of America and other shopping centers, and seized the opportunity to call on Congress not to let his department’s funding expire this week.

The warnings from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson followed the release of a video from the al-Shabab terrorist group over the weekend that urged militants to attack American, Canadian and British shopping centers, including the mega-mall near Minneapolis. Al-Shabab is responsible for the 2013 attack on a Kenyan mall that left 67 people dead.

“If anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they’ve got to be particularly careful,” Johnson told CNN’s Gloria Borgia.

“Any time a terrorist organization calls for an attack on a specific place, we’ve got to take that seriously,” he said. “So, through our intelligence bulletins, through working with state and local law enforcement, through working with the FBI, we take this kind of thing very seriously.”

But several U.S. officials said they had no other reason to believe there was an actual plot unfolding against any shopping centers in the U.S. One intelligence official said there was no evidence that the video represented anything more than a call to action, and that similar videos in the past had not been linked to subsequent attacks. But they said the prospect of violence from lone actors — unattached to a terrorist group but open to inspiration via the Internet — was a continuing concern.

Even before the latest threat, the administration was on high alert over the possibility that Homeland Security’s funding would dry up Saturday. Johnson played up both issues during appearances on several Sunday talk shows.

Al-Shabab’s video specifically mentioned the Mall of America and gave its GPS coordinates, not far from Minneapolis’ large Somali community. It appeared to be an explicit exhortation from the Somali-based terrorists to disaffected expatriates in Minnesota.

The Mall of America issued a statement in conjunction with law enforcement agencies, including the Justice Department and the Bloomington, Minn., Police Department.

“At this time there is no credible threat associated with Mall of America,” the statement said. “We take all security concerns seriously and have responded appropriately. Enhanced security measures … have been implemented and all information is being monitored.”

Asked whether foot traffic seemed any lighter Sunday, Mall of America spokeswoman Julie Hansen said in an email, “I did not notice a difference.”

Congress is at an impasse on funding Homeland Security, with most Republicans demanding that any funding bill nullify Obama’s pending executive actions to temporarily shield as many as 5 million immigrants in the country illegally from deportation, as well as those protected by a 2012 program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Most Democrats stand by the president’s immigration actions, and they have enough votes in the Senate to block the measure. When Congress returns from its holiday break Monday, the Senate will hold a fourth procedural vote on the bill, which has passed the House. Republican aides would not discuss how either chamber would proceed if, as expected, Democrats block it again.

Republicans are divided over the best way to challenge Obama’s actions. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued Sunday that it would be better to challenge the immigration measures in court, warning colleagues of the pitfalls of using national security to make a political point.

A federal judge in Texas imposed a temporary injunction against the immigration actions last week. The Justice Department is preparing to request an emergency stay of that injunction so the administration can implement its plans. White House officials say they expect the request to be filed by Monday.

Graham said he agreed with U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 states, and hoped his party would focus on that case as a way to wage the immigration fight.

“If we don’t fund the Department of Homeland Security, we’ll get blamed as a party. And to anyone who is watching the world as it is, I’ve never seen more terrorist organizations with more safe havens, with more money, with more capability to strike the homeland today,” Graham told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. “And that’s a direct result of a failed foreign policy by President Obama. And the worst thing to do is add gasoline to the fire by having the Republican Party defund the Department of Homeland Security.”

Johnson used the al-Shabab threats to illustrate a growing dynamic among competing terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Islamic State, which are vying for recruits and targeting citizens in the West, he said.

“These groups are relying more and more on independent actors to become inspired, drawn to the cause … on their own, through their effective use of the Internet,” Johnson told CNN. “That’s why it’s critical that we work in the communities where these folks might be able to recruit to develop a counternarrative.”

The threats also show “why I need a budget,” he said. If funding isn’t approved by Friday, Johnson said, he’ll have to furlough about 80 percent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s workers. Law enforcement and other crucial Homeland Security officials will simply have to work without pay, he said.

“It’s absurd that we’re even having this conversation about Congress’ inability to fund Homeland Security in these challenging times,” Johnson said.

He complained of a “frustrating” round of finger-pointing during his conversations on Capitol Hill.

“When I go to the Senate, they say, ‘It’s not us, it’s the House, go over to the House side and talk to them,’ ” Johnson said. “I go to the House and they say, ‘We passed our bill, it’s the Senate.’ ”

Johnson said that marketing by terrorists was entering a new phase in which groups such as Islamic State, al-Shabab and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula are issuing public directions for individual actors to carry out attacks in their homelands.

