Could *you* be an international terrorist?
The man who drove into demonstrators and counter-demonstrators in Virginia could be charged with domestic terrorism as well as with murder. Had domestic terrorism statute existed in the 1770s, the people to whom we now refer as "patriots," "Framers" and "Founders" and to whom the Brits referred as "rebels," could undoubted have been charged with that crime as well. And, patriots who went--or wrote--abroad to try to raise money for revolution could have been international terrorists, as well. Yet, we've revered them (no pun intended) for centuries.
What is the difference between, for example, a murder and an act of domestic terrorism? I don't know all the potential differences. However, Congress made "a federal case" of crimes that a state might otherwise prosecute, like murder, perhaps even bullying "intimidation"), with all that involves--FBI, CIA, DHS, DOJ--as much alphabet soup as the feds want to drown the case in. It also puts the feds in control of framing, investigating, charging, sentencing --you name it.
For just one example, Massachusetts has no death penalty, but the federal government does. Therefore, Dzokhar Tsarnaev received the death penalty for planting bombs at the Boston Marathon and other related crimes, when Massachusetts would likely have sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of parole.
Also in Massachusetts, I doubt that state prosecutors would have charged members of a local chapter of the AFL-CIO with crimes punishable by up to twenty years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for a crime consisting of speech, albeit ugly, and/or chest bumping people involved in filming BravoTV's Top Chef in Massachusetts in order to get them to hire union personnel. However, former U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, with a record of both spurious charging and overcharging, did so. Of course, Ortiz would be impervious to local reaction, unlike a state district attorney.
As an aside, it's not as though no one had capacity to deal with terrorism before 2001: Those involved in 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were apprehended, tried and sentenced before this 2001 statute existed. And, of course, it's not only for those who hurt people. All else failing, there's always conspiracy, cover up, accessory before the fact, etc. And, as you skim the statutory language, bear in mind that many states have some criminal laws against relatively minor things that could be considered dangerous to human life, such as spitting in public.
In any event, I thought we should all know how the United States Code defines "terrorism," so I asked cornell.edu, my go-to website for the Constitution of the United States and federal statutes. Below are the statutory definitions of both "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism." Please note the room for subjectivity and the scope of the definitions. Please also note that the world wide web can certainly be said to transcend national boundaries. Also, just for kicks and giggles, note how this statute defines "person."
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113B › § 2331 - 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - DefinitionsAs used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction 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 outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(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.
(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376.)
So, y'all best not be "involved" in appearing to intend to "intimidate" any civilians, including politicians, in an attempt to influence government, now, hear? And don't spit in public. At best, it's nasty.
To all the co-conspiring Caucusers, have a great summer Sunday.
Comments
John Brown is a much more blatant case
There's no question that he did commit acts of terrorism - including murder (see: Pottawatomie massacre). But because it was in a "noble cause" (abolition of slavery), it got whitewashed out of the history books and explained away when it absolutely had to be mentioned.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Yes, but even then, murder was a crime carrying
severe penalties under state and federal laws. And you can be killed only once or imprisoned for only one lifetime (several life sentences to run consecutively, notwithstanding). So one of the issues for me is, why the need to make terrorism a separate crime?
Why, Henry, you ask?
Why do so many causes provoke the charge of terrorism? Have you so soon forgotten the snowflakes and their hurt fee-fees? If I say you (in the general meaning) hurt my feelings, then at least you ought to be flogged--or perhaps keel-hauled.
What would people be calling this in 1995?
I understand the literal meaning of your words, Big Al, but
I may be missing what you mean by the question. Do you mean that Americans in 1995 would not have put up with this? (I never do well with the Socratic method. Sigh.)
Nah, just an old peeve of mine about the war OF terror.
After 9/11 and the permanent war of terror began, the democrats on Daily Kos started calling everything and anything terrorism. I railed against it telling people they were falling for a false narrative and helping to solidify this permanent police and war state based on terror.
