XPost: talk.politics.guns, seattle.politics, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: epic@obamafags.net   
      
   The storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6 has been denounced by the   
   White House, the FBI and the Justice Department as an act of   
   domestic terrorism, but one year after the insurrection,   
   prosecutors have yet to ask judges to impose the harsher   
   sentences federal law recommends for defendants motivated by   
   politics.   
      
   Instead, even as some judges have publicly debated whether the   
   charges against Jan. 6 defendants qualify as “crimes of   
   terrorism,” prosecutors have repeatedly pulled back on tougher   
   sentences, citing unspecified “facts and circumstances.”   
      
   The so-called sentencing enhancement for terrorism crimes was   
   created as a result of legislation Congress passed following the   
   1993 bombing in a parking garage at the World Trade Center. The   
   provision initially applied only to crimes linked to   
   international terrorism, but after the bombing of the Oklahoma   
   City federal building in 1995, Congress moved to expand the   
   enhancement to cover terrorism inspired purely by domestic   
   causes.   
      
   The terrorism-related language now includes federal criminal   
   offenses “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of   
   government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against   
   government conduct.”   
      
   In front of judges and in court filings, the Justice Department   
   is engaged in a delicate rhetorical dance on the domestic   
   terrorism issue. Seeking to satisfy a large swath of the public   
   outraged by the Jan. 6 riot, prosecutors have declared that the   
   event “certainly” qualifies as domestic terrorism. But they’ve   
   kept their powder dry thus far on invoking the terrorism   
   sentencing boost — potentially because its impact can be so   
   severe.   
      
   It’s also one of the existing provisions legal experts have   
   pointed to in the ongoing debate over whether Congress should   
   pass a domestic-terrorism statute.   
      
   “It takes you from a couple of years [in prison] in the   
   guidelines range all the way up to, like, 20,” said Doug Berman,   
   an Ohio State law professor and one of the nation’s leading   
   authorities on criminal sentencing.   
      
   Invoking the terrorism enhancement typically adds about 15 years   
   in prison to a defendant’s recommended sentence, sets the   
   minimum calculation at 17 and a half years, and also flips the   
   person charged into the criminal-history category used for   
   serial offenders.   
      
   While prosecutors have yet to actually call for the enhancement   
   at a sentencing for a Capitol riot defendant, the terrorism-   
   related provision is playing a significant role behind the   
   scenes.   
      
   At pretrial hearings, defense attorneys have indicated that they   
   were unwilling to consider plea deals for their clients because   
   prosecutors would not agree to refrain from seeking the domestic   
   terrorism charges. In other cases, prosecutors seem to have   
   dropped the enhancement, in exchange for cooperation from   
   particular defendants.   
      
   Critics say giving prosecutors the authority to pursue or not   
   pursue the massive sentence booster in cases stemming from   
   political protests gives too much power to prosecutors in the   
   process of negotiating a plea.   
      
   “It’s just lying there as a cudgel if they want it,” said Karen   
   Greenberg, director of Fordham University law school’s Center on   
   National Security. “It can be used so many different ways.”   
      
   Indeed, the range of crimes that can trigger the sentencing   
   enhancement is sprawling. Under current law, 57 offenses are on   
   the list, including such crimes as hostage-taking, destroying an   
   aircraft, using fire or explosives to destroy a buildingband   
   computer hacking that creates a public health or safety threat   
   or impacts national security systems. Some of the so-called   
   predicate offenses are quite obscure, including producing   
   smallpox virus or assaulting a Nuclear Regulatory Commission   
   inspector.   
      
   But many of the most frequently filed felony charges related to   
   the Capitol riot don’t appear on the terrorism list. Assaulting   
   a police officer with a dangerous weapon, a potential 20-year   
   felony, isn’t on the list. Nor is obstruction of an official   
   proceeding, another 20-year felony, or interfering with police   
   during civil disorder, a five-year felony.   
      
   About 45 Capitol riot defendants are charged with a crime that   
   is on the terrorism list: destruction or “depredation” of   
   federal property, which carries a maximum 10-year prison term.   
      
   The property-destruction charge has been leveled against at   
   least seven alleged members of the right-wing Proud Boys group   
   in connection with one of the highest-profile acts of Jan. 6:   
   the smashing of a Capitol window, resulting in scores of   
   protesters streaming into the building. Prosecutors have charged   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)