Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists
-
Section 2 provides a definition for “domestic terrorism.” Sounds sensible . . . until you remember that federal law already has a definition of domestic terrorism. The term is codified by Section 2331(5) of the criminal code. It’s been there for a long time, and it’s perfectly fine. So why would we need another one?
Obviously, Democrats are not defining but redefining. The point is not to clarify what is already clear about domestic terrorism. It is to carve out an exemption from the definition — specifically, to create a new safe haven for a very specific category of terrorist.
Under the longstanding Section 2331 definition, “domestic terrorism” means activities that occur primarily within the territorial U.S., that are “dangerous to human life,” that violate state or federal law, and that are intended to accomplish one of the following three objectives: 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or 3) to affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Among the best things about this straightforward definition is that it has no exceptions. As long as the activities involved meet the stated criteria, the definition “domestic terrorism” applies to any terrorist, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, or any similar characteristic. It makes no difference whether a terrorist is animated by white supremacism, sharia supremacism, black separatism, communism, anarchism, or any other -ism. If the terrorists are operating in our country, and they use or threaten to use force to intimidate our citizens or coerce our government into acceding to their demands, they are engaged in domestic terrorism. Period.
Not so with the Democrats’ new proposal. After throat-clearing about how “domestic terrorism” means what Section 2331 says it means, the proposal hastens to add “except . . .”
Except what? Domestic terrorism is heinous, so why would we want to exempt from the definition any person or group who engaged in such conduct? Apparently, to insulate domestic jihadists from scrutiny — or, if you prefer, to guard against mutiny by the Democrats’ Islamist allies.
The proposed exception states that the standard definition of domestic terrorism
does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by (A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization … ; (B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 [which relates to foreign terrorists and foreign entities] … ; or (C) a state sponsor of terrorism[.] [Emphasis added.]
In other words, if a Muslim in the United States commits a mass-murder attack because he has been inspired by al-Qaeda’s call for believers to attack American targets, or by the Iranian regime’s revolutionary jihadism, that attack would not be considered domestic terrorism.
Here’s a thought experiment: Every time the proposed legislation invokes the term “white supremacism,” ask yourself what Democrats and their supporters would say about a bill that instead said “sharia supremacism” — the animating ideology of jihadist terrorists.
As federal law has recognized for decades, all terrorism in our country poses a threat. None of it should be exempted, and all of it should be aggressively investigated and prosecuted, consistent with the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. The Democrats’ proposal is not about countering terrorism; it is about weaving a political narrative.
The shielding of jihadists is no surprise. The last time Joe Biden was helping run the government, the word “terrorism” was verboten and “violent extremism” was substituted. Out of this same epistemological haze came such tragi-comic terms as “man-caused disasters,” so determined were Democrats to avoid upsetting their Islamist allies by noticing the not infrequent coincidence of terrorism and Muslims. (Apparently, “white-man-caused disasters” can safely be called terrorism.)
Studiously unmentioned in the Democrats’ proposal, moreover, is the radical left — no Antifa, no Black Lives Matter militants, no communists, anarchists, or enviro-terrorists. Even as Portland, Seattle, and Denver remain under siege, the plan is to pretend that the last seven months of insurrectionist rioting never happened; or if it did, that it was the noble kind of insurrection.
-
Need context to judge. What is the practical effect of designating a terrorist act domestic vs foreign?
-
Certainly as described it’s consistent with common use.
No one threw around the term ‘domestic terrorism’ after 9/11.
-
@jon-nyc said in Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists:
Need context to judge. What is the practical effect of designating a terrorist act domestic vs foreign?
Exactly. McCarthy's take is, basically, "We already have this law. What's the point of amending it?"
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
The proposed ‘‘Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021’’ (H.R.350) excludes a bunch of stuff (that happens to include foreign state sponsored/inspired "jihadists") to avoid getting in the way of existing anti-terrorism laws that deal with them. Narrowly targeting "domestic terrorism" in this case is the right thing to do.
If you want to find issues with the bill, I'd be more inclined to check for potential encroachments on civil rights rather than worry about "jihadists."
-
@george-k said in Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists:
@jon-nyc said in Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists:
Need context to judge. What is the practical effect of designating a terrorist act domestic vs foreign?
Exactly. McCarthy's take is, basically, "We already have this law. What's the point of amending it?"
McCarthy is wrong. They are not "amending" the definition of 'domestic terrorism' itself for the entirety of US laws -- this bill does not 'amend' Sec.2331. It merely references Sec.2331 and says, within the context of this bill, we take the definition from Sec.2331 but exclude a few things. Other existing laws, including Sec.2331 itself and other laws referencing the definitions provided by Sec.2331, remain unchanged.
-
I agree McCarthy is misframing this as an ‘amendment’
However I suspect Justin Amash was right the other day when he said that everything that needs to be illegal post Jan 6th is already illegal, and this is just a bill designed to make it easier to investigate Americans without due process
