CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: And while the U.S. government has always been laser-focused on the global war on terror, even here, of course, domestic terror driven by racial hate has been growing exponentially. Today, President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden paid their respects and visited the families of the victims of Saturday’s mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Jill and I bring you this message from deep in our nation’s soul. In America, evil will not win, I promise you. Hate will not prevail. And white supremacy will not have the last word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: 10 people were killed. While authorities say it was a racially motivated attack by an 18-year-old self-described white supremacist. Tom O’Connor is a domestic terrorism expert and retired FBI official and he is joining Hari Sreenivasan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Tom O’Connor, thanks so much for joining us. You have been investigating so many different forms of terrorism, especially domestic terrorism, for so long now. When you hear that a mass shooting like this happens, most of us would immediately say this person is not in their right mind, right? That this person went out of their way to make sure that he was telling the world that he was in his right mind. When you look at what motivated him, it’s not so different from — or it is exactly the same as what so many of these shooters say.

TOM O’CONNOR, FBI SPECIAL AGENT (RET.): Well, if you’re able to read the manifesto, it really is taken from numerous other shooters or domestic terrorists, pieces of their ideology. And it goes all the way back to a man named David Lane who was part of The Order which was a terrorist group that robbed banks in armored cars and killed Alan Berg, a Jewish talk show host, in San Francisco — excuse me, in Colorado. And this ideology, the 14 words of David Lane, is in that person’s building of why they did this, right. So, it is so many different ideologies that have been built into this. It’s nothing new, unfortunately. This Great Replacement Theory has been weaved in throughout many different very sad events and attacks that have taken place in the United States.

SREENIVASAN: You know, I asked a question about ideology and whether there is something that binds these things together because we often have a tendency to look at these as lone-wolf actors. And I think that minimizes the connection that actually exists. That this isn’t just an individual by themselves that there is an idea and, you know, if you don’t kind of root that, then you’re going to have more of these.

O’CONNOR: Well, you know, we talked about lone actors, lone-wolf actors. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a lone-wolf actor any longer. With social media being so prevalent and the ability to communicate on encrypted apps, on social media platforms. People are pulling from narratives and conspiracy theories and radical ideologies to build themselves to the point where they attack. So, that person may have no human contact with a group or individuals. But clearly, in this case, that person had contact through, whether it be historical readings of the Christ Church shooters’ background. So, it wasn’t done in a vacuum.

SREENIVASAN: He even laid out how he was radicalized. He tells you which sites that he went to and what sorts of things that he started to read and then how he felt that he was getting the truth or his eyes were open. I mean, you know, what was interesting to me is you could substitute what he is saying with someone who was a terrorist in a different part of the world, who was radicalized by listening to speeches online. It’s the same thing.

O’CONNOR: It really is the same thing. You know, if you’re using force or violence to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government, whether you’re ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or a person who is driven by the Great Replacement Theory, the White Power Movement the act is the same. If you walk into a store and kill a number of people, what is the difference between a white terrorist and someone from another race who does this? It is — it’s terrorism. It’s what has driven the person to this. And as you said, they go online. They become, you know — they believe everything they read. And they really go to an echo chamber of people who already believe what they believe and it just reinforces it. The sad part is that the rhetoric that is out in the normal, we call it mainstream, has taken in some of this so that this radical theory of the Great Replacement, the White Genocide has seeped its way into a much more mainstream rhetoric and conspiracy theories. That because of the ability to do “Research” on the internet, people are going down that rabbit hole much, much easier than they would in the ’90s, early 2000s when people had to literally go to a meeting and sit down. They had to have that contact with someone. Now, they do have to do that. They don’t have to leave their own houses. And as this person laid right out that they — that’s how they radicalize. And that’s how they got to the point where they felt that they had to act.

SREENIVASAN: So, let me ask the question, I guess, that most law enforcement are probably struggling with. Which is, how do you protect the First Amendment which protects this type of speech, but intercept these actors before, hopefully before, they commit a mass tragedy like this?

O’CONNOR: Right. So, that is the million-dollar question. Because when you’re talking about international terrorism, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the big players that we talk about, they don’t have the protection of the constitution if they’re coming from another country, right, to attack us. When you talk about domestic terrorism, domestic terrorists, if they’re U.S. citizens, they enjoy the rights under the constitution. And the First Amendment is not called the First Amendment because it’s kind of important. It is the First Amendment. And, you know, in many cases, there are times when there may be a — I wouldn’t call it a red flag but a flag. And that flag really can’t be investigated or looked at very much because it is First Amendment protected. And the First Amendment, you know, with the FBI as the lead for counterterrorism, the First Amendment wins. And it should because we have to be very, very careful. That slippery slope of going down and investigating people for that free speech, for that peaceful assembly. If you start eroding that First Amendment, where do you stop, right? Because, you know, the speech that you don’t enjoy or I may disagree with, you still have a right to say it. The bottom line is, it’s the violence. And it’s the violence that crosses you past that First Amendment. And to be able to find that there’s a potential for violence, sometimes it is not as clear as, you know, the person made a statement. I can be — it’s a very, very fine line that the law enforcement has to walk. And the First Amendment should always be the winner in that. And sadly, that means that potentially something may get by. But there — they — I guarantee you, they are working every single day to try and make sure that those potential for violence is intercepted in some way that they can get in front of that violence so that it doesn’t take place.

SREENIVASAN: I understand why the security apparatus in the United States after 9/11 shifted to look at the rest of the world, because we perceived our threats to be primarily from outside. And I don’t think those threats are gone.

O’CONNOR: Not at all.

