Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Aren’t We Prosecuting Domestic Terrorists?
We’re hearing the term “domestic terrorism” tossed around a lot these days. It seems to be a hot topic for the Left and the Right, even though people don’t really know what it means. In addition, there are indications that we may be getting closer to broadening the definition of domestic terrorism, and if that happens, it doesn’t bode well for anyone in this country.
So, what is domestic terrorism?
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover ‘domestic,’ as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ‘dangerous to human life’ that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
In contrast to Section 802, the Center for Strategic and International Studies defines it this way in one of their reports:
This report focuses on terrorism—not other issues, such as hate crimes, protests, riots, or broader civil unrest. Terrorism is the deliberate use—or threat—of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact.8 Violence and the threat of violence are important components of terrorism. This analysis divides terrorism into several categories: religious, ethnonationalist, violent-far-right, violent-far-left, and other (which includes terrorism that does not fit neatly into any of the other categories).
Please note the actions above that are not included in this definition.
In defining domestic terrorism for the far Right, these were the definitions they used:
Far-right terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by subnational or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the involuntary celibate (or ‘incel’) movement; belief in certain conspiracy theories, such as QAnon; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion.13 Some extremists on the violent far-right have supported ‘accelerationism,’ which includes taking actions to promote social upheaval and incite a civil war.
The following is their definition of far-Left terrorism:
Far-left terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by subnational or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; advocate black nationalism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism.15
Footnote sources can be seen in the original document.
Based on their definitions, they state that most domestic terrorist attacks and plots between January 1 and August 31, 2020 were committed by ‘white supremacists, anti-government extremists from the violent far-right and involuntary celibates (incels)’:
. . . far-right terrorists committed 67 percent of attacks and plots, far-left terrorists committed 20 percent, and extremists with other motivations (such as supporters of the Boogaloo movement) and Salafi-jihadists each committed 7 percent.
One of the main reasons that there has not been a strategy enacted against domestic terrorism is because the government is limited by the U.S. Criminal Codes, and no criminal statute is tied to that Code.
Also, extremist groups are often loosely organized; few resources are dedicated to pursuing the networks that do exist. And of course, there are those who are reluctant to move funding from international terrorism to domestic terrorism.
According to another report from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the FBI also doesn’t perceive that “Black Identity Extremism” and anarchists are a threat:
Current legislative debates place equal emphasis on Black Identity Extremism and anarchists. There have been remarkably few violent incidents by Black Identity Extremists; according to the FBI’s estimate, ‘Violence has been rare over the past 20 years and there is sparse evidence of any convergence.’ The FBI and DHS assess that anarchists and Antifa ‘principally target property,’ not people. FBI Director Wray has publicly called white nationalist terrorism a ‘persistent, pervasive threat,’ and America has watched white supremacists kill and wound hundreds of its citizens. To place Black Identity Extremism and Antifa/anarchists on equal footing is simply silly, and shows gross negligence by our elected leaders and great weakness by our institutions.
FPRI also calls itself a non-partisan organization.
* * * *
In spite of the biases of these reports, they present us with a great deal of helpful information; it’s apparent that they define far Right domestic terrorism as a much larger problem than the Left’s version. And the conclusions we might reach are that, with the cry for dealing with domestic terrorism, the hysteria of the far Left, and the data that suggests that most plots and activities are committed by groups on the far Right, we need to consider the possibility of the following steps being taken:
- Domestic terrorism will be broadened in its definitions and terminology to make it easier to pursue investigations.
- The U.S. Criminal Codes will be expanded and criminal statutes will be added to make prosecution easier and more targeted.
- People who appear to support the ideology of the far-Right groups, even though they refuse to accept their methods, will be watched.
- Expressing traditional ideas of the Right will become further marginalized and condemned; it’s conceivable at some point that right-leaning thought will be considered criminal.
These are only a few of the future steps that may be taken. Actions of the far-Left will be ignored or excused, just as they have been over the last several months; they will be seen as defensive actions against the far-Right.
Don’t be surprised if they start watching you.
Published in Domestic Policy
A one time I would agree. But 6+ months of BLM ACAB and AntiFa handling has indicated the definition has changed. I may not agree with some laws or even there enforcement but we should insist on EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. This no law enforcement for the left stuff while the Left’s enemies get maximum penalty has got to stop. This is why the Right is in error supporting the military and LEO. They are the tools of their own destruction. They love being used to beat on whoever big government tells them too.
Just truth.
Patriot Act.
Of course not. He was trying to get Trump. That makes all the difference.
Stand down re Gary. Please.
Being a troll isn’t an explicit CoC violation. Some responses to trolling are.
One of the tactics of terrorism is to provoke an extreme and widely focused reaction by the State, the objective being to turn the people against the State (and to increase sympathy for terrorists).
Hopefully the State is aware of this, and will proceed accordingly. Iow they’ll probably watch the Right more closely, but I’d be very surprised if they criminalised holding Right wing views, or even target those holding Right wing views the way McCarthy targeted Marxists in the past.
I get that it is still not a nice feeling to have if you’re on the Right.
The problem is that there is a chain of command in city police departments. First of all a police chief answers to the mayor, and then to members of the city council. The mayor, and the city council can make the life of a street cop a living hell, legally, and financially.
When I watched the riot on January 6, at the Capitol I knew there was no plan to protect the Capitol. One does not try to protect a building with bike racks, nor should they place police officers in a position of hand to hand combat with some moron dressed as a refugee from Custer’s last stand, or his friends dressed in battle gear.
Street cops are under the impression they have no friends, whether it’s from the Left, or from those on the Right, like David French, or Radley Balko on the libertarian side. Has David French, or Balko spent some time on ride-a-longs with cops?
