August 09, 2019
The Domestic Terrorism Con
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a very thoughtful essay on a scheme to allow an offricial designation of "domestic terrorists" so as t o make it a Federal crime.
As the author points out, it already IS a crime. This is a solution searching for a problem.
From the article:
Yeah, so why do it? Here's an example of our post-modern thought process in action:
Got that? It's not fair Islamic terrorists are tarred with that and people in the U.S. aren't.
The proponents of this address civil rights concerns by promising "adequate oversight". What does that even mean? I seem to remember the very same people resisting the Patriot Act because there is no way to adequately oversee such a law. In many ways they were right; we've ended up with Federal databases on all American citizens, "eye in the sky" hidden cameras, domestic spying via metadata use and tapped phone lines, etc. We had IRS abuses of political organizations. We had the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. But now the Left wants to impose all of that. Why?
Because Barack Obama weaponized law enforcement at the Federal level and there basically is a shadow government there still. His people are all embedded, and the Left knows it. They want to empower the Feds so as to suppress opposition - political and otherwise - and they don't care about civil liberties. Socialists never do.
Liberals never want to enforce existing laws; they always want new, more intrusive laws. Then they enforce them haphazardly, so when they don't work they can demand more laws and continue to tighten the noose around our collective necks. it's fabian socialism, creeping socialism. Tyranny doesn't come into the world full grown, but is born and slowly nurtured over time. That's the idea here.
I would argue this is not only unnecessary but is of evil intent.
One question; will they list Antifa as a terrorist organization? Who is going to make that determination. If they do, will they round Antifa and BLM up and ship them to Gitmo?
And what of Federalism? This is another assault on the rights of the states.
It's a bad idea whose time should never come.
Here is a very thoughtful essay on a scheme to allow an offricial designation of "domestic terrorists" so as t o make it a Federal crime.
As the author points out, it already IS a crime. This is a solution searching for a problem.
From the article:
Adding its voice to the growing chorus demanding stronger laws targeting politically motivated violence, the FBI Agents Association called on Congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. The members of this chorus are, to various degrees, sincere, panicked, and self-serving, but they all have something in common: they're advocating a very bad idea that's bound to threaten liberty more than it hampers terrorists.
"Domestic terrorism is a threat to the American people and our democracy," said FBIAA President Brian O'Hare in a statement. "Acts of violence intended to intimidate civilian populations or to influence or affect government policy should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism regardless of the ideology behind them. FBIAA continues to urge Congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. This would ensure that FBI Agents and prosecutors have the best tools to fight domestic terrorism."
Coming is it does from a labor union representing law enforcement agents who would gain another law to enforce if heeded, the statement can fairly be interpreted as an answer to the question: "Siri, what's an example of rent-seeking?"
[...]
For starters, it's not clear that there's any need to pass more laws against crimes like the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that occurred over the weekend. Murder and related forms of mayhem are already illegal in every state, and there's no reason to believe that the federal government is better prepared to prosecute crimes than state and local authorities, who have long experience investigating such acts and bringing their perpetrators to trial.
Some advocates of a federal domestic terrorism statute concede this point, but still want a new law for largely symbolic value.
"Domestic terrorism is a threat to the American people and our democracy," said FBIAA President Brian O'Hare in a statement. "Acts of violence intended to intimidate civilian populations or to influence or affect government policy should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism regardless of the ideology behind them. FBIAA continues to urge Congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. This would ensure that FBI Agents and prosecutors have the best tools to fight domestic terrorism."
Coming is it does from a labor union representing law enforcement agents who would gain another law to enforce if heeded, the statement can fairly be interpreted as an answer to the question: "Siri, what's an example of rent-seeking?"
[...]
For starters, it's not clear that there's any need to pass more laws against crimes like the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton that occurred over the weekend. Murder and related forms of mayhem are already illegal in every state, and there's no reason to believe that the federal government is better prepared to prosecute crimes than state and local authorities, who have long experience investigating such acts and bringing their perpetrators to trial.
Some advocates of a federal domestic terrorism statute concede this point, but still want a new law for largely symbolic value.
Yeah, so why do it? Here's an example of our post-modern thought process in action:
McCord does acknowledge First Amendment concerns that would prevent the designation of domestic groups as terrorist organizations the way the United States government tags foreign groups. For example, even while ruling that the government could penalize assistance given to foreign groups designated as terrorist organizations, Supreme Court justices noted in 2010 that they "do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations." But she still thinks it right to pass a law if only to put domestic terrorist acts "on the same moral plane" as those committed by largely Muslim attackers overseas.
Got that? It's not fair Islamic terrorists are tarred with that and people in the U.S. aren't.
The proponents of this address civil rights concerns by promising "adequate oversight". What does that even mean? I seem to remember the very same people resisting the Patriot Act because there is no way to adequately oversee such a law. In many ways they were right; we've ended up with Federal databases on all American citizens, "eye in the sky" hidden cameras, domestic spying via metadata use and tapped phone lines, etc. We had IRS abuses of political organizations. We had the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. But now the Left wants to impose all of that. Why?
Because Barack Obama weaponized law enforcement at the Federal level and there basically is a shadow government there still. His people are all embedded, and the Left knows it. They want to empower the Feds so as to suppress opposition - political and otherwise - and they don't care about civil liberties. Socialists never do.
Liberals never want to enforce existing laws; they always want new, more intrusive laws. Then they enforce them haphazardly, so when they don't work they can demand more laws and continue to tighten the noose around our collective necks. it's fabian socialism, creeping socialism. Tyranny doesn't come into the world full grown, but is born and slowly nurtured over time. That's the idea here.
I would argue this is not only unnecessary but is of evil intent.
One question; will they list Antifa as a terrorist organization? Who is going to make that determination. If they do, will they round Antifa and BLM up and ship them to Gitmo?
And what of Federalism? This is another assault on the rights of the states.
It's a bad idea whose time should never come.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:24 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.
1
You failed to mention that the federal government still has the death penalty. Most states no longer do, and the ones that do mostly no longer use it.
Posted by: Bill H at August 09, 2019 08:42 AM (vMiSr)
2
That is a good point, Bill. I wonder though; they gave the death penalty to Timothy McVeigh without having this "domestic terrorism" law. Is it necessary?
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 09, 2019 11:03 AM (9PLA2)
26kb generated in CPU 0.0774, elapsed 0.2938 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2801 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2801 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
