Domestic Terrorism

[Belsnickel]

Interesting op-ed post in The Hill, recently.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/350569-it-is-time-to-make-domestic-terrorism-a-federal-crime

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2017, 04:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting op-ed post in The Hill, recently.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/350569-it-is-time-to-make-domestic-terrorism-a-federal-crime

Put it on the books. My fear is the same that it has always been. Folks will/do cheapen the meaning of terrorism by calling anything they disagree with as such.  

[Dill]

(09-22-2017, 04:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting op-ed post in The Hill, recently.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/350569-it-is-time-to-make-domestic-terrorism-a-federal-crime

Treating domestic terrorism as a federal crime would help resolve jurisdictional and legal uncertainties surrounding domestic terrorism by providing clear authorization for the investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorists under federal law. It would also help our country unify around a commonsense fact: Domestic terrorism is not a local or state phenomenon — it is a threat to the people of our country that should be confronted clearly and consistently by the federal government.

So the primary goal of a domestic terrorism statute would make prosecution easier by treating it as a federal crime?
 
The first acts of domestic terrorism the come to my mind, like those perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh or Dylan Ruf, were not particularly difficult or controversial prosecutions. I guess McVeigh's prosecution was federal because he crossed state lines. If property is damaged and people are killed, then no prosecutor will be legally confused because the act was political.

Have there been acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2017, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Treating domestic terrorism as a federal crime would help resolve jurisdictional and legal uncertainties surrounding domestic terrorism by providing clear authorization for the investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorists under federal law. It would also help our country unify around a commonsense fact: Domestic terrorism is not a local or state phenomenon — it is a threat to the people of our country that should be confronted clearly and consistently by the federal government.

So the primary goal of a domestic terrorism statute would make prosecution easier by treating it as a federal crime?
 
The first acts of domestic terrorism the come to my mind, like those perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh or Dylan Ruf, were not particularly difficult or controversial prosecutions. I guess McVeigh's prosecution was federal because he crossed state lines. If property is damaged and people are killed, then no prosecutor will be legally confused because the act was political.

Have there been acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?

Antifa re Berkeley

[Dill]

(09-27-2017, 10:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Antifa re Berkeley

Explain?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2017, 11:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Explain?

The mayor of Berkeley is a member of BAMN.  Rioters in Berkeley have been given free reign to damage property and attack people, the police being ordered to not interfere.  Eric Clanton was caught on video participating in a Antifa event after being released on bail for felony assault, an action that violates the conditions of his bail, he is still free on bail.  Yvette Falarca was arrested, again, for riotous actions at a protest by Antifa, she remains actively employed (meaning she is still teaching) by the Berkeley school district.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

What would it really change for the better?
People like Dylan Roof are still going to spend life in jail without parole, or the death penalty. Regardless if it's called murder or terrorism.

Meanwhile on the negative side, the media is going to push terrorism on every single conservative-related crime. Just like the vast majority of conservative voters are called racists and white supremacists already, just because of who they voted for and nothing else.

Are BLM and Antifa also going to be labled as domestic terrorists? What about the conservationists who blow up mining equipment or pipelines? Terrorists? Because they've been called "protesters" even when attacking police and burning down buildings. Then you have to worry... what happens when legitimate protesters start getting charged with terrorism simply because someone doesn't like their message? Will everyone who doesn't agree with the main thinking suddenly become terrorists? Or will it just be treated like "hate crimes" are, aka... unless you're live streaming a torture session of a white person because they're white, you won't be charged with them, and even then it takes like 48 hours to decide to do so.

Not to mention that then you're going to end up with thousands of US citizens being held in prison by federal authorities for suspicion of domestic terrorism. Do they get treated the same as we treat terrorists? Are we just going to have US citizens start vanishing into government blacksites?



Very very very little good with come from ever allowing the government to start slapping domestic terrorism charges on it's citizens. It's right up there with allowing the government to operate armed drones in US airspace for law enforcement purposes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2017, 11:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What would it really change for the better?
People like Dylan Roof are still going to spend life in jail without parole, or the death penalty. Regardless if it's called murder or terrorism.

Meanwhile on the negative side, the media is going to push terrorism on every single conservative-related crime. Just like the vast majority of conservative voters are called racists and white supremacists already, just because of who they voted for and nothing else.

Are BLM and Antifa also going to be labled as domestic terrorists? What about the conservationists who blow up mining equipment or pipelines? Terrorists? Because they've been called "protesters" even when attacking police and burning down buildings. Then you have to worry... what happens when legitimate protesters start getting charged with terrorism simply because someone doesn't like their message? Will everyone who doesn't agree with the main thinking suddenly become terrorists? Or will it just be treated like "hate crimes" are, aka... unless you're live streaming a torture session of a white person because they're white, you won't be charged with them, and even then it takes like 48 hours to decide to do so.

