The recent attack in Sydney brings to light two significant issues that have long affected counterterrorism efforts in Western nations.
One key point is that Naveed Akram, one of the attackers, had been under investigation by Australian authorities in 2019 for possible ties to ISIS, yet he was never arrested.
Research from George Washington University’s Program on Extremism indicates that over half of those responsible for terrorist acts in Western countries since 9/11 were already on watch lists.
This raises the question: did Australian authorities miss a crucial warning sign?
As more details emerge, it seems unlikely that a mistake was made. Still, it’s important to acknowledge the various constraints that impact the actions of Western intelligence and law enforcement.
Constitutional Rights
First, there are legal constraints. Authorities are aware that some individuals hold extremist views and may monitor their actions or interactions, but they are limited in what they can do without infringing on rights. Essentially, in Western democracies, individuals have the right to develop extremist beliefs, and all authorities can do is keep an eye on them.
Even when they secure necessary court orders for surveillance, there’s a significant issue of limited resources. Monitoring a suspect around the clock typically requires many personnel, a challenge given the increasing number of extremists. Consequently, authorities categorize suspects based on their potential for violence, which can sometimes lead to errors in judgment.
A more concerning dynamic from the Sydney attack is that Akram was deeply involved in the local Islamist community.
Reports indicate that he regularly attended mosques and educational institutions affiliated with various transnational Islamist organizations, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood. While these groups are legal in Australia and the U.S., they often promote animosity towards the West and various minority groups.
The Capone Approach
Through their extensive outreach, these groups propagate ideologies that rationalize violence and may entice disillusioned youth to act out aggressively.
In discussions in the U.K., it was suggested that these less obviously violent Islamist groups create an environment for more extreme actions.
Similar groups operate in the United States, benefiting from First Amendment protections and the tendency for extreme tolerance.
Democratic governments struggle with how to confront entities that aim to undermine democracy, yet work within legal boundaries. The U.S., like others, must acknowledge the risks posed by Islamism in all its forms.
Recently, some steps have been made in this direction, such as considering the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, U.S. authorities have various strategies available to them that could weaken these extremist groups.
For instance, they can examine these organizations for immigration law violations or financial issues. This approach, reminiscent of the legal tactics used against mobster Al Capone, could effectively target Islamists without requiring official designation and is often more economical.
