As Domestic Terrorists Outpace Jihadists, New U.S. Law Is Debated

Donald Trump built that.

Anti-abortion extremists are considered a low threat? That would be news to every woman in America.

The Patriot Act of 2002 and the inception of the ominously fascist-sounding Homeland Security, that to millions reminded them of Fatherland from WWII, were the beginning of the end for Americans' civil liberties. Homeland Security Investigations operates where FBI, DEA, state and local police once did and has a more sweeping mandate: to enforce U.S. code such as Title 8, immigration law. No ruling from the Supreme Court has yet defined HSI's jurisdiction in any meaningful way. Before Congress passes yet another law that will effectively abridge our constitutional rights, we need to discuss the penetration of the police state and how much more we want from often ineffectual law enforcement.

The societal consequence of not labeling the home grown as "terrorists" is that it conveys the message that only foreigners (and mostly Muslims) ARE terrorists. That is far from the case as recent American citizen perpetrated incidents show. This unspoken message enhances anti-Muslim bias while also conveying the false impression is that the solution is to pull up the drawbridge and block "foreigners" from our soil. Yet, many more Americans have been harmed or killed by homegrown terror since 9/11 than by foreigners of any stripe.

Maybe just maybe there's less Islamic terrorism bc our govt has been fighting it effectively before it takes place.

“There is a blind spot within law enforcement about the threat white supremacy poses,” said Michael German, a former undercover agent with the F.B.I. who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. - Could this be because many LE officers and senior LE administrators and politicians agree with the principles of these domestic terrorists?? Just asking.

These extremists are traitors and should be tried as such. Not only do they carry the flags of the biggest threats to our nation, from our enemies in the Civil War and WWII, they pledge allegiance to Putin by chanting "Russia is our Friend."

The rights of white, Christian terrorists get preferential treatment. Nobody blinked when it was Muslims on the receiving end of suspended civil liberties.

We need immigration measures to stem the tide of potential terrorist. The vast majority of domestic terrorists are white, male, and Christian. There should be an absolute bar to immigrants matching that profile.

I encounter these white supremacists on Xbox Live on a regular basis. Microsoft has done nothing to counter them. I stand up to them but I'm just one person.

400 years of white supremacist domestic terrorism from 1619 Jamestown Virginia to 2020 Trumpistan is not 'news'. It's very basic American history. We've got a long way to go, and our current President - proud proponent of the deplorably racist Birther Lie - is a big part of the problem. November 3 2020

I encounter these white supremacists in online video games (Call of Duty Black Ops 4 and Call of Duty WWII) on a regular basis. They advertise their beliefs with custom made pictures in support of "white power," "white pride," depictions of KKK lynch mobs, various anti-LGBT messages, and so-called "incels." I stand up to them when I encounter them. I report them, but Activision and Microsoft have done nothing to stop them. Their imagery is still there on display inside the games themselves.

We don't need new laws to fight white nationalists. What we need is a president who considers them enemies, not valued supporters. Vote Blue No Matter Who, yes, even if it's Bloomberg.

“In the U.S., more people are killed by far-right extremists than by those who are adherents to Islamist extremism,” said Mary McCord, a Georgetown University law professor and a former senior Justice Department official for national security. This is pretty simple to explain: There are a lot more far-right extremists than adherents to Islamist extremism right here in the US of A already. We home-grow essentially all of our far-right extremists. Most of them are white "Christian" males. Maybe we should severely limit the immigration of white "Christian" males. After al ...

I am of the opinion that any new laws should address ACTS that can reasonably be termed terrorist acts. Such acts might be, for example, killing a specified minimum of people, and/or publishing a manifesto that advocates for an act which includes killing such a specified minimum of people. A law that doubles the penalty per victim (or multiplies it by a larger factor, say 5) would be appropriate for acts that are covered. Any law that criminalizes by applying a label is a dangerous law, because such a law will be enforced (or not enforced) depending on who get to apply that label. I am not comfortable with criminalizing speech unless it can be directly tied to an act that is criminalized for special (additional) punishment. As obnoxious as it seems, under the First Amendment, each of us is allowed to "publish" (that is, say, write, broadcast, etc.) political speech, even if it is outside the mainstream. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted or prohibited) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

"Not trying to be mean or anything just expressing the opinion that So and So, who lives here and works there, is a threat to Christianity and civilization as we know it, and maybe people who agree with me should let them know." And the online and actual torch and pitchfork crowd shows up, like clockwork. But hey, it's just an opinion.