Not to mention that then you're going to end up with thousands of US citizens being held in prison by federal authorities for suspicion of domestic terrorism. Do they get treated the same as we treat terrorists? Are we just going to have US citizens start vanishing into government blacksites?



Very very very little good with come from ever allowing the government to start slapping domestic terrorism charges on it's citizens. It's right up there with allowing the government to operate armed drones in US airspace for law enforcement purposes.

Honestly,  /thread.

[Dill]

(09-27-2017, 11:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: What would it really change for the better?
People like Dylan Roof are still going to spend life in jail without parole, or the death penalty. Regardless if it's called murder or terrorism.

Meanwhile on the negative side, the media is going to push terrorism on every single conservative-related crime. Just like the vast majority of conservative voters are called racists and white supremacists already, just because of who they voted for and nothing else.

Are BLM and Antifa also going to be labled as domestic terrorists? What about the conservationists who blow up mining equipment or pipelines? Terrorists? Because they've been called "protesters" even when attacking police and burning down buildings. Then you have to worry... what happens when legitimate protesters start getting charged with terrorism simply because someone doesn't like their message? Will everyone who doesn't agree with the main thinking suddenly become terrorists? Or will it just be treated like "hate crimes" are, aka... unless you're live streaming a torture session of a white person because they're white, you won't be charged with them, and even then it takes like 48 hours to decide to do so.

Not to mention that then you're going to end up with thousands of US citizens being held in prison by federal authorities for suspicion of domestic terrorism. Do they get treated the same as we treat terrorists? Are we just going to have US citizens start vanishing into government blacksites?

LOL that is quite a slippery slope we're sliding down there, Leonard.

I am not a aware who is calling the vast majority of conservatives voters racists and white nationalists. I think some may get called that for marching in White Nationalist events though.

I think if there is left wing or other kinds of terrorism it would certainly fall under the law. Or do you think the US has a left-wing government which would only go after conservatives?  

Your question about application is valid, though.  People who want to be consistent may have to start calling destruction of mining equipment terrorism.  When it comes to protestors, I think both sides would have to be very careful.

Anyway, you and I were asking the same question. If someone walks into a Mosque and kills 10 Muslims, he will be tried for murder. What is changed if it is also domestic terrorism. I would like to raise people's awareness about domestic terrorism. But I am not sure a law is the best way to go.  It might be I just want to know how the boost to federal level would help.

Prosecution of civil rights crimes in the 50s and 60s had to go federal because locals refused to protect civil rights. I don't see evidence of refusal to prosecute terrorism yet.

[Dill]

(09-27-2017, 11:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The mayor of Berkeley is a member of BAMN.  Rioters in Berkeley have been given free reign to damage property and attack people, the police being ordered to not interfere.  Eric Clanton was caught on video participating in a Antifa event after being released on bail for felony assault, an action that violates the conditions of his bail, he is still free on bail.  Yvette Falarca was arrested, again, for riotous actions at a protest by Antifa, she remains actively employed (meaning she is still teaching) by the Berkeley school district.

I hear the Mayor of Berkely liked a post on Bamn's Facebook site. Is there evidence of membership?

Were the Berkley police disobeying stand down orders when they arrested people? Or what events/dates are you refering to?

You are describing acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?  "riotous actions" = domestic terrorism?  Can we wait until the sentences are handed down before we decide people have escaped justics?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-27-2017, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Treating domestic terrorism as a federal crime would help resolve jurisdictional and legal uncertainties surrounding domestic terrorism by providing clear authorization for the investigation and prosecution of domestic terrorists under federal law. It would also help our country unify around a commonsense fact: Domestic terrorism is not a local or state phenomenon — it is a threat to the people of our country that should be confronted clearly and consistently by the federal government.

So the primary goal of a domestic terrorism statute would make prosecution easier by treating it as a federal crime?
 
The first acts of domestic terrorism the come to my mind, like those perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh or Dylan Ruf, were not particularly difficult or controversial prosecutions. I guess McVeigh's prosecution was federal because he crossed state lines. If property is damaged and people are killed, then no prosecutor will be legally confused because the act was political.

Have there been acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?

Moreso because he blew up a federal building.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2017, 02:32 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear the Mayor of Berkely liked a post on Bamn's Facebook site. Is there evidence of membership?

Were the Berkley police disobeying stand down orders when they arrested people? Or what events/dates are you refering to?

You are describing acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?  "riotous actions" = domestic terrorism?  Can we wait until the sentences are handed down before we decide people have escaped justics?

