Late April saw a major reversal in what had been a long-running trend. Piracy on the high seas–not including the latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie–may be back on the rise after years of decline. Although recent attacks marked the first major assaults on merchant ships in nearly five years, the location of the hijackings, near the Horn of Africa, was normal. However, there has also been a rise in the number of attacks on the West Coast of Africa as well. This all comes despite major efforts following a recent peak in piracy attacks in 2008-2011. Read on to find out why these attacks are happening again and if this latest wave of pirate attacks is the beginning of a new trend or just an isolated spike.

A Brief History of Piracy

Trying to trace the history of piracy is similar to trying to trace the history of other crimes like theft or murder in that there really is no identifiable start date. Nevertheless, most estimates place the beginning of the practice sometime between 1400 and 1200 B.C. near the southeastern coast of present-day Turkey. The practice continued throughout the years, involving every Mediterranean empire and many important historical figures including Julius Caesar.

Piracy was a major tool used by the Vikings and later by the English, most notably when the Queen of England commissioned Francis Drake to attack Spanish ships during a war. The United States had its first brush with pirates in the early 19th century when Barbary Pirates from North Africa attacked its shipments and demanded tribute, which ultimately led President Thomas Jefferson to send the navy to fight back. While the frequency of piracy decreased after that, it was never eliminated outright–it mostly just shifted regions, first to Southeast Asia and ultimately to what is now Somalia.

Somali Pirates

Piracy near the Horn of Africa clearly has a long history for a number of reasons. Recently, its surge has been the result of many factors, notably the region’s significant population growth and failing economy, which is the legacy of various colonial governments cutting up Somalia into disparate parts. Additionally, many of the pirates themselves–who are generally men between 20 and 35 years old–have few employment opportunities and view piracy as lucrative means of employment. In fact, piracy has actually led to the development of many other symbiotic industries such as communications, mechanics, and food production. Pirate crews are often formed along clan lines and some believe that an important part of the reason why piracy is so prevalent in Somalia is due to the amount of illegal fishing in Somali waters. Illegal fishing has significantly depleted the resources available and is likely part of the reason why the local economy does not offer enough opportunity to young men, which forces many to seek alternative means of making money.

The video below looks at piracy in Somalia and some of its underlying factors:

Regardless of the specific reason, piracy exploded in this region and peaked from 2008 through 2011. During this time, more than 700 merchant vessels were besieged. At one point in 2011, as many as 758 individuals were being held for ransom and the costs to the shipping industry were estimated to be higher than $7 billion. Piracy became such an issue during this period that one high-profile incident even became the subject of the blockbuster movie “Captain Phillips.”  But in 2012 this trend slowed dramatically and there were no major hijackings until earlier this year.

Efforts to Fight Piracy

Although it seemed as if piracy in the area around the Horn of Africa just vanished, it was actually the result of several factors. These efforts started by land (and sea) with U.S. airstrikes and efforts by Kenyan security forces that pushed Al-Shabaab (Somalia’s Al-Qaeda offshoot) out of key areas, including the port of Kismayo. These actions along with efforts by local clans, which were irritated at the flashiness of the pirates, brought back some stability to the region.

The greatest effort, though, came from Task Force 151. As part of the U.S.-led force, NATO and the European Union sent ships to the area to protect merchant ships. This effort was joined separately by navy vessels from Russia, China, and India. The primary contribution made by these ships was deterrence, however, they did also attack coastal storage areas and capture pirates to bring in for trial. The coalition also shared vast quantities of information with merchant ships that proved very useful.

The merchant vessel operators themselves also contributed to the reduction in piracy through several actions of their own. According to Foreign Policy, those efforts include, “cruising at higher speeds, installed barbed wire on the lower decks, built ‘citadel’ safe rooms for crews, and toyed with foam machines, high-power water jets, and deafening sonic devices.” Notably, many also employed security teams, which usually consisted of people with military experience.

While it certainly seems like there was a reduction in piracy over the last few years, thanks to a variety of efforts, this may be somewhat misleading. Although Somali pirates generally refrained from attacking high-profile international targets since 2012, there have still been numerous attacks on smaller local fishing boats. In addition, some suspect that several attacks went unreported, suggesting the problem never really went away, but that rather it changed forms.

