3 ms·

Why? Isn't terrorism already well defined? What's changing here?

jfengel 5y ago
What's changing is admitting that terrorism is still terrorism, even when those doing it are American citizens.
smbullet 5y ago
I don't know where you got terrorism from. The definition under question is "domestic extremism" which is not well defined. Depending on who you ask an extremist can vary between anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment to actual terrorists.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Its like pornography. You know it when you see it. * Abortion-center bombers? Clearly terrorism. * Oklahoma City bombing? Clearly terrorism. * Beltway Sniper? Terrorism. * Eco-terrorism? Such as bombing gas pipelines? Terrorism. * Blowing up a AT&T communication hub? Not terrorism, surprisingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing . Seems to be "standard" workplace grievance. (EDIT: I thought this was terrorism originally, but apparently the investigation came back and said not-terrorism) There are some edge cases: a random shooting inside of a grocery store? Well, could be terrorism, might not be. ---------- Violent actions, even those that do not result in loss of life (ex: abortion bombers / eco-terrorists), that are designed to push an ideology is terrorism. Simple enough, right? Sure, there are edge cases here and there. But in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases, there's no controversy in the label.
  - pumaontheprowl 5y ago
    By your definition, the guys who burned down the Wendy's in Atlanta are domestic terrorists, but I've yet to see anybody in the media or law enforcement refer to them as such. The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Sure there are edge cases, but the vast majority of cases I'm aware of are pretty clear cut. Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
    - stevenicr 5y ago
      I knew a girl some 15 or so years ago who was charged with terrorism in atlanta. Apparently while trying to wiggle out of being arrested she 'attempted to light a cop car on fire' - so got that charge. I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch? Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such. It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.
      - SauciestGNU 5y ago
        People have been charged under the PATRIOT Act for nonviolent pipeline protests. It's not a new phenomenon that people who act contrary to the interests of the ruling class and the ownership class will see extraordinary state force used against them.
- codezero 5y ago
  Yep, total brain fart. I totally read terrorism. That definitely changes the discussion since were using a different word.
stevenicr 5y ago
wiki entry shows it's not very well defined. However there is a mention of "Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code as "premeditated, politically motivated violence.." I'm not sure that is well defined either - Is 'assault by intimidation' violence? People yelling at you / over you while you eat? Spitting? Throwing objects at buildings? By that definition the person running over people with his car was likely not 'premeditated' - so it's outside of that. (imho - ianal etc) Is threatening violence outside the definition? adding to the gp? comment - the article does say in a couple places things like: "Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering." "“These programs almost always end up targeting Black and brown communities,” Ayoub said. He added: “It does seem that the focus...will be on white supremacy.”" other things in the article seem to indicate that this is being created to have a focus on getting data about (extremist?) white people primarily - so I think the mention of "defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington" is pretty accurate. It's been said that previous intel collecting on 'domestic terror' stuff has been focused on black/brown people (in the article) - but I'm not sure antifa info gathering qualifies as that - maybe they are referring to after 911 the NY stuff - Whichever situations they are referring to - it does appear that the big gov as a whole is and has been directed to use it's powers to collect info regarding those who sip info from watering holes that 'anything outside the center left/right consensus' And that may be more of a testament to the tech algos of recent years actually - before social media it was rare to have hundreds of thousands being “who may be radicalizing, or have radicalized, to violence.” (DHS) - with today's tech you don't have to meet at some secret hideout to talk about hurting people because you don't