XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, law.court.federal   
   XPost: sac.politics, soc.culture.african.american   
   From: tj@buggeredthing.com   
      
   Among the most controversial proposals to address the threat of domestic   
   terrorism in the United States is the proposal for new laws that would   
   specifically address acts of politically-motivated violence, much as   
   current hate crimes statutes express society’s particular opprobrium of   
   those crimes. Conviction of a hate crime can increase a sentence by up   
   to three times, sending a powerful message that these acts are   
   intolerable and unacceptable. However, critics of this   
   legislation—including the RAND Corporation’s longstanding terrorism   
   expert, Brian M. Jenkins, and former FBI agent and now Brennan Center   
   analyst, Michael German—argue that domestic terrorism legislation, and   
   specifically the designation of domestic violent extremist groups as   
   terrorist organizations, would inevitably become dangerously politicized   
   and partisan. They fear that, using such a law, a future authoritarian   
   president could simply designate any group or movement that protested,   
   demonstrated against, or otherwise disagreed with that leader’s policies   
   as terrorists.   
      
   We believe that these concerns can be overcome. Congress should consider   
   enacting a high-threshold domestic terrorism law to formally criminalize   
   violence and conspiring to commit violence targeted against individuals   
   based on race, ethnicity, religion, national identity, sexuality,   
   gender, political affiliation, and other protected categories. A   
   domestic terrorism law of course needs to be established and applied   
   with great care. It needs guardrails and high standards, to prevent it   
   from being politically weaponized. A law that would enable the Justice   
   Department to charge only the perpetrators of lethal violence—or plots   
   to commit lethal violence—could help to ensure that it cannot be used   
   against peaceful protestors or political extremists who nonetheless   
   eschew or abjure from violence.   
      
   Given the depth of American division and dysfunction, this solution   
   might appear excessively idealistic. But, at a time when fear of civil   
   war has again surfaced, it bears remembering that this country has faced   
   profound internal strife and division before—and emerged intact. The   
   fabric of the nation was stitched back together despite hundreds of   
   thousands of deaths during the Civil War, with many on the losing side   
   putting aside their loss and resentment to build a more promising future   
   by working to re-unite the country.   
      
   Indeed, the very history of federal law enforcement and justice in the   
   United States should inspire optimism. Both are firmly rooted in   
   counterterrorism—initially against antebellum violent white supremacist   
   groups. In 1870 President Ulysses S. Grant created the Department of   
   Justice specifically to counter-far-right terrorism from the Ku Klux   
   Klan and other violent groups active in post-Civil War southern states.   
   In a letter to the Speaker of the House, Grant wrote,   
      
   “there is a deplorable state of affairs existing in some portions of the   
   south demanding the immediate attention of Congress. If the attention of   
   Congress can be confined to the single subject of providing means for   
   the protection of life and property in those sections of the Country   
   where the present civil authority fails to secure that end, I feel that   
   we should have such legislation.”   
      
   Congress enacted new laws, including the Ku Klux Klan acts, and   
   empowered the newly created Department of Justice to suspend habeas   
   corpus and arrest suspected terrorists en masse. Despite the failed   
   efforts during Reconstruction to guarantee the rights of Black Americans   
   in the South, the Ku Klux Klan as an organization was nonetheless   
   effectively “smashed.” And it would not be until nearly half-a-century   
   later that it re-emerged. A new domestic terrorism law today seems a   
   small step in comparison—but one that would send a resounding societal   
   message that there is no place for political violence in a democracy.   
      
   The Status Quo Creates Inequity and Recidivism Problems   
      
   The status quo is clearly insufficient. First, the absence of domestic   
   terrorism laws has led to an inequity of sentencing depending on whether   
   the crimes were committed on behalf of designated foreign terrorist   
   organizations or a domestic violent extremist group. There is a   
   substantial sentencing gap today between violent far-right extremists   
   convicted of violent offenses in this country, for example, compared   
   with others convicted of similar crimes for foreign groups. According to   
   the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, the average   
   sentence for those convicted in the United States of providing material   
   support to the Islamic State is 13.5 years. Violent, entirely domestic   
   extremists, however, currently cannot be charged for providing material   
   in support of patently violent domestic organizations or for planning   
   and plotting that are otherwise classified as terrorist attacks when a   
   foreign terrorist entity is involved.   
      
   Former U.S. Coast Guard officer Christopher Hasson is a case in point.   
   Violent extremists like Hasson, who amassed a small arsenal with which   
   to assassinate elected Democratic Party representatives and media   
   figures (prosecutors claimed he intended “to murder innocent civilians   
   on a scale rarely seen in this country”), are typically prosecuted for   
   other non-terrorist offenses, such as drug and gun charges, in order to   
   ensure convictions. Hasson was sentenced to over 13 years in prison, but   
   was never tried for his terrorist plans themselves. Hasson’s initial   
   sentence was instead more than tripled due to a “terrorism enhancement,”   
   that Hasson later unsuccessfully argued had been improperly used. The   
   Circuit Court of Appeals ruling confirming the judgment would point to   
   the fragility of this tool, finding that the judge had “reasoned that   
   Hasson’s rhetoric and weaponry viewed separately would not justify   
   applying the terrorism adjustment, but in combination they revealed   
   ‘that he was actually in the process of formulating a plan that makes   
   this a case where the terrorism enhancement (applies).’”   
      
   To get around this gap in our laws, in some situations federal   
   authorities appear to have resorted to using the name of a designated   
   foreign terrorist organization to secure material support to terrorism   
   charges and thus obtain longer sentences for persons convicted of these   
   offenses. This was evident in the FBI sting operation that resulted in   
   the 2020 arrest and conviction of two Boogaloo adherents who were   
   apprehended after discussing violence against government targets to an   
   undercover agent purporting to represent Hamas. In other words, the   
   legal tools available to the government were insufficient enough that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)