Latest Developments

Regardless of what happened during that period, piracy is unquestionably an issue in 2017. For the first time in years, a major hijacking occurred off the coast of Somalia when pirates captured the Aris-13 in March. Somali pirates also hijacked an Indian commercial ship in April. Last year marked the first time since 2010 that the costs associated with piracy have gone up, reaching an estimated $1.7 billion. The reason for this spike has been attributed to several causes. One is declining vigilance on the part of shipping companies–the Aris-13, for example, did not have private security on board and was also cruising in dangerous conditions. Aside from the shipping companies, the spike has also been attributed to famine and drought in the area along with the continued lack of stable government and law enforcement in Somalia.

At the same time, piracy is also increasing on the coast of West Africa. Namely, pirate attacks off West Africa nearly doubled in 2016, according to a report from Oceans Beyond Piracy, an anti-piracy NGO. Most of these attacks have occurred off the coast of Nigeria and have focused on attacking the country’s oil infrastructure. The attacks from Nigeria stem primarily from the country’s criminal gangs. The tactics employed by West African pirates differs, however, from their Somali counterparts. While Somali pirates tend to target large ships, West African pirates seek out the crew then go into hiding until they receive ransom payments. Part of this has to do with the nature of the local government. Nigeria, unlike Somali, has a functioning government and military, which makes seizing large ships more difficult. The presence of a functioning state apparatus has also made the need for an international coalition, like the one in Somalia, less necessary.

Conclusion

Piracy is one of those concepts, similar to terrorism, where it often seems as if the international community is pursuing the incorrect, reactive approach. Namely, instead of taking a step back and asking why people engage in piracy, we try to target individual pirate leaders in the hope that defeating them will end the scourge. In other words, we treat the symptoms instead of looking at the underlying cause.

When rates of piracy went down, the international community pointed to increased vigilance and became complacent. With the threat seemingly neutralized, protection decreased and ships started employing fewer armed guards. Unsurprisingly, piracy returned and now the community must grapple with the same problems again. If the world at large hopes to be more successful this time, it must understand the history behind this practice, and more importantly, this divided region. Above all else, though, greater emphasis will need to be placed on the cause, or at least offer an alternative, rather than simply trying to kill a few leaders and assuming that will solve the problem.

If the U.S. and its global partners really want to end piracy they need to establish a secure and functioning state in Somalia and address the food problem there. In West Africa, there is less to do since there is a functional government in place and pirates rarely try to seize entire boats, instead focusing on ransom payments for individuals. In that scenario, however, the government may need to look into addressing the inequality caused by mineral wealth that has left certain groups wanting. There is no one universal approach, other than working to target the reason why piracy exists instead of just reacting when piracy occurs.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Years of Decline, Piracy May Be on the Rise Again appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will the New Health Care Bill Pass?

Republicans are set to vote on the revised version of their health care bill today, but it is still unclear if it will pass this time. The last version of the bill failed “bigly,” but this time House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the GOP has enough “yes” votes to pass the bill. Recent changes to the bill would allow states to get waivers to redefine essential health benefits required in insurance plans, like mental health care or maternity care. Waivers would also allow insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, potentially pricing them out of the insurance market.

As late as Monday, some Republicans were still undecided, especially because of the pre-existing conditions part. But then yesterday, the GOP decided to add $8 billion to the bill to help cover people with pre-existing conditions, and some Republicans that had been undecided threw their support behind the bill. While $8 billion may be enough for the bill to pass in the House, it won’t be enough to cover Americans with pre-existing conditions.

The American people should understand that what Republicans are trying to do to health care today is a disgrace. https://t.co/rhAzY3udVL

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 4, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday April 2, a number of gunmen burst into a college in Garissa, Kenya. These attackers proceeded to separate the sleeping students into groups. They then executed 147 people, leaving a trail of carnage for the world to see. Carried out by Al Shabab, the attack targeting Kenyan Christians was another in a series of skirmishes between the group and Kenyan citizens. Read on to learn about the roots of conflict, what Al Shabab is, why the attack occurred, and considerations for the Kenyan people moving forward.

 A Brief Look at Kenyan History

Prior to contact from outside groups, modern day Kenya was home to several different indigenous tribes. However, this way of life began to change with the incursions first of Arabs and later Christian Europeans. These groups brought two different religions, Islam and Christianity, which would create lasting divisions and serve as a root cause for friction in the present day.