I'm afraid I'm missing why "Federal laws define terrorism as a criminal attack intended to intimidate and coerce civilians in order to influence government policy or to otherwise affect government conduct." precludes inclusion of domestic terrorism. Don't white supremacists, for example, seek to influence policy or conduct through their violence? ...Andrew ...Andrew

This is not new. It's new to the public as presented but domestic terrorism has always been a concern. We all look and speak and act like everybody else here! Well, a Yankee like me from NYC Metro would stand out in some places but you know what I mean. Add to that modern telecom, menus for all sorts of weapons on line, a president who seems to give support to these people, along with the denigration of the FBI and Intel agencies (who in many cases have gone too far based upon our constitution) and you've got a potential grass roots groundswell of armed support, calling themselves while wrapping their activities in the name "2nd Amendment militia" and you've got a problem. It could be the Vietnam vet disenchanted by the way all the vets and the unaccounted missing, who surrounds his home with flags, or the guy next door with no visible political point of view that for some reason could your next nut case. ARTIE

Prosecutors already have plenty of tools to go after domestic terrorists and send them to prison for a very long time. Conspiracy liability is a powerful tool, indeed, prosecutors often take that too far. I'm not sure we need to update our legal architecture. Writing "domestic terrorism" as a legal term of art into statutes is associated with the erosion of civil rights and human rights violations. While we might applaud the destruction of white supremacists, I fear new statutes would primarily be wielded against peaceful agitators on the left, since the law and order punitive rhetoric is really the Right's thing. It's not hard to imagine a future administration where domestic anti-terrorism legislation is used to prosecute black lives matter activists or workers who are trying to organize. If calling out terrorism is the concern, by all means, call it out. Judges can easily point their fingers at Nazis and call them terrorists while sentencing them for murder or whatever. But we don't need to step further down the police-state road to deal with violent racists. The FBI just needs to investigate these people using the ample tools it already has after decades of law enforcement worship and crazy punitive legislation.

We have already lost the war terrorism . We have given up rights for the perception of security and no we are not secure and have minimized our liberties. We have become them.

It fascinates me that people are saying that anti-domestic-terrorism laws violate freedom of speech. Killing is not freedom of speech. Wanton destruction of property is not freedom of speech. We as Americans have the basic rights to say what we want as long as we do not threaten anyone to the point they feel their lives, persons, or property are in imminent danger. Cross that line and suffer the consequences.

No one is actually concerned with establishing limits on government power. From slavery to segregation to internment to police excesses to the PATRIOT act, the government has long exercised colossal power (sometimes unconstitutionally) over millions of people as long as they weren’t white. The question here is and always has been: what limits should exist on government power over white people, especially, as in this case, over white men? Limits on government power over people of other backgrounds are not viewed as necessary and never have been viewed as necessary

To many, the designation of certain groups as terrorists seems obvious and necessary. Yet, we must be very cautious in applying such an inflammatory label, lest it be used more to advance political agendas than to protect our against groups which pose an actual threat to our safety. We should not use offensive rhetoric as the criterion for determining whether a group might be a terrorist organization. If we do so, who decides what is so offensive that it creates a terrorist threat ? While white supremacists seem to be an obvious and deserving target, some, as the article suggests, might want to designate Black Lives Matter or Antifa as terrorist organizations. The perception of a group's threat to society is often affected by political beliefs. Moreover, we risk diluting the term "terrorism" so that its meaning loses the severity now inherent in its use. We cannot and should not equate those whose organized ideologly has and will intentionally cause mass tragedy with those, reprehensible as they may be, whose primary weapon is highly offensive, even inflammatory, speech. The hateful chants of the ignorant are not the same threat as a brainwashed suicide bomber intent on wanton destruction.

Reactionary republican conservatives have spent the years since Oklahoma City blocking any serious discussion and laws addressing domestic terrorism and its practitioners. Is the fact that these are people who have some views in common with the republicans more extremist fringe a hinderance to recognizing we have violent extremism here like elsewhere? There was a time that an armed group occupying government property would be cause for concern for republicans. Now they’re just one part of a diminishing minority party desperate for every vote.

"...or whether such a statute would threaten basic First Amendment rights." This is certainly an extreme interpretation on the First Amendment! First we get the absurd judgment that "money = free speech" - and look at what that has wrought! - so now we have "bullets = free speech"? Seriously? If this is true, prepare for a literal barrage of "free speech" from those wishing to overthrow our system of laws and Constitutional government.

Obviously not making progress means that the President does not support the change. I guess as with the DOJ prosecuting his friends, law and order only applies to folks who don't support Trump.

One of the key issues here is the not-so-small matter of freedom of speech. Many people with extreme opinions and viewpoints argue that this freedom should be more or less absolute - that their should be almost no limits to what people are allowed to say in a "free society". However, this is often a pretext to say things which they fully realize are going to be very hurtful or even outrightly dangerous to the particular individual or group they are targetting. Like the militia wannabe gun enthusiasts, hate-filled people need to grow up and realize that ALL rights come with corresponding responsibilities.. as in "My right to extend my arm ends where your face begins.". We need much more robust hate-speech laws in our society, and they need to be ENFORCED. When someone says things with the intent of increasing hatred or systemic bias against any normally law-abiding group of people such as for example Hispanic immigrants or Islamic people as a group, or says things which they should realize will very probably encourage violence and discrimination....they should be called on it, and in cases where it is obvious that they intended to cause harm to others through their hateful speech, they should be penalized under the law. However, so long as Mr. Make America Hate Again is in power, this type of law is unlikely to be passed, since he himself would end up in prison as a result.

