Political Re-education: Coming to a detention center near you?

[Jackpine Radical]

A research brief from das Heimatssicherheitamt Homeland Security:

https://www.ihssnc.org/portals/0/Documents/VIMSDocuments/Morris_Research_Brief_Final.pdf

Deradicalization: A Review of the Literature with Comparison to Findings in the Literatures on Deganging and Deprogramming

This research brief reviews the literature on deradicalization and evaluates the methodology of deradicalization programs, based on the research identifying individual motivations for entering and exiting terrorist organizations, providing comparison with relevant findings in the literatures on “deprogramming” of cult members and “deganging.” Since 2002, “deradicalization” programs, which seek to induce the disengagement of suspected terrorists from terrorist activities, have been established in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Bangladesh, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009). The United States has established deradicalization programs in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and,
more recently, Afghanistan (Schmitt, 2009).

The deradicalization programs established to date have focused largely on ideological factors—seeking to “deradicalize” program participants through disputation of the content of terrorist groups’ doctrines and religious interpretations (Barrett & Bokhari, 2009; Boucek, 2008, 2009; Boucek, Beg, & Horgan, 2009; Abuza, 2009). The Saudi program has a somewhat
broader scope that fosters participants’ reintegration with their families and affords some economic assistance in the post-program period (Stern, 2010).

Review of the relevant literatures reveals a disjuncture between the largely ideological focus of current deradicalization programs and the factors found to motivate individuals’ entry into and exit from terrorist organizations.

Comparison of the deradicalization literature with the literatures on “deprogramming” of cult members and “deganging” suggests possible causes and implications of this disjuncture. Comparative review of findings indicates significant consistency in motivations for entry and exit across the three types of groups (terrorist organizations, gangs, and cults); disjuncture between those factors motivating entry and exit and the design of disengagement programs in all three contexts; potential directions for improving the efficacy of deradicalization programs; and areas for further research. These findings suggest that a shift in the methodology of deradicalization programs may yield substantially improved results.