Islam

Islam reached Kenya first as a result of trade with Arab merchants, but also stemmed from the Oman Sultanate whose power emanated from Zanzibar, an island off the coast of Kenya. Not surprisingly then, along the coast many Kenyans became Muslims. Presently about 11 percent of the population of Kenya is Muslim. Today the Muslim population remains centered along the coast and in the north, along the border with Somalia.

Christianity

Christianity arrived much later, in the nineteenth century. British colonization led to the rise of Christianity in Kenya. Starting with its land grabs, the Christian faith accompanied every expansion of the British presence in Kenya, culminating in its colonial status. Along with British officials, missionaries also worked to spread the faith throughout the country. Despite these efforts, Christianity was still second to the traditional beliefs of Kenya. Even for those who accepted Christianity, for many it took the form of a blend of traditional practices and the Christian faith. However, following independence, the new ruling elite adopted Christianity and thus made it the de facto religion of the nation. Today, approximately 82 percent of the population of Kenya is some form of Christian. The accompanying video explains the settling of Kenya, the arrivals of Arab and European colonists, and Kenya’s arrival at independence:

 Kenya and Somalia

While the situation within Kenya is complex, matters are also complicated with its neighbors, especially with the nation to the north, Somalia. The attack in Garissa came after continued Kenyan intervention into Somalia, dating back to 2011. The incursion was triggered by a raid into Kenya by the terror group Al Shabab.

Al Shabab

The group claiming responsibility for the attack in Garissa is a Somali-based Islamist extremist group known as Al Shabab, which means “the youth” in Arabic. The Al-Qaeda linked group was the youth movement of the Union of Islamic Courts which controlled Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, until it was ousted by Ethiopian forces in 2006. While the group has lost control over major areas, including Mogadishu and the port city Kismayo, it still maintains a grip over a large swath of territory within Somalia, despite continued efforts of African Union troops. Within the territory under its control, Al Shabab practices an extremist form of Islam.

The attack on Garissa carried out by A Shabab was unquestionably grisly, however it was not the first. Rather, it was one in a long series of escalating assaults against Kenya. Prior to the attack on the university, one of the worst terrorist attacks in Kenya was also courtesy of Al Shabab. That attack occurred at a shopping mall in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, and left 68 people dead. There are many other incidents of gun or grenade attacks carried out by the group. One of the chilling hallmarks of these attacks is Al Shabab forcing people to correctly recite specific passages of the Koran in order to separate the Christians from Muslims. Although Kenya recently invaded Somalia to confront the group, these attacks precipitated that invasion, which begs the question, why is Al Shabab targeting Kenya?  The video below explains what Al Shabab is and its goals in Kenya:

Kenyan Intervention

Al Shabab seemingly initiated the mass killings in part because of Kenya’s invasion of Somalia as well as how Kenya deals with its Muslim minority population. Kenya began a direct military intervention into Somalia in 2011 along with fellow African nations to root out Al Shabab, whose kidnappings and killings Kenya claimed hurt the country economically. However, there has been a history of raids from Al Shabab into Kenya, so many experts attributed the invasion to Kenya’s increased militarization, courtesy of growing military assistance packages from the United States. Additionally, Kenya had also previously trained and armed a militia group to serve as a buffer between itself and Al Shabab in the northern border region.

Aside from direct military conflict with Al Shabab, another reason for the attack was how Kenya treats its own Muslim population. Muslims make up around 11 percent of the population of Kenya and are based mostly in the northern and coastal regions that border Somalia. This area has historically been marginalized, resulting in a lack of services, jobs, and representation in the government. It has also been the recipient of anger from Kenyan armed forces for attacks on Kenyan territory. In 1984 for example, over 1000 people were murdered by Kenyan troops in Wagalla, located in the predominately Muslim north, in an attempt to end clan conflict.

Current Situation in Kenya

So what’s next for Kenya following this massacre? On April 6, just four days after the deadly attack on the university in Garissa, Kenya launched airstrikes on suspected Al Shabab militants. While officials say the strikes were already planned and were not a direct result of the Garissa carnage, the timing is questionable. However, some are questioning what exactly Kenya hopes to achieve with the strikes, other than killing a few insurgents. As Al Shabab is already reeling from attacks in Somalia, critics worry that it would appear wiser to try to better incorporate the Muslim population in Kenya and thus eliminate the recruiting ground for the terrorist group there. As Hunter S. Thompson immortally once said, “kill the body and the head will die.”