How very interesting and unexpected that Republicans are opposing a law to prosecute terrorism. It's almost like they think their supporters are likely to be those caught up in domestic terrorism cases. Terrorism is terrorism - attacks to kill people or damage institutions in order to promote a political cause. Whether it's white supremacists or BLM activists, it's TERRORISM, and the laws should be made at the federal level to define it and prosecute it.

"“In the U.S., more people are killed by far-right extremists than by those who are adherents to Islamist extremism,” Trump feeds this crowd with his nonstop attacks on the press, national security, and his embracing all kinds of wacky conspiracy theories. It is part of his game plan to fill a void of doubt - with Trump.

I wonder why violence against women and trans people isn’t on that list. Maybe because it’s not considered organized? It is certainly systemic.

Like most African dictators, few outside his immediate family will shed a tear for Mubarak. In three decades of absolute power, he snuffed the potential of Egypt and relegated it to an impoverished nation while he and his cronies illegally stashed billions abroad.

Outlawing private purchases and accumulation of stockpiles of military weaponry would certainly be a good place to start, ya think?

We've seen a pretty clear trend of courts prioritizing speech rights over human dignity. I'd be very surprised if expanded domestic terrorism laws survived a serious first amendment challenge. And I highly suspect that organizations most NYT readers hold a great deal of admiration for would be at the forefront of that challenge.

Trump won't want to alienate his base.

My concern is the amount of and impact of participation with, if not condoning of, domestic terrorists by local and national law enforcement...

Yeah, because the GOP allowing some of their partisan supporters to be labelled as "terrorists" despite the acts of terrorism that they perpetrate is something that will totally happen.

I know how to combat it ... defeat Trump in November. At least take the Senate to provide a check on the most divisive (intentionally so), bigoted, racist president this country has ever seen.

All violence should be severely punished.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking angry white 'Christian' male American terrorists for decades. (They track all hate groups, but the majority of American terrorist groups are made up angry white male bigots, racists, misanthropes and other misfits) https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map These groups become more emboldened as long as a white nationalist sympathizer and National Shooting Gallery proponent is in the Oval Office. Better vote as if your life depended on it...because it does. November 3 2020

I would like to see the non-Americans deported who are responsible for increasing hate and promoting violence. People who really needn't be here, who's only contribution is to fan the flames, people such as such as Canadian citizen Gavin McInnes.

Any additional draconian "anti-terrorism" laws, and our existing ones like RealCreepyID, ought to be repealed or fixed to at least take this list in mind and focus its resources on terrorism planners and very likely terrorists instead of groping everyone with a pulse who hasn't paid the TSA "protection" money. Mislaws like RealCreepyID and the 'RIOT Act don't defend freedom, but attack freedom and make bin Laden happy.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised . . .

Without a doubt we need stronger penalties for homegrown extremists plotting violence. As Jews, who enjoy rural living, we hear our share of racist comments about people of color, immigrants, Jews... Hate abounds and diviseness at our highest levels of government is part of the problem. If both sides of the aisle could agree more often, radiating that we are a united people against ill-morality, inustice, wrong-doing at all levels, then perhaps those who hate will find fewer like themselves to bond with and create organizations that plot against fellow Americans. Ignorant haters must be stopped. However, surveillance of average Americans who own firearms comes into question. As we monitor gun sales, on-line gun shopping for hunting rifles or hand-guns, how much surveillance violates privacy? I want Homeland and F.B.I. to scrutinize possible domestic terrorist cells, but given Homeland is ranking homegrown violent extremists and white supremecists as primary threats, what happens when members of these groups are their bretheren? Racism abounds within police forces, white dominated governemental systems, and rural local politics. What to do, what to do...

Old news if you're black or brown or inconvenient in this country. The idea that jihadists were EVER the biggest terror threat to the soon-to-be majority of this country, is laughable if you know our history.

Violent white supremacy will only increase. Trump is very much the future of this country. Nearly half of our citizens love a president who is frankly racist and xenophobic. And thanks to the Electoral College, this large minority of our population may retain minority rule over the rest of us indefinitely. Three years on in the most horrific presidency in my lifetime (and I remember presidents back to Eisenhower), Trump's voters remain in lockstep with him. Why? Because bigotry IS their interest. Put simply, Trump voters don't care that they cannot afford higher education or good healthcare. They don't care that medical treatment for their sick children will bankrupt them. As long as Trump tells them that as whites, they are the only "real" Americans, they will stand in soup lines for this man. Now, for those who believe younger voters will change all this, consider that Dylann Roof was 21 years old when he gunned down 9 innocent African Americans. The Charlottesville "gang" and Proud Boys are very young white men. Trump continues to have young white males as a sizable segment of his base. And thanks to the Electoral College, their influence will carry forward for generations. Trump voters finally have a president who is as bigoted as they are. This is all they've ever wanted. Whites will be a minority in this country inside of thirty years - and this terrifies them. They will do literally anything - including committing violent acts - to hold onto power.