So I was referencing that in 1995 people wouldn't have been so quick to label this dude driving his car into people as terrorism because it wouldn't have been so ingrained into them by our rulers. I've seen it from the right and the left, it's almost as if we want to use it against ourselves now.
Exactly.
@HenryAWallace
9/11 not only has a lot of unanswered questions, but a lot to answer for...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
They sure jumped all over it legislatively and
functionally, didn't they? Homeland Security, domestic terrorism, etc.
I guess I don't understand the essay.
What's the point? This isn't terrorism? Those people being mowed down shouldn't have felt terrorized? The fellow driving the car had good intentions toward those people?
We are all potential terrorists, as you note in your narrative about the people founding the USofA. What is the point you are making about yesterday's horrific events? These were just white folks out on a picnic with their flags and costumes? All had good intentions toward their fellow human?
What is your point?
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Candidly, your questions could only
insult anyone to whom they were addressed.
Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am not so lacking in empathy as to imagine that that people being mowed down should not have felt terrorized, or perhaps just old-fashioned terror, horror, etc. And, if that were my point, I certainly could have made that point without quoting an entire statute, bolding it strategically and writing about it. Nor am I so brainless as to imagine that the murderer had only good intentions toward his victims.
Reading my reply to The Maven and Al's reply to me upthread may get you closer to the point of the essay, which is clearly about government and the statute. And I don't think we are all potential terrorists, but that, if government tried hard enough, it might be able to get a conviction of innocent people, given the way the statute is written and the general hysteria about terrorism since 911.
So, are you saying
the act should just be a crime and not classified separately as a terrorism act? If so, then I agree, as your point would then be clarified, and apologize for misinterpreting the intent of your essay.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
My essay and other replies say what I am saying.
And my reaction was not due to a mere misunderstanding. You misinterpreting my intent would not have been a problem for me if the nature of your questions had been different. I don't imagine that everyone should understand everything I write. I do imagine that readers, especially here, won't assume or imply I'm some kind of brainless monster simply because they don't understand an essay.
Well, you've driven your point home
…and taken no prisoners.
You can afford to be gracious. You are in a community of people who like and trust you.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Agreeing with Pluto, I think Henry made his point well
This terrorism definition, whether "foreign" or domestic" terrorism is written so as to give so much latitude to the state in order to justifying anybody to be locked for anything. Written in the spirit of the fallaciously labeled "Patriot Act".
Thank you, AE.
Odd. I was not ungracious. I did not
drive my points home and then some and take no prisoners. I defended myself against an unprovoked attack on my humanity. I did not even respond in kind, not making any personal attack. Although that kind of attack on me did not inspire my usual painstaking explanations, I even pointed the poster to posts that might help with understanding the essay.
If you think me ungracious to note that apologizing for something unintentional, like misunderstanding an essay, does not address or take any responsibility for an intentional personal attack, then we disagree.
I might see a rational use for the federal statue
when I see it utilized to prosecute policemen who get away with shooting suspects.
Just this week a local deputy apparently couldn't subdue an elderly man who, rumor has it, was intoxicated. It is rumored he told the deputy he was carrying a pistol. What is fact is that the shooting victim did have a pistol in his possession and that he was legal to carry it. Another fact is that in the last 18 months, the deputy had shot and killed 2 suspects, resigned from one police force, and got hired by our sheriff, and promptly shot his 3rd suspect. The victim is still in the hospital, so I hope he will be able to offer up his version of the event.
The deputy was cleared of wrongdoing in the 2 fatalities. The investigation of this 3rd shooting is under exceptionally tight wraps.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks. I understand what you are saying, but
there are already federal and state laws that take care of that.
For example, there is no reason a policeman who kills someone wrongfully cannot be tried for murder under state law. One problem is that prosecutor don't like to prosecute them. Another is that, between the instructions prosecutors and judges give jurors, and jurors' own feelings, juries tend to acquit. And I'm sure a lot is said during the trial by the defense about how a cop goes out every day not knowing if he or she will see the spouse and kiddoes that evening, etc. And how, if jurors send this cop up the rivers, other cops will be afraid to do their duty to protect the community and stuff like that.
