Americas domestic war on terror is back in the spotlight and the debate on its successes and failure continues. Last week, two women were arrest, for making a home styled bomb. A terrorist group that u. S. Is being rrming obsessed with Pressure Cookers since the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Investigation into home grown terrorist plot. A day later, police in philadelphia arrested kiana thomas on the charge that she tried to join i. S. I. L, the United States is targeting air strikes in syria. Western looks and american passports make it easier for them to travel overseas. If convicted, thomas could get up to 15 years in prison. Both investigations involve joint operation of the fbi and police. Joint task forces have down under extreme are terrorism. According to author and journalist trevor aaronson, the number of confidential informants has risen to 15,000 since 9 11. And a scathing critique Aaron Aaronson says, the bureau can then claim victory on the war on terror. The bureau justifies spending millions of dollars on counterterrorism efforts. David ariosto reports. When it comes to funding efforts to root out terrorism, the United States is virtually unmatched. Americas Intelligence Community spent 16. 6 billion billion on counterterrorism in 2014, both in the United States and around the world. Provided by documents from edward snowden. Using 4200 agents across the country and since the september 11th attacks the u. S. That is doubled down on security spending more than half a trillion dollars ointelligence with monitoring and disrupting violent extreme is among its top priorities. Since then theres been a string of successes. In 2002, brooklyn born jose padilla was arrested and convicted after returning from pakistan with a socalled dirty bomb plan. And in 2010, a tip from saudi intelligence prevented two socalled printer bombs frk loaded onto frombeing loaded onto car bow planes. Man tried to detonate explosive in his underwear. And New York Times square authorities were never aware of. In 2013 one attack got through. 2 were killed and 264 others were injured, when two Pressure Cooker bombs ripped through the Boston Marathon. Undercork a need for even tighter security screenings. There is going to be a larger presence of Law Enforcement personnel that they have on the street. Reporter when does it go too far . In 2011 the Associated Press using the freedom of information request, found that the United States had convictmore than 2500 people on terrorism charges since 2011. Eight times as many in the decade prior and at times, undercover agents had apparently dimmed the line. Some of these things as, quote governmentcreated terror plots. The report says stings are sometimes focused on individuals who perhaps would never have participated on a terrorist attack on their own initiative and might not even have had the capacity to do so. The question becomes protection and the illusion of protection when prosecuting terrorism, a fine line that prosecutors cant get wrong. David ariosto, al jazeera, new york. Better cooperation between communities and Law Enforcement is what gets people to volunteer information that uncovers suspicious dmifts their neighborhoods, use of confidential informants needs distrust in Law Enforcement communities and the communities they target. Why rule out confidential informants as an Early Warning of suspicious activities . No one is saying we should rule out confidential 40s, how control the confidential informants. One of the things we documented is confidential informants with serious credibility issues, were able to identify people who are mentally ill you are talking about religious profiling but the case of some confidential informants has worked. Were not arguing against that but when you use them, you have to be careful how use them and you have to control tell them. In the cases where we documented, confidential foarnth wereinformants were going into communities that found people vulnerable to information, indigent, people who were mentally ill who on their own would never have been able even to participate in terror plots much less dream them up and yet they were we want to talk with those particular communities, muslim communities on the other side of this break and what the alternatives might be, you have a pretty good idea and theres some pretty strong criticism on that, well get to it on the other side of this break, well have maria mcfarrland about what we might be using instead of confidential informants to try to catch terrorists on american soil before they act. Youre watching real money. Tonight were looking at americas domestic wore on terror. What counters terrorism theories work and what dont work. Law enforcement needs to finder alternative ways of gathering intelligence on the ground without relying so much on sting operations and confidential informants. What are some of those sting operations that you would suggest . The fbi knows how to engage in without necessarily putting informants in there when theres no suspicion of wrongdoing. When you use confidential informants you should monitor them carefully. The sorts of problems we identified and the number of cases involved informants who basically found easy tarts that they could turn into terrorists who rgth targets that they could turn into terrorists who would never likely be involved in these sorts of activities in the first place. Thats what you want to avoid youre trying to prevent crimes but in the process of preventing crimes you dont want to manufacture them. But when it comes to manufacturing evidence as a lot of people suggest or trying to make sure that confidential informants are not misused isnt that up to a judge and a jury to decide at trial . Because confidential informants are used every day in drug investigations and white collar fraud and its up to Defense Attorneys when they get to trial to say, hey this shouldnt come up because evidence was coerced. In the u. S. , in other countries