SREENIVASAN: But I am saying, in the past several years, America has been repeatedly attacked in this way from inside, and I’m wondering whether we have equal amount of resources dedicated to trying to figure out how to get to the domestic violence terrorist that exist in the U.S.

O’CONNOR: Well, when — your example is spot on. After 9/11, resources were shifted in law enforcement and the FBI across United States government to address those potential threats and threats from international terrorist. There — that doesn’t mean that they hired thousand new agents to go work international terrorism. That meant that they took agents from other violations and move them to international terrorism. And I don’t disagree with, that that was a threat. 9/11 was horrendous and we needed to be on top of that. Sadly, there were not as many of us left working in domestic violent extremists. And it was across United States government, a second-tier violation. And I think anybody who worked these types of violations would agree with that. And you have to look at it, if you look at the violations for international terrorism to be able to charge people with acts of international terrorism, there is a plethora of charges that can be brought. If you look at the definition of domestic terrorism and using forcer violence to intimidate a course of civilian population or the influence of policy of a government, that is the definition. There is no penalty. No one is being charged with domestic terrorism. You see people charged with hate crimes, and that may very well fit. But domestic terrorism may fit also. There are no — is no penalty in the United States for the vast majority of acts under domestic terrorism. People are charged with shooting, charged with homicide, they are charged with state and local crimes, but there is no penalty attached to the definition of domestic terrorism. So, that is a fact, which it is, how serious are we taking this problem if we don’t even have a penalty for it? People are charged, they’ll go to jail, but I still think we need to say this person is a domestic terrorist. And I think that in the United States and domestically here, we have a difficult time saying, my next-door neighbor maybe a domestic terrorist. But if you show up and shoot people for a political reason, that is terrorism. If you yelled Allahu Akbar while you were doing that, people would have no problem calling it terrorism. But because it is one of us, they have a difficulty with that. And the law has a difficult problem with that. They can’t — we have not come to the point where we say, domestic terrorism is against the law. And I think that that is an issue. How do you regulate or review the number of domestic terrorism cases in the United States if there is no way to do that? You can look up the number of international terrorism arrests, of convictions. Look up domestic terrorism, arrests and convictions, you won’t find any because there is no penalty.

SREENIVASAN: So, if it is on Congress to even come up with the penalty for domestic terrorism, I wonder then whether we have the political will? Because there is a recent poll out, Associated Press-NORC did a recent poll that found that one in three Americans and 50 percent of Republicans feel that there is a deliberate attempt that native born Americans are going to be replaced by immigrants.

O’CONNOR: It is the mainstreaming of a very radical ideology. Clearly, it has led people to use extreme force of violence in an effort to stop that white genocide. And it is the mainstreaming of that which has made it much more acceptable for the average person in the percentages you just mentioned.

SREENIVASAN: Recently, we just had Representative Liz Cheney said about that her own party, that she holds the GOP leadership responsible to enable this kind of white nationalism. Regardless of your party affiliation, at some point, it just seems irresponsible to stay silent when this is happening.

O’CONNOR: Well, I think you’re right. I mean, Liz Cheney is a very conservative person and she is, at least, saying that, hey, words matter and it’s wrong to push this theory into your news conferences you’re your mainstream, and there has to be some responsibility for that. And I was glad to see her do that, break — come out with that statement. But, you know, there has been — there have been attempts to bring a penalty to domestic terrorism. I would love to see that happen. I don’t — I honestly don’t see it happening because of the polarization in the United States right now. Acts such as this should be — it shouldn’t have a political bent, there should be not left and right saying that, oh, I get that this is wrong, but the violence is the violence. I don’t care if it comes from the left or if it comes from the right.

SREENIVASAN: Tom, I kind of want to look at in the arc of your career, when you think about how America was positioned to tackle these 10 years out, 15 years ago versus today, do you feel like there is a potential for it to get worse now or, I mean, do you see the possibility of another Timothy McVeigh style attack? O’CONNOR: Well, you know, I’ve said it many times, right now, the environment we’re in, the polarization within the United States at this time and the use of social media, which was not there in the ’80s and ’90s, early 2000s, the ability for people to, you know, view this radical thought and buy into it is worse now than it ever has been. If you look at individuals, the potential for people to go to the point of using serious violence, I think that the potential is there for this to occur more frequently than it ever has and the potential for the Timothy McVeigh type of a mindset. If you look at the personal grievances that were there in the ’90s, when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building, killed 168 people, including 19 small children, it was — the economy was bad, he felt the grievances related to the overreach of the government. So, all of these things, if you look now, you have an economy which is not good. If you look at the restrictions in place by the government for the pandemic, this is believed to be an overreach. The mandates for the shots, overreach of the government. I mean, the gas prices, all of these things work into a person’s personal grievances. All of these things that are — the pressures that are coming onto people. They don’t wake up and say, this is all my fault. It is usually the government’s fault, right? The president that is in power, the Congress that’s in some power. So, people — the anti-government sentiments right now are higher than I have seen them in the 23 years that I work domestic extremism. And there have been ebbs and flows, but it’s higher now than it has been. So, I think we need to take it very seriously and we need to make sure that we get in front of, that law enforcement gets in front of any potential violence and acts on it. As we move forward towards the next series of election cycles and the rhetoric continues into 2022, 2024, the possibility of additional attacks, I don’t even think it’s — I don’t think a possibility. I think it’s very likely to happen. It will.

SREENIVASAN: Retired Special Agent Tom O’Connor, thanks so much for joining us.

O’CONNOR: Thank you very much, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you.