Of legal authorities are important. And theand the importance of maintaining Civil Liberties of our citizens generally is why we recommend the fbi director have a special Advisory Panel available are continuing basis. These are some of the things we found some of the things we recommend as far as the future is concerned. The United States is likely to have an organization like the fbi that not only has a great history but the ability to accept change. It has not been easy. There have been tough moments to get the idea of intelligence and degraded along with Law Enforcement into the work of the fbi. It has been difficult but they have made remarkable progress up until now. The knew director is behind the recommendations we have made. There is a Bright Future for the fbi, but it is important that there be one because the future of the fbi we will be the way in which this country is protected against terrorism. Imare going to touch on three key areas with three tracks that i think are significant and have important implications. The 1stimplications. The 1st is the going concern with regard to hong kong violence. We use that term its useful to expand that technology in terms of what are the different flavors of terrorism. Foreign terrorism and foreign actors who are directed and supported by foreign terrorist groups operating in the United States or elsewhere. The 2nd is domestic terrorists and those are primarily based in the United States and not under the direction, influence, or inspiration of foreign terrorist groups operating independently. We have this 3rd flavor homegrown violent extremists which are primarily based in the United States but inspired by foreign terrorist groups but not directed or directly supported by those groups. The reason why they are significant i we will get into a little while. The 2nd is the increasing emphasis on preventing violent extremism rather than countering radicalism. The terms radicalism and violent extremism are violent radicalism are used interchangeably. Basically you can be radical or extremists and not the violent and not break the law, but we track that. We are focusing more of late on those who are actually about two or are currently breaking the law versus those to the left kind of talk about the implications without. The 3rd area is the increasing availability of what some describe as technologies of mass empowerment. When you look at the ubiquitous component of highly sophisticated technologies, what are the implications for what terrorist groups particularly in that category for what are they capable of the day find out everything about ten or 15 years ago. Let me start with growing concerns with regard to violent extremists. Of course,extremists. Of course, our concerns are reinforced by the events in chattanooga. Characterized by either lone wolves, individuals who are operating either self radicalized or are radicalized in a way that only has been absorbing versus communicating with other entities or small groups and radicalize each other. Group for five. And they do not have that signature that typically we are losing and on. Communicating with own actors of concern traveling and consorting with individuals of concern. Those are the chapters that allow us to focus from the massive potential individuals to those that we believe present the greatest threat. The real challenge associated with the homegrown violent extremist his they are extremely difficult to detect or prevent. If there is a Silver Lining traditionally we have looked at these groups as having relatively low capability via consequence events. Small arms relatively small amounts of explosives can kill large amount of people that you are not looking at september 11 size or magnitude tax or worse which takes me to the next area but how do we differentiate individuals that were going to be concerned about and focusedfocus limited Law Enforcement and intelligence assets on versus the broader guys were of much larger set of people who may be disenfranchised and may harbor in the or other concerns for this country or our way of life. This gets to the question of what constitutes radicalization. We have a constitution that protects free speech and free thinking. A lot of people who are considered radicals in there time who are a lot of us euros. A whole house of them. We have a society and culture of prizes and protects peoples ability to think whatever thought they want as long as they are not a legally incurring and other people space. It does not necessarily progress to violent extremism,extremism, and there is no typical pathway we will we look at it. We saw indicators a lot of people are highly disenchanted and an extreme thoughts. Most of them do not devolve into violent extremists. What we found is in previous outreach initiatives were talking about is lost extremists initiatives to the American Muslim Community to identify individuals and there communities for upon radicalization the softer side, left of attack on the left of legal act often have the unintended result of alienating communities cultivating a sense of paranoia and prosecution of persecution. If you look at the efficacy and is difficult to do as a government in terms of engaging with communities, in terms of what that counter narrative is because we are getting in to religious thought, ideology and thinking and it is not a space bars government officials are comfortable talking only do well. It is particularly difficult for western countries to parse and address the ideological foundations and theological aspects of the radicalization process. Based on these tensions in the result command im not talking just the United States. They have had significant challenges where they have moved more and more to focusing on the individuals who are assessed to be conducting illegal acts or on the verge of versus looking to get the Larger Community to the left potentially a move to the right. And it is about taking care not to antagonize and alienate the majority of the population that cannot hold the extremist views or at a minimum are not prepared to behave and found ways because we want to avoid inadvertently contributing to more conversions to violent extremism that we are able to have the divergence away from. I will briefly review the different characterizations of approaches. The dhs approach does not focus on radical thought were speech but instead on preventing violent attacks. The fbi approach is to reach people before they crossed the line between radical thinking to extremist violence. Then one of the key strategies is to reach out to communities and build trust and rapport to stem the tide of violence which has been a big challenge. Fbi relationship with these communities and the Muslim Community in particular is a strange one at best because there looking to make cases. It is a difficult balancing act to work with communities that are opposed to violent behavior the way you draw the line between someone who has legitimate defensible radical whether right to have radical thinking does not plan on conducting any physical act. You train every hallway because the bureau is concerned about the possible making the move. The sum result of tensions between competing phenomena is essentially a catch22. So as not to risk worsening the problem we have backed off earlier efforts to identify and avert those most prone to violent extremism and are now left with the more challenging proposition of having to wait to intervene and tell radical thoughts are at the precipice of violence leaving precious little time for air. That is a tough space for us to operate in that is the reality of what were doing. I will get to this 3rd and final category technologies of his apartment which gets back to this amazingly rapid evolution and ubiquitous availability of advanced technology and is increasing the network ofunit of terrorist organizations follow it out individuals with means to cause significant damage in ways that were limited to nationstates that many years ago. And im talking about five or ten years ago, capabilities now in the hands of individuals where restricted weapons capabilities withwith export controls. There are celebrating a platform that that platform that you can use as a guidance navigational mechanism. So theyre is a book. By Benjamin Wittes and and it highlights the strength. Anyways might differ on there conclusions on how this might change the world in order. They offer discussion views to what that does not do what is interesting as they do go down the path of three different developing a rapidlyrapidly developing technologies. Biotechnology, robotics, and cyber. They posit different scenarios literally by small groups all the way to individuals with regard to these advanced technologies and significant high consequence effects. You look at the sign of brothers. To mid level iq knuckleheads who put a lot of time and effort in developing a tax profile for building devices that were to my sophisticated and certainly impact on a local scale command youre talking about now and to four or five years from now these individuals of moderate intelligence we will be able to do paid by numbers bio sequencing and develop biological agent with the dna synthesizer they can get off the internet. That is what were talking about. We have not seen it yet but the potential is theyre. This is particular particularly concerning because we cannot defend against every attack. Very fortunatelyvery fortunately the threshold of consequence that these individuals and small groups have been able to affect as tragic as it is a been relatively small. If these types of individuals we have aa very difficult and in some cases impossible time protecting can have high consequence effects in large numbers of casualties while we are in a scary place and i fear that that dynamic is unfolding. I would say in some against the backdrop of all of our concerns about the potential , the conventional wisdom that these actors are not having high effect is going to fade. Thank you. Were going to have time to get questions from the audience. If you would raise your hand i will recognize you. Wait for the microphone. Let me unpack a few things before you move on. The layout this framework of the areas you looked at in the areas that are critical. Going from the International Program the role of intelligence and the fbi science, Technology Issues science, Technology Issues and information sharing. Could you im guessing if i ask you what the strongest area where the fbi has made the most progress of the overseas mission. Partially because there is still a lot more to do. When you go overseas and put your foot in the Atlantic Ocean he suddenly come across the state department. There is a certain bureaucratic resistance to expanding and providing more facilities and resources. There is a long ways to go. I would rather it is more accurate to say the farthest they have gone is the intelligence of Analytical Capabilities and the idea of bringing in this knew class of people. Prior to september 11 intelligence analysts i dont even think they use that term, but they were thought of as support people there has always been a tradition that there was a big dividing line between special agents and everyone else. The intelligence analysts prior to september 11 were in the other category. Category. It has been the development of the idea of intelligence analysts has coequal almost coequal which is the area that is improving because it has only been with them last year we have the joint training with a were in the same classes, same Educational Programs at quantico. Which gets the lowest grade . Science and technology. The computer programs and Communications Information technology as a whole is probably lagging behind. If lagging behind before the department of justice and in other parts. That is the one that meets the budgetary support. You would think when we went to the office in london and there was one secure telephone the whole place and little booth, the kind that superman is to change clothes and. And that and whereas if they have had more is a matter of intelligence analysts be able to pick up the floor and talk to someone who is working in the same area and exchange information. If they haveif they have to go to a phone or wait for a phone or go to some other facility that interferes with there capability. I want to ask you one question. A lot of discussion. Countering violent extremism you alluded to it. There are two different but related missions. The space for the fbi and Homeland Security figure it all out and can operate the line between people have extremist views and are potentially going to operationalize. Wewe can debate with the best bill is in the best structure. That is appropriately something they should be involved in. The other is a much broader issue with the idea of radical islam which may never default a different ideology, different worldview. That is a much broader mission. And a different topic. And arguably something where the United States has been completely out to lunch. I want to ask you about this other one people are embracing these use. The question is given as david said and 70 of these. The tens and maybe i dont know. What is right and given all the other city things what is the right level of effort here . You make an important. The population you might consider at greater risk if your talking about radical islam looking at the Muslim Population the majority of which is not radical does not share radicalized use. It is a small percentage. You have a number of our conservative and have what many would consider to be radical thoughts but no intent and have demonstrated no action in terms of affecting outcomes in a violent way. This gets back. And the chairman made the. If you want to deal with this kind of ideology. This gets back. And the chairman made the. If you want to deal with this kind of ideology. It is a dangerous place. When you dowhen you do a counter narrative against a conservative interpretation of theology ran into problems. We want to 1st do no harm. Alienation. That is the peace that we have wrestled with and not done a good job. Putting the big counter narrative issue aside what is the level of effort we should be looking at between do nothing and the Manhattan Project . We have to take a risk informed approach. We cannot prevent every individual might go into a sports store and buy aside or rifle and go i shooting spree. We need to look at who posits the most significant threat. Threat. The more significant the threat typically the more signatures activity. Identifying anyone in with the consequence we will run out way before we are able to focus on the high consequence which is where we need to focus. For the most part we do but it is a difficult public highly emotional people respond psychologically in ways to events that there is a low what is happening. You have to deal with that dynamic. Let me ask you one last question. We look at this more narrow part. A grand narrative. Working with people that are potentially and you looked at the legislation. Talk abouttalk about some of the complications of working through that. Ifif you do it will be a community. If you embrace the right people you link up with those were part of the problem. Some of those of the things. I no some of the different studies that have been done. A recent one that was done. A very interesting study and talked about how very often they objective is to link up the state and locals who no one isno what is going on the committee and support them. The federal government cannot be thepointy end of the stick on this one. Of the rich right folks making the right alliances . A lot of risk of funding. Grading to great at maintaining. Able to show significant improvements. Other organizations were able to show good improvement. Figuring out how the government can best partner is a challenge. The other question is can the federal government who we will be the best person to take on the support will. In your report he addressed the question of fbi, counterterrorism organization. Maybe go to dhs. The fbi has embedded counterterrorism knowledge that is useful. Different places you can put it. Dhs is not doing the cbe. Supporting state and locals. Supposed to be connecting and doing that stuff that is the right place. So you operate in this more narrow space. A couple of key things. There are to be metrics that measure of what you are delivering on the focus but youwhen you engage in the communities what is the common interest . The Public Safety of the committee. About populations. Does not tell you anything useful. His life profiling. That person was whatever. You look at these numbers. There is a significant percentage that aare naturalized. It does not tell you anything. What you find is whatever categorization you make there are a tiny percentage of anything. The. He said that shows process was pleased to look at. What it does tell you in the naturalization process there are things that we are not doing which would much more clearly identify people you should not have given citizenship to which is the kind of stuff that is super useful. Is one thing, the returning foreign fighters. People going overseas. You immediately have an indication someone that you need to look into and have gone to syria, the middle east command come back which is one of the tests that the fbi utilizes. One other thing most of the people have been radicalized and guarded to violent extremists has certain characteristics. The same type as people who join gangs. Low selfesteem, unemployed categories such as this. A gives you some indication of the kinds of people they usually get involved. There are different statistics on that. That maythat may be more true to those who are going of foreign fighter out and less true or al qaeda type operators. Educated and you have seen across the board a high incidence of the down and hours. Not to say that there are not pockets. There are two aspects to the foreign fighter problem. There going to come back in the terrorists it is true. What is even more vital is the fact that they are recruiting going over the. It is like voting on american idol. It allows the claim that this is a caliphate. Showing the pipeline down over