August 20, 2019
written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON, DC. There has been much debate that the U.S. needs to have domestic terrorism laws. From what we have seen, it doesn’t appear that many people, especially some in the media have even bothered to look up what EXISTING law says.
So, here it is:
Under (federal law), 18 USC § 2331:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that –
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to 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; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
— Source: FindLaw.com
Further, the 107th Congress passed the Patriot Act after the 9-11-2001 terror attacks in the U.S. that re-defied both domestic and terrorism (9-11 Commission Report, PDF 585 pps).
The Patriot Act INCLUDES laws to address, fight and punish domestic terrorism. The FBI tracks and publishes its list of their top 12 Most Wanted ‘Domestic Terrorists.’
The problem here, many laws are just not being enforced, or are not being aggressively enforced. Since this is a federal code, it is up to the federal government to enforce this particular law.
However, all U.S. states have their own specific statues regarding crime, violence, rioting and penalties thereof.
Group Targeting.
If one is going to seek to pass new domestic terror labeling laws, it should include identifiable groups who primarily are not protesting their grievances, but rather using violence against people and or property in attempt to achieve their political means.
Proposing a Bill (Shift, D-CA) that effectively reminds us of existing law is a waste of taxpayer money. Expanding government, creating new agencies when existing ones (DOJ, FBI, states) already are tasked at addressing crime is also a waste of taxpayer money.
Some politicians advocated new domestic terror laws that targets general “white supremacist” groups, but leave out other radical groups such as Antifa. Pushing to label those as ‘domestic terrorists’ when government doesn’t agree with their group views can be an Constitutional issue.
Constitutional Issue.
The U.S. needs to carefully protect the Constitutional First Amendment right for peaceful protests, and not label groups as “domestic terrorists,” when such identified groups have not committed a crime such as violence.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
— First Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
It is lawful, for a person or group who are ideologically ‘radical Left, Right or whatever, to hold signs in public forms where appropriate, and lawful to chant their grievances against government.
If persons want to be associated with a group of ideologists, they can. We don’t have to agree or support their group, but they have a Constitutional First Amendment right to peacefully protest and peacefully assemble.
All these Left or Right-oriented groups think THEIR views are the correct views. They are free to believe such whether or not their ideology is shared by the broader public. Radical Left or Right group views are not widely shared by public, that is why they are called “radicals” and “extremists.” Their respective views go beyond the generally accepted norms in society.
It is when the group shows up in effective riot gear with improvised weapons; that shows intent to not necessarily “protest;” but rather shows intent to cause harm to persons or property. When such persons encourage to take immediate, unlawful action, that is no longer protected speech, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Typically these radical groups represent a tiny fraction-of-a fraction of the U.S. population. However, the media grants these organization front and center stage cameras which creates this false notion that the members now feel that they group is significant.
The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness discussed Antifa and White Extremist Groups. When one group gets high media attention, that is just going to inspire other opposite groups to come out and get their attention.
If the media gave these groups no attention, these groups would go back to their lonely unfocused lives, and chant with each other to maintain their weak identity.
To make the groups more significant, they have resorted to public violence against persons and property, tormenting others who disagree with them, calling others fascists?
With regard to Antifa, most of the members seem to be young white middle and upper-class males, and surprising number of females, living in far-politically-left states, and where local governments are sympathetic to their cause.
The BBC reported, Antifa “will often dress all in black, sometimes covering their faces with masks or helmets so they can’t be identified by opposing groups or the police. It’s an intimidating tactic – known as a “black bloc” – which also allows them to move together as one anonymous group.”
The other group that have been seen dressed about the same are ISIS fighters/ terrorists.
Both ISIS and Antifa follow similar ideas of Anti-capitalism, Anti-U.S., Anti-law enforcement, believe they are the liberators, and freedom fighters stopping the real radicals?
Existing Laws Need to be Enforced.
Local communities can and should enforce existing public safety issues. These include citing those who impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic, disorderly conduct, and public disturbances such as rioting [18 USC § 2101].
When one shows up to a protest in effective riot gear, and or openly carrying weapons including clubs, batons, bats, mace, knives, etc., in public; and for the purpose to use such during any public disturbance (riot, violence) is not exactly a group seeking a “peaceful protest.”
In the State’s capital in California, Sacramento, cost taxpayers $800,000 in damages to city property because “protesters used improvised weapons to damage city property.”
The Do Nothing Oregon Mayor.
Some states like Oregon currently do not make it a crime to hide one’s identity if they commit a crime. Portland Oregon’s police chief, Danielle Outlaw (yes, that’s her real last name), requested the Mayor’s office to pass laws to prohibit wearing masks that hide one’s identity during public protests.
Portland’s Democratic Mayor, Ted Wheeler has said he is “not ready” to support law-enforcement’s proposed ban for wearing marks during protests.
Portland, OR. – Top 2% Most Dangerous City in USA.
According to National Council for Home Safety and Security, Portland is considered the third most dangerous city in the state (PDF), and ranks in the top two-percent of the most dangerous cities in the USA (Data retrieved 8-18-2019)(PDF).
In the preceding twelve months, just in Portland, Oregon, there were:
- 9,713 reported assaults
- 6,465 reports of vandalism
- 4,728 burglaries
- 26,111 Larceny
- 1,907 narcotic offenses
- 7,456 motor vehicle thefts
- 23 human trafficking offenses
- 68 kidnappings
- and over 763 sex offenses says Oregon PD, PDF.
In Portland, you have a 1 in 16 chance of being a victim in a violent or property crime.
Addressing the Issues.
Aside from just enforcing existing laws, local laws should address to prohibit those from concealing their identity in when commissioning a crime.
Some eighteen countries including various U.S. States have anti-mask laws. In Canada, wearing a mask while rioting carries a penalty of up to ten years in prison.
Declaring a group as “Domestic Terrorists” would add to existing law for additional federal charges. Leaders should take a hard look at the group and what seems to be their main purpose. Are they just making public speech regarding their views, or are they generally bent on creating public mayhem?
If the group’s overall intent is to create anarchy, promote and demonstrate public violence, such as attacking persons or damaging property, then you no longer have a “protest group,” but rather an unlawful assembly. If that group seeks to appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [18 USC § 2331 (B)(i) and (ii)] then yes, you do have a domestic terrorist group.
Original content copyright © 2019 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.