The Morris Dees Strategy: Waging Economic War on Terrorism.

     In the early days of this War on Terror, the talking heads and bureaucrats touted the new and unique ways such a conflict would be fought: that assets of the military and law enforcement would work in conjunction to prosecute the war. Why not add lawyers to the mix?

I have great faith in the ability of those soul-less, shape-shifting creatures of the night we call attorneys to find a way forward in devising a strategy of international litigation, to bring civil suits in various countries, or perhaps somehow in American courtrooms, against go those individuals or groups who train, harbor, provide aide to, radicalize, or provide the venue (mosques, private residences) for radicalizing  persons or groups who go on to commit acts of terror.  Groups or individuals who are the subject of these kinds of suits would have to spend huge amounts of money defending against the charges and, if unsuccessful, would be required to pay the resulting judgements. 

     Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center successfully used a similar strategy to break the back of the KKK and Neo-nazi hate groups. If we view Al Quidea as just a hate group on a grand scale, why can’t it work in this 21rst Century kind of war? 

     Some who choose to commit acts of terror are motivated by cash incentives from various sources and these are often passed on to loved ones left behind to improve their lot in life. If would-be terrorists could see that families of those committing acts of terror are going broke defending themselves in civil trials for receiving assets from terror-related sources, there would surely be some level of deterrent factor.

     Clerics who become aware of radical elements in their communities might be quicker to identify these rouge actors to police if they knew that their own land and other assets could be seized to pay civil judgements if they are connected to terrorists.  If not, they may at least tell would-be terrorists to find other digs, making it harder for them to conduct business. The fear of loss and the suspicion this strategy of civil litigation for terror might raise within the more radical elements of society can also be deemed a method of psychological warfare.

     In the end, seizing assets to pay huge awards for civil damage stemming from terrorism may not solve the problem, but any impact at all is a good thing and it would provide a symbolic way of striking back at terrorists.  

Of related interest:

 

On the trail of al-Shabab’s Kenyan recruitment 'pipeline' By Peter Taylor BBC News

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24263357


‘Misha,’ the man accused of radicalizing Boston Marathon bomber, denies influence
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-accused-radicalizing-boston-bomber-breaks-silence-article-1.1330008 


Banned Muslim cleric likely radicalized Woolwich attacker
http://www.timesofisrael.com/banned-muslim-cleric-suspected-of-radicalizing-woolwich-attacker/