Of course!  As soon as he liked that tweet I started following Ted Cruz on Pornhub too! 

[BmorePat87]

There's a lot of things that most of us would call domestic terrorism that do not meet the federal definition. Partisanship usually gets in the way of accepting the "dangerous to human life" part.

[Vlad]

(09-28-2017, 09:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Moreso because he blew up a federal building.

LOL
stay tuned, it's gonna be more about crossing state lines.

[GMDino]

(09-28-2017, 09:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Moreso because he blew up a federal building.

And he had aligned with white supremacists.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-28-2017, 02:32 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear the Mayor of Berkely liked a post on Bamn's Facebook site. Is there evidence of membership?

You hear wrong, he liked their facebook page, not a single post.  He's also friends with Falarca.  Would you have the same questions if, instead of Antifa, he liked a KKK or a neo-nazi facebook group?  Was friends with David Duke instead of Falarca?  Somehow I think not.

Quote:Were the Berkley police disobeying stand down orders when they arrested people? Or what events/dates are you refering to?

Simply watch footage of the actions of antifa at the scheduled Milo event and watch the police response, or the complete lack thereof.  Watch the POS Falarca assaulting a man directly in front of police and watch the police do nothing.  I have friends in law enforcement in that area and they verify that they have had orders to do nothing in order to not exacerbate the situation.  They would like to arrest everyone they observe breaking the law, but don't want to lose their jobs in so doing.

Quote:You are describing acts of domestic terrorism whose prosecution was hampered because responsibility for prosecution devolved exclusively upon local and state prosecution?

 
People are committing felonies directly in front of police and not being arrested.  If that's not hampering the prosecution of their crimes then what is?

Quote:"riotous actions" = domestic terrorism?  Can we wait until the sentences are handed down before we decide people have escaped justics?

Yes, it equals domestic terrorism when the riotous actions are undertaken against people because of their political beliefs.  Sure, we can wait, you didn't mind waiting for Trump to condemn white supremacists, so I'll be equally patient.

[Benton]

We've already got enough politicization of everything. This, to me, would just be more of it.

Anything one side can latch onto to make the other side look dangerous or evil or ignorant, they're going to. Give the courts and law enforcement flexibility to handle things and don't worry about helping politicians make talking points.

[Belsnickel]

Glad I posted this. Took a while, but some good conversation about it, I think.

[Dill]

(09-28-2017, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You hear wrong, he liked their facebook page, not a single post.  He's also friends with Falarca.  Would you have the same questions if, instead of Antifa, he liked a KKK or a neo-nazi facebook group?  Was friends with David Duke instead of Falarca?  Somehow I think not.

He liked the page then, and is "friends with Falarca." That doesn't seem conclusive evidence of membership.

Had he liked a KKK or neonazi facebook group, I would not have assumed he was a member of either.  Even if he was friends with David Duke.  If I said was a KKK member for merely liking, I would just be creating my own facts.

You may have exposed a bias on my part, though. I would not view a friend of Falarca quite the same way as I would view a friend of David Duke.  For me, anti-racism and racism do not reduce easily to the same level.  BAMN is not just an equally evil mirror image of the KKK.

(09-28-2017, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Simply watch footage of the actions of antifa at the scheduled Milo event and watch the police response, or the complete lack thereof.  Watch the POS Falarca assaulting a man directly in front of police and watch the police do nothing.  I have friends in law enforcement in that area and they verify that they have had orders to do nothing in order to not exacerbate the situation.  They would like to arrest everyone they observe breaking the law, but don't want to lose their jobs in so doing.

People are committing felonies directly in front of police and not being arrested.  If that's not hampering the prosecution of their crimes then what is?

I think everyone agrees the police were told not to arrest for property crimes.  But it doesn't look like rioters had "free rein" to attack people. At least 11 were arrested. 

But to keep on track here, are you arguing that this is a failure of local law enforcement on the level of, say, a refusal to prosecute civil rights violations in 1960 Mississippi, so a federal law against domestic terrorism is necessary?

(09-28-2017, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it equals domestic terrorism when the riotous actions are undertaken against people because of their political beliefs.  Sure, we can wait, you didn't mind waiting for Trump to condemn white supremacists, so I'll be equally patient.

 Good, then let's see what the definition of domestic terrorism actually is before we presume it can be simply applied to "riotous actions," even because of political beliefs.

[Vlad]

(09-28-2017, 06:46 PM)Dill Wrote:  Good, then let's see what the definition of domestic terrorism actually is before we presume it can be simply applied to "riotous actions," even because of political beliefs.

Hope you didn't mind waiting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235