If I were a cop, I might waive my right to a jury trial and take my chances with the judge, especially if I have testified before him or her in the past to help convict some killer or crook. Cops, prosecutors and judges = our criminal justice system.
As for the feds, they have powers under the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, which have been translated into statutes. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Cops, like most members of a strong union, used to be Democrats. Then, during the civil rights era, the left began making a lot of noise about police brutality, civilian review boards and the like. Yadda, yadda, the cops went to the "law and order" right. (Firemen did the same, though I am not sure why--maybe just affinity with their fellow first responders?) That's a lot of votes, so politicians don't want to take chances ruffling cops unless they must. And that won't change, no matter how many more statutes the D of J gets to work with.
Oops. Look who I'm telling. I wrote this reply before I noticed I was replying to you, you, on the cusp. My apologies. You know all this far better than I, but I'll leave the rest of the reply here anyway. Maybe other readers will find some of it informative.
@HenryAWallace I was actually going to
I was actually going to mention that state prosecutors are elected, feds are appointed, and that does bring a state prosecutor face to face with an indoctrinated jury pool.
Nice that you brought up the relationship between the police and state prosecutors. They must make each other constantly look good.
Bottom line: the federal statute is unnecessary and ineffective. It just might, however, keep the police in line if every one of them was called a terrorist.
That local cop is viewed by all the 23,000 people in my little county as a nut job terrorist. If the sheriff doesn't fire him, the sheriff will draw an opponent. The terrorist will be fired, not prosecuted.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks. Great point about being elected, but that does cut two
ways. I don't mean in cases involving cops, where the feds already have all the power they need to deal with people acting "under color of law" and could enact even more. That the feds are not accountable to anyone in the state is a two-edged sword as far as people like me, who are not cops. So you get a Carmen Ortiz, overcharging someone until he commits suicide.
"Terror" is a very loosely defined word,
and sticking "ism" on the end of it doesn't make it any clearer. I think we'd be better off not using it in our legal statutes at all. Deliberately driving a car into a crowd of people is a crime that can be successfully prosecuted without any reference to "terror" or "terrorism", so why add another layer of complexity atop an already complex legal code?
native
Spot on, as usual, native.
Bushco was street smart to dub endless war as war on terrbviouslyor. Terror is a one kind of fear. And who doesn't want to conquer terror?
"Terrorism" at least takes "War on Terror out of the pretense that the US is fighting an emotion few of us enjoy experiencing. Still, I obviously agree with you wholeheartedly that we should question why we needed another statute when we already have the means to prosecute every conceivable crime? The feds just wanted to grab hold of the whole field and, in my experience, that's seldom a good thing these days.
Thanks to Chris Hedges...
At least there is a "Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Military Detention in NDAA Issued by Federal Judge". So at least the culprit won't be shipped off to a black prison site...they will be isolated and hidden in our domestic ones.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10021335045
If we would look in the mirror it would be easy to see that we are the terrorists.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/12/31/biggest-threat-world-peace-...
International polls shows that the world, including significant portion of Americans, deem US as greatest obstacle to peace.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Great find, Lookout. Yes, we are certainly, um, "active"
players on the world stage. I think--not consciously, but in the back of my mind, I had in mind that the statute in the essay was all of a piece with creation of Homeland Security, including provisions later invalidated, like librarians tracking the books we checked out. After decades of the FBI surveilling Presidents, Martin Luther King, the civil rights and peace movements, and activists of various kinds, I worry that the left will be prosecuted under statutes like this.
Gandhi was a domestic terrorist ?
no good down this line.
protestors become insurgents and terrorists against whom violence is necessary & justified.
could mean anyone.
boy oh boy.
Thank you, irishking. You got it.