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
I think you might need to revisit your understanding of the word, ‘sacred’ and your understanding of the relationship of the people’s house to the actual people.
Do you ever read what you write?
In a seminar about conflict resolution, the speaker suggested that the first step is to admire and respect the people you disagree with. I have found that to be a most valuable way to reach out to others and to understand their point of view. The large majority of people are not bad or evil people. Assume the best of others allows me to try to see the world through their eyes. I find that the vast majority of people who voted from Trump did so with the very best of intentions. We have the same goals of a world that works for everyone with no one left out; we just disagree how to get there.
So, yes. I admire a respect most Trump supporters, beginning with, but certainly not limited to, my sainted mother and my physician brother.
Ooooh, “opposition to government authority” will now be considered domestic terrorism.
The jails won’t be big enough to hold all 75 million of us domestic terrorists.
*Theoretically, though there is the constant threat from a regime that criminalizes most aspects of life, and then selectively enforces the law, with selected violators sent to the “smaller zone” as an example to the others. In both zones, writes Sharansky, “informing was so common that the intrigue alone could drive you crazy.”
One difference between the former Soviet Union and the former USA is that in the latter, in true fascist fashion, many functions of the surveillance state in the US are outsourced to “private” sector businesses who do things forbidden to the government, which then purchases the work of those corporations. In the USSR, things were both overtly and covertly done by the state.
So we don’t even bother to oursource. The govt. just does the dirty work itself. Great.
This is not supported by facts.
At all.
The Republicans are not an opposition party.
That’s a fascinating point, Drew. I realize that I don’t think they are fighting for me or any of us. On any level. Wow.
Fake but accurate.
Other way around. We outsource a lot of it to “industry” and other governments.
We are the Loyal Conciliation.
You are correct. However, when I hear the words “with overwhelming force”, perhaps they’re not thinking about holding all 75 million of us.
Now, I’m not trying to be an alarmist; after all, we’re still in the United States of America. This isn’t some sort of Red Dawn scenario.
However, this rhetoric isn’t coming from some Antifa street thug. It isn’t even coming from some Leftist wingnut teaching gender studies at Yale. It’s coming from people that we actually used to believe; people that we actually thought had a few functioning brain cells.
That’s why I’m asking folks to stop and actually consider the implications of those words; and what they mean in a society in which a great deal of our conversation can be controlled by a few pimply faced lords of the Internet.
Oops. Thanks for clarifying.
…and yet is repeated, even in “respectable” and “conservative” outlets.
They’re not. Every opportunity they’ve had to fight the left on our behalf, they’ve bailed. Except for a handful like Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, and they’re all being attacked by their own colleagues.
The permanent bipartisan fusion party doesn’t even try to hide it anymore. They see themselves as royalty. They have now literally walled themselves off from the people they seek to rule over.
(Saw a photo of the new Permanent Capitol Wall on which someone had taped a sign “Is this what Democracy looks like?”)
See the following news reports. https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-capitol-rioters-chanted-hang-mike-pence-video-footage/; https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/11/capitol-assault-a-more-sinister-attack-than-first-appeared/; https://www.radio.com/1010wins/news/politics/video-pro-trump-mob-chants-hang-mike-pence; https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/01/11/hang-mike-pence-trump-failed-day-of-the-long-knives.html; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pence-twitter-stops-phrase-trending-capitol-breach; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-allegedly-considering-trying-to-kill-nancy-pelosi-arrested-in-dc/; https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/13/qanon-nancy-pelosi-murder-plot-458981; https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-intended-kill-mike-pence-nancy-pelosi-fbi-witness-says-1562062
Susan Quinn wrote a brilliant OP. I do not want it to be hijacked by people who are upset with me over other issues. Let’s stick to Susan’s post.
Then you shouldn’t have hijacked it.
Exactly. And with links no less.
So Leon Panetta is now a conspiracy theorist, too?
And, it appears, on steroids.
Maybe something more psychoactive. For Leon’s sake, I hope so.