Hi there. My name is Edwin Bakker and I'm a Professor in Terrorism and Counter-terrorism Studies at Leiden University and I'm a colleague of Bibi and Ruth. I was asked to contribute to this MOOC by exploring and analyzing a security case. The case of the Boston Marathon bombing. And in this video, we will analyze this case by applying the three phases of interdisciplinary learning, exploring, understanding, and doing. So, let us start with the first phase and explore what happened. The Boston marathon bombing was a terrorist attack that occurred on the 15th of April 2013, during the annual Boston Marathon. Some four hours after the start of the marathon, two pressure cooker bombs exploded near the finish line. Well, the explosion killed three people and injured an estimated 264 others. Two days later, the suspects were identified as being two jihadist terrorists, the Tsarnaev brothers. An unprecedented manhunt followed, which resulted in the death of one of the brothers, Tamerlan. And later that day, the capture and arrest of the other, Dzhokhar. Unfortunately, the hunt for the suspects also resulted in the death of two police officers. For more detailed information on this case, please have a look at the following links. Now that we have roughly explored the Boston Marathon case, we can move to the next phase, understanding. In order to gain a deeper understanding of today's complex security challenges, we need to apply various perspectives, different lenses. In this video we've selected two perspectives that will help us to further unravel this particular case. First, the counter terrorism perspective that looks, amongst other things, into motives of the perpetrators, radicalization processes and preventing and responding to attacks. And second, the crisis communication perspective. Which focuses on how the public and others are informed about events. And on so-called meaning making. First the counter terrorism perspective. How does a counter terrorism expert look at the Boston Marathon bombing? What questions does he or she raise? Well, probably the most important one is could this attack have been prevented? Fortunately, in general, many attacks are indeed prevented. For example, through the collection of intelligence on, and monitoring of, extremists and terrorism suspects which enables the authorities to stop the radicalization process, or the preparation of an attack, in time. Well, in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing the radicalization process is worth a closer look as it was influenced by radical speeches by an Imam and Islamic lecturer who lived in Yemen who spread his extremist ideas online, throughout the world. In addition, the internet was used to find practical information on how to make the bombs that were used in the attack. Well, this is a typical example of the increasing role of the digital world in the radicalization process and preparation of terrorist attacks. How this works and how this can be dealt with is an important research area within the field of counterterrorism studies. Let us now move on to the second perspective. How does a crisis communication expert look at the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing? Well, he or she is interested in how various stakeholders, various actors that are involved, are informed about what is happening. If the authorities and other relevant actors quickly get a sense of what is going on, and manage to deal with the fear and anger, that terrorist attacks might cause. Moreover, these experts are interested in how public and political leaders communicate about terrorists incidents. Well, let us focus on communication by these leaders. How do they explain to the public the essence of what has happened? In a crisis communication literature this is referred to meaning making. Which is political communication that includes the framing of the incident. Well, in the case of the marathon bombing the day after the attack the mayor of the city, Tom Menino, had to address its citizens at a press conference. How he fulfilled this difficult task I will leave for the next section which is on doing security. Here we will look at some of the main actors involved. Some of the key decisions they have to make. But also the dilemmas they are confronted with. So first, the counter terrorism perspective. With regards to preventing terrorist attacks. The key actors are the authorities, in particular the intelligence and secret services, and law enforcement agencies. But also possibly teachers and social workers. In addition to that, families and communities play a role, as they are closest to the people, who might radicalize to an extent they are prepared, to commit terrorist crimes. We refer to this as violent radicalization. In the case of online radicalization, providers of websites also come into play. In other words, private actors. While the main decision that has to be made is: should we monitor certain people or sites? And should we intervene if we think there is a threat of violent radicalization? And this raises all kinds of difficult questions about privacy and freedom of speech. Moreover, there are technological problems as some communication in the digital world uses end to end encryption and is therefore difficult to monitor what to intercept. Well, in the Boston bombing case, the attack could have possibly been prevented if somebody would have sounded the alarm bell about the radicalization of the two brothers. Well, although there were signs and warnings, for example Russian intelligence, government agencies in the US did not realize the danger until it was too late. And this was also partly due to the fact that much of the radicalization took place online. And that the legal and technological tools to take down websites or discussion forums for instance, are limited. So, who else could have done something? Perhaps if those that were close to the two brothers, family and friends, had been more aware about the risks of violent radicalization, and would've known who to call, their radicalization process perhaps could have been stopped in time. Well, we see this idea reflected in a growing number of projects in the US and other parts of the world, to increase awareness and knowledge about violent radicalization in general. To strengthen ties between the authorities, front line workers and ethnic, religious and political communities. And very important to build trust between these different stakeholders. And this should lead to more resilient societies that are better equipped at stopping violent radicalization in time. Well, let us now move to the crisis communication perspective. When we look at crisis communication in general and meaning making in particular. There are roles and responsibilities for political leaders and public figures. And of course the media are also an important actor. But the same holds for citizens, for you and I. Spreading messages, pictures, and videos through social media. Well, with regard to meaning making Political leaders, they are the most important actors. And in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, it was the mayor of the city. He had the difficult task to communicate his version of the essence of what happened. And in the press conference the day after attack, he framed the event as a bad day for Boston, but also pointed at the heroic efforts of those who helped the victims. He showed grief for the victims. But also stressed that Boston is a strong city and it would get through this if everyone works together. The mayor called upon people to say Boston will overcome. And by calling upon the resilience and strength of the town, he successfully managed to frame the events on the 15th of April, not only something negative and something very sad. But also something that revealed a positive and strong side of Boston. To wrap up, in this video we've applied the three phases of interdisciplinary learning, exploring, understanding and doing, to the case of the Boston Marathon bombing. While this approach has demonstrated how this case can be looked at from different perspectives using different lenses that help us to see the different aspects of a security case such as a terrorist attack. We've looked into how counter-terrorism experts and crisis communication experts look at it. As well as the variety of actors and stakeholders, and the difficult decisions and actions they have to take to prevent or deal with terrorist attacks that, unfortunately, so many countries around the world are confronted with.
