Counterterrorism Blog

I seldom publicly disagree with my colleagues on the CTB, but I must take exception to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' characterization of the nature of the discussion within DOJ over the decision to attend the ISNA conference.

I know, from talking at length with people directly involved in the case, that in fact the national security section, and particularly the Counterterrorism Division argued against participating in the conference. The objections were overruled. While the National Security division did then accept the decision, members of the Counterterrorism section remain apoplectic about the decision to do anything with an un-indicted co-conspirator in an ongoing case where DOJ is prosecuting entities and individuals linked to ISNA is even contemplated. This reflects the tension among different branches in the DOJ, as well as within law enforcement and the intelligence community, over whether engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups is legitimate outreach or dangerous naivetee.

I have no idea who the sources for the Washington Times story were, but mine told me the same thing. These are not voting division people trying to armchair quarterback anything. These are concerned career employees who see their efforts being sabotaged by those who would like to reach out to the wrong Muslim groups.

That premise is open to debate, and Daveed presents a coherent thesis as to why DOJ might want to attend even if ISNA is there. I and others can debate the merits of that argument. But it is inaccurate to go after the Washington Times reporting and speculate on the reporter's sources.