They did have a friend in President Trump, but he’s gone now.
How do you justify this?
You’re quite right. However, just because a person can be a troll doesn’t mean that a person should be a troll.
Equal protection is complicated. Based on the Clinesmith case; where obstruction of justice, abuse of power, perjury, falsification of documents, conspiracy to commit sedition, … is punished by probation; the Capitol panty raid people don’t deserve any punishment. Unless you think punishment is only for the people not a member of the ruling party (aka, CCP justice).
They don’t prosecute their own kind.
I agree, @eherring! And the create all types of data to make it look like the actions of these Leftist groups are just an inconvenience, when in fact they meet all the criteria for domestic terrorism. How do we fight that??
The Democrats control most of the power inside the federal government no matter who is President. I don’t think it can be fixed. We aren’t up against a misguided party but a powerful ideology that has steamrolled over country after country leaving death and destruction along the way.
Gary, I don’t recall you promoting a similar level of draconian enforcement on the BLM rioters. Most of the Capitol crowd seemed like a rowdy frat party breaking into the university admin office, not a terrorist attack. I think most of them should get fines, community service, and probation, along with a 10 year ban on entering the Capitol grounds. If people were planning to kill people or otherwise engage in politically motivated violence, then prosecute them accordingly
This is one of the reasons I believe it is fair to view you as an enemy, not just someone who disagrees with us. You are willing to play around with the rule of law to get rid of pesky Trump supporters. Do you really want to go there?
“Offshoot” my eye. Replace “offshoot” with “arm of” and it’s closer to the truth.
I think the difference lies in the current embrace of anarchy.
I could ask you the same question. Do you really want to go there??
BLM (and AntiFa) can’t be terrorists when BLM is getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Correction from the Babylon Bee: BLM has been nominated for the Nobel Mostly Peaceful Prize.
In the Spanish Civil War, the Communists sought to coopt the Anarchists and the other Leftists.After Franco’s victory, the US coined the concept of “premature anti-fascist.” It was more palatable than “Communist swine.”
I stand corrected!! But I think the Bee says it best.
Susan, @omegapaladin, it’s really worse, much worse. We’re used to people like John Brennan spouting off but yesterday former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta; a person who I formerly thought still had a grain of common sense got into the act:
“In the war against al Qaeda, we came to understand Bin Laden motivated his followers to conduct violent attacks on US targets to destroy those who symbolized American power. He motivated them with a fundamental lie – that all those nonbelievers who did not share that goal were responsible for the failures in their lives and deserved to die. Many of those followers were poor, not well educated, frustrated by their lot in life and wanted to find others to blame. Their religious extremism made them blind to reality and to the consequences of their actions.”
Some of the same frustrations that motivated foreign terrorists are also present in those who attacked the US Capitol. They too are moved by lies promoted by their leader – Donald Trump…Terrorists wll not accept the truth of why they are wrong, but they will accept the reality of overwhelming force“
Now, think about that. No, don’t just believe that this was an off-the-cuff remark at a Washington area cocktail party. This is actually what is thought of American Conservatives. And don’t think that, in their long view, they are thinking strictly of those who were in the Capitol. They are thinking about every American that will not buckle down to their view.
Go back and read those words again; “,,,the reality of overwhelming force.”
We’re way past the rhetorical question of, “Do you really want to go there?” We, as Conservatives are now the “enemy”. It’s time to ignore the trolls in our midst and, instead, focus on what is in store for us.
It gets worse every day, CA. From Fox News:
Well, who knows what Pelosi is going to say next? However, when I see people advocating to treat Americans in accordance with “Army Field Manual 3-24: Counterinsurgency”, I take it as a major escalation in the “threat level” for Conservatives…
Much like, ‘insurrection’. They love reusing old and scary words for their chosen enemies.
It’s being framed as:
“the oath to protect and defend the Constitution never expires” is grounds for suspicion
but
BLM and Antifa street chants are “antiracist” and therefore virtuous; the organizations themselves are at worst “prematurely” fighting against fascism before the laggard governments finally get around to it.
Robert Stacy McCain has collected some headlines:
Republican extremists could doom party
to endless defeats
— CNN, Jan. 26
Rachel Maddow: GOP has become party of a
‘fringe, violent, extremist criminal movement’
— The Hill, Jan. 27
“This Is War”: Inside the Secret Chat
Where Far-Right Extremists Devised
Their Post-Capitol Plans
— Pro Publica, Jan. 28
Extremists Emboldened by Capitol Attack
Pose Growing Threat, Homeland Security Says
— New York Times, Jan. 29
Republican Ties to Extremist Groups
Are Under Scrutiny
— New York Times, Jan. 29
Domestic violent extremists will be harder
to combat than homegrown jihadists
— The Hill, Jan. 31
‘It’s endemic’: state-level Republican groups
lead party’s drift to extremism
— The Guardian, Jan. 31
He says
The Patriot Act?
It’s dizzying trying to follow the loop, the false rhetoric. I just tell myself that everything is whatever they say it is; that keeps me from going completely crazy. Thanks, OTLC.
I was upset when BLM rioters were released on their own recognizance. I was thrilled when a Pennsylvania judge refused to release a BLM rioter or set a very high bail, and I commented to that effect.
The Capitol is a sacred place, and is not parallel to a University Administrative Office. It is like saying that the Vatican, the Western Wall in Jerusalem, or the sacred sites in Mecca are just buildings.
I did go too far when I said “No bail.” I should have said “High Bail.”
Agreed.
I admire and respect most Trump supporters, like my sainted mother and my physician brother. My issue is with rioters, be they BLM or the Capitol rioters.