“In my judgment, that represents a totally new environment,” Johnson said on CBS. “And we have to deal with it in a new and different way that involves a whole-of-government approach and involves working with state and local law enforcement, working with the community, working with community leaders to hopefully persuade people who might be inclined in this direction to turn away from violence.”

Threat or no threat, shoppers flocked to malls Sunday, including the sprawling Glendale Galleria, near Los Angeles. Families pushed strollers, couples held hands, drivers fought for precious parking spaces. Most patrons said they were unaware of, or unfazed by, al-Shabab’s message.

“Personally, I don’t live in fear. I’m tired of that,” said Tatiana Arrue, 22, a corporate recruiter from Downey, Calif. “The thought of going to a mall and possibly dying, well, if that’s how I’m going to go, that’s how I’m going to go. I’m tired of living in fear.”

Another customer read a copy of William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying while he waited for his steaming pizza to cool. He was unaware of the threat but said he would have come to the mall anyway.

“It doesn’t bother me,” said the man, who declined to give his name for an article about terrorism. “I don’t think people are sitting around planning to shoot up a mall and waiting for somebody to tell them to do it.”
Los Angeles Times staff writers Stuart Pfeifer and Matt Pearce in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Eric Holder

The failure of major federal voting rights legislation in the Senate has left civil rights advocates saying they are determined to keep fighting—including by suing in battleground states. But the little bipartisan consensus that exists on election reform would, at best, lead to much narrower legislation that is unlikely to address state-level GOP efforts now targeting Democratic blocs.

“This is the loss of a battle, but it is not necessarily the loss of a war, and this war will go on,” Eric Holder, the former U.S. attorney general and Democrat, told MSNBC, saying that he and the Democratic Party will be suing in states where state constitutions protect voting rights. “This fight for voting rights and voter protection and for our democracy will continue.”

“The stakes are too important to give up now,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which for years has operated an Election Day hotline to help people vote. “Our country cannot claim to be free while allowing states to legislate away that freedom at will.”

In recent weeks, as it became clear that the Senate was not going to change its rules to allow the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to pass with a simple majority, there have been efforts by some lawmakers, election policy experts, and civil rights advocates to identify what election reforms could pass the Senate.

“There are several areas… where I think there could be bipartisan consensus,” said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, in a briefing on January 20. “These areas are all around those guardrails of democracy. They are all about ensuring that however the voters speak that their voice is heard… and cannot be subverted by anyone in the post-election process.”

Becker cited updating the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which addressed the process where state-based slates of presidential electors are accepted by Congress. (In recent weeks, new evidence has surfaced showing that Donald Trump’s supporters tried to present Congress with forged certificates as part of an effort to disrupt ratifying the results on January 6, 2021.) Updating that law could also include clarifying which state officials have final authority in elections and setting out clear timetables for challenging election results in federal court after Election Day.

Five centrist Washington-based think tanks issued a report on January 20, Prioritizing Achievable Federal Election Reform, which suggested federal legislation could codify practices now used by nearly three-quarters of the states. Those include requiring voters to present ID, offering at least a week of early voting, allowing all voters to request a mailed-out ballot, and allowing states to start processing returned absentee ballots a week before Election Day.

But the report, which heavily drew on a task force of 29 state and local election officials from 20 states convened by Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Center, was notable in what it did not include, such as restoring the major enforcement section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was removed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. It did not mention the Electoral Count Act nor growing threats to election officials from Trump supporters.

“This won’t satisfy all supporters of the Freedom to Vote Act, but this is a plausible & serious package of reforms to make elections more accessible and secure that could attract bipartisan support,” tweeted Charles Stewart III, a political scientist and director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab. “A good starting point.”

The reason the centrist recommendations won’t satisfy civil rights advocates is that many of the most troubling developments since the 2020 election would likely remain.

Targeting Battleground States

Keep reading... Show less

Former president Donald Trump

By Rami Ayyub and Alexandra Ulmer

(Reuters) -The prosecutor for Georgia's biggest county on Thursday requested a special grand jury with subpoena power to aid her investigation into then-President Donald Trump's efforts to influence the U.S. state's 2020 election results.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}