Nevertheless, despite whatever path Kenya takes, the attacks by Al Shabab appear to point to a larger trend conflict in the area–the overall struggle taking place in central and northern Africa and the Middle East, between states and extremist groups. These efforts are spearheaded historically by Al Qaeda, but more recently by ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria. The question going forward then, is what links these groups may have to aiding Al Shabab?

Al Shabab has already begun working, at least in minor ways, with Boko Haram. In fact the two groups have communicated since 2011 about bombing plans and other tactics. Even the situation in the two countries are similar–Nigeria is plagued by a Islamic extremist group representing a northern region populated by Muslims who feel oppressed and marginalized by the existing governments. Continued and increased cooperation between the terror groups have many worried about even worse attacks than the Garissa massacre, if underlying problems within Kenya are not addressed and the Al Shabab is not successfully countered.

 Conclusion

Kenya currently faces a difficult road, but not necessarily a unique one. Kenya is now embroiled in a seemingly endless conflict with a prominent non-state actor, Al Shabab. Kenya may need to unite its own people more closely, and not just through airstrikes. This sentiment seemed to be shared by Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta in an address to the nation on Easter Sunday, in which he called for national unity and defended Islam as a religion of peace. The issue now, is whether Kenya can abide by Kenyatta’s words and unite to defeat the terror that has infiltrated it.

Resources

Foreign Relations: Why Kenya Invaded Somalia

CNN: 147 Dead, Islamist Gunmen Killed After Attack at Kenyan College

Index Mundi: Kenya’s Demographic Profile

BBC News: Who are Somalia’s Al Shabab?

Al Jazeera: Why Al Shabab has Gained a Foothold in Kenya

CNN: Kenya Airstrikes on Al Shabaab Targets Unrelated to Garissa Attacks, Source Says

Good Reads: Quotes

DW: Islamist Terror Groups in Africa and the Middle East

Horseed Media: Somalia Al Shabab Leaders in Squabble over Joining IS

NBC News: Missing Nigeria School Girls

Think Progress: Deadly University Attack Hangs Over Kenya’s Easter Sunday

Danish Institute for International Studies: Political Islam in Kenya

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Garissa Massacre: Al Shabab’s Role in Kenya appeared first on Law Street.

A new video supposedly released by the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab has mall-goers in the United States, Canada, and U.K. on alert.

In the six-minute video, a disguised member of the Somali terror group affiliated with al-Qaeda called for attacks on the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and the Oxford Street shopping area in London. Most sources have taken down the video, but you can see a still from it in the tweet below.

Mall of America increases security after al-Shabaab threat: http://t.co/pWu6sX374y – @PierreTABC pic.twitter.com/y1bwB7J3e1

— ABC News (@ABC) February 23, 2015

This is the same organization that claimed responsibility for the horrific four-day-long attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed at least 67 civilians in 2013. The speaker in the video allegedly celebrates this attack, showing graphic images while accusing Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims. He also claims al-Shabaab was responsible for the Friday attack on a hotel in Somalia’s capital.

Using Westgate as a warning for other malls, an image of the Mall of America is shown in the video alongside its GPS coordinates, sparking a swift response from mall officials. They have already begun to beef up security and are asking shoppers to stay vigilant telling CNN:

We take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. We have implemented extra security precautions; some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be.

In light of the Westgate attack, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI should be taking this video seriously. However, they initially downplayed the threat, releasing a joint statement Sunday saying that they were not “aware of any specific, credible plot against the Mall of America or any other domestic commercial shopping center.” They went on to say in the statement:

In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector, to include mall owners and operators, to prevent and mitigate these types of threats.

DHS Chief Jeh Johnson appeared on several Sunday news shows to address questions on the potential terror threat and reassure the American public that it’s “still ok to shop.” With each of his messages on vigilance, he ended with explaining why now, more than ever, DHS needs its $40 billion funding approved before the February 27 deadline. If gridlocked lawmakers fail to agree in the next three days, the department will be left with no funding while hundreds of thousands of employees are forced to report to work without pay. Congress’ unwillingness to agree is the same kind of embarrassing display that led to the 16-day-long federal government shutdown in October 2013.

So far, no mall attacks have been reported since the release of the video, but shoppers are still being urged to be careful and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior. Unfortunately, judging the legitimacy of terror threats sent through videos has become even harder when some, like those from ISIS, prove to be far too real.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mall of America Threatened in Al-Shabaab Terrorist Video appeared first on Law Street.