you would have a defense of entrapment that you would never have engaged in the conduct at issue if it werent for the fbi or whoever luring you into it and pushing you into that direction. But in the u. S. There is an additional hurdle that has to be met which is that courts will say well if you were predisposed to commit the crime then you cant make an entrapment defense. And given how much stigma attaches to these sorts of prosecutions, its very difficult to prove that you were not predisposed to committing a crime. Even if you were mentally ill. But again that is a possible defense though and its up to a jury to decide. Its virtually impossible to win that kind of a defense in the u. S. In a terrorism case. Law enforcement were spending much of that 16 billion in other ways in funneling to confidential informants building up those sorts of relationships, thats money well spent to you . The fbi has conducted good investigations without necessarily going as far as the cases we documented in our report. Emphasize that kind of work and documented. There are several cases where confidential informants have proven successful, but at the same time there are people that have an 411 that provide Law Enforcement with information that may lead to arrest. Again it is not about not using confidential informant but in a effective way so theyre not crossing the line and create being plots out of thin air. Is your argument that the fbi is not using them in a not very smart way . In a lot of cases they have done it that way. For example . The newberg four, a confidential informant who had an steive criminal record including a number of convictions for fraud, went into a community where there was no reason to believe that anything was wrong. He found two people who were indigent, who were suffering from Mental Health problems i want to symptom stop you there. The newberg four were convicted and lost on appeal. Just because these cases dont just because people get convicted doesnt mean that they havent been problems in the investigation phase. There have been serious problems. But the problems in the ent are worked out by the courts. Its not worked out by the fbi or investigators on the front end but on judges and prosecutors who try to make a determination as to whether somebody is guilty in the newberg four trial this was a case where they had turned a above an who you know was absolutely ridiculous into a terrorist. By but there was a buffoon who tried to blow up times square, who tried to do it and but not for his buffoonery, thankfully the bomb didnt go off. A buffoon is capable of inflicting as much damage as anybody else. But the entire plot into the mind of the person who is vulnerable, it could be someone outside the mairch muslim community. It can be anybody. But arent they also vulnerable to terrorist organizations or i. S. I. L. Doing the same thing . And wouldnt that be true for so many mentally ill people in the country . Are we now going to lock up everybody who is mentally ill or vulnerable to manipulation . That is not a effective way to do policy. What is the most effective way, if you had to run the fbi how would you change things . I certainly wouldnt presume to tell the fbi how to be run. But i have to say that working with communities, people have been able to at some points identify people who are maybe at risk and pull them away. Get them involved in other types of kids. If you can help them, sometimes thats a way to avert a plot without having to lock people up and get them into much worse situations. Ria mcfarrland, a director of production of human rights watch, thank you for coming. Thank you. Next up well talk to someone who says using informants to try to root out terrorists is a way to go. Despite some mistakes well challenge that point of view. You are watching real money. Tonight were looking at americas domestic war on terror, what counterterrorism strategies work and what do not. Today the jury in the trial of dzhokhartsarnaev heard closing arguments. His attorneys admit hes guilty but trying to spare him the death penalty. John terret has the story so far. Attorneys for dzhokhartsarnaev rested after calling just one witness. He was a troubled 19yearold living under the spell of his radicalized brother. The defense trying to show older brother influence. And trying to show that the motive had more to do with that than terrorism. From the beginning the defense always said their strategy isnt to win an acquittal but to save their defendant client from the death penalty. Witness es drew older brother tamerlan to the crime. His fingerprints were found on the device to trigger the bombs. 15 days of testimonial, including experts who provided a mountain of evidence on the crime scene before resting on monday. The prosecutors trying to bring the jurors to the scene of this horrible, horrible crime and show the devastation that it caused to loved ones to folks who lost their limbs so that the jurors when they decide about punishment will have all of that in mind when they make those decisions. Reporter trial watchers have noted dzhokhar showed now emotion during the trial. I thought he was glil. I cant understand how a person like that thinks. Are now the trial of the century is moving towards its conclusion, much to the relief of many in the city. Its really draining trying to get here every day and seeing some of the horrific pictures that are out there and the testimony of the poor people that passed away that day. John terret, al jazeera. With us now to discuss the effectiveness of current domestic terrorism tactics is lauren anderson, she led the joint Terrorism Task force, now heads l. C. Anderson consulting company. She says the use of confidential informants is still the best way to gather information about potential terrorist threats. If you look at this particular case this is a good example because the United States government had human intelligence about the tsarnaev brother and didnt act on it. It is a good example. An very, very tool within the tool kit that all organization he have. The brothers up in boston, other information that wasnt shared in a timely fashion so the ability to potentially develop other people who might be in a position to provide information wasnt there. Part of the trouble there is theres so much human intelligence now coming the in because of the extreme use of tens of thousands of confidential informants that you have a bureau that is overwhelmed, it has a very difficult time now separating out the really valuable human intelligence and the other stuff that is noise and perhaps a distraction as it might have been in this particular case. Thats actually a great point but to keep in mind too the bureau didnt suddenly develop 15,000 informants since 2011. Lots of informants have been part of its tool kit since its inception, fraught with risk the Newberg Group that was spoken about earlier by maria. I was leading the joint Terrorism Task force at the inception of that case although not at its conclusion. I can tell you we had a very very spirited debate as to whether that particular person was a sufficient noarnt that particular case. Theres always a dialogue going on at all levels and a spirited debate that rises up to the executive level. Lets talk about the newberg case. Suppose that if Law Enforcement had built up a relationship with the rather than relying on a confidential informant whose justification was questionable . Its hard to monday morning quarterback. But its absolutely imperative to have community collaboration. You can have collaborative action as long as theres transparency between the community and rule of law institutions. Maybe that would have been an alternative way, difficult to say after the fact but what we do know in that situation, despite the arguments about that particular informant, the fact of the matter is that those men left what they believed to be explosive ladened vehicles and walked away from them. Doesnt the use of a confidential informant alienate that community youre relying on . I think thats a possibility. But when the community has come forward for example the group thats referred to as the dc five, it was in fact young men who were arrested in pakistan but their family went to mosque leaders and ultimately came to the fbi, saying were really worried, our kids have disappeared and we found these videos. The mosque advising them to come to the fbi. A lot of muslim communities have felt alienated and ill tell you why. Faisil gill had a top security clearance, he was monitored by confidential informant, a prominent attorney, an iranian american professor of International Relations at rutgers university, these are upstanding individuals who are being monitored by confidential informants. When their friends and communities realized what Law Enforcement is doing, it infuriates them. I can understand that. I have no comment on these particular individuals but the fact of the matter is because you are an outstanding member of the Community Gives you access to the community but doesnt means you are absolved from criminal activity. Im not making statement or suggestion that any of is these individuals were involved in wrongdoing but the fact of the matter is people involved in wrongdoing comes from every segment of society. Law enforcement has 16 billion that they are using to monitor Law Enforcement in the United States, confidential informants that want to provide information to the fbi, and the fbi that wants to continue getting their funding. Again it is a very valid point but i can tell you from personal experience when i was running the joint terrorism traffic and my International Relations, there was very specific situations that i was a part of the decision that was going to be, we are not going to use this person as a confidential informant, we cant control how that person is going to behave in a certain circumstance. I trust your personal integrity to have that spirited debate but what about a larger macro sense when you have the fbi that is so reliant on the uses confidential informants . I think its important to keep in mind as i said earlier confidential informants are only one piece of the equation. Its not going to substitute for good investigation, background that can be done, open source, researching contacts, and the use of physical surveillance and electronic surveillance. They are all tools. I think it would be inaccurate to say that the fbi relies so informants. It is just one pees of the equation and because i. T. Involves people, it runs the risk of creating challenges. And one of the challenges involves the idea that you may plant the idea of somebody carrying tout act of terrorism that somehow plants the idea in someones head. I take issue with that, these situations both in United States and abroad, and Task Force Officer has an exceptionally high degree of integrity and they are not interested in trying to create problems, arent. That is simply not way that it goes. So while i understand thats a part of the debate that is not the way things happen on a daytoday basis when the fbi sits back in a field office like new york with its partners and contemplates the best way to deal with the threat. Lauren c. Anderson, lauren thanks for coming in we appreciate it. Thanks very much. Tonight we looked at americas domestic terror policy. Tomorrow night well examine americas global war on terror. The campaign against i. S. I. L president obama touted yemen as a success story. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us while supporting partners on the front line is one that we have successfully pursued in yemen and somalia for years. Years later, the leader who helped the u. S. Fight al qaeda has been deposed. Well look at what went wrong, 10 30 eastern, 7 30 pacific. Im David Schuster in for l ali velshi. On behalf of all of us at real money thanks for watching. I think were into something thats bigger than us. Thats the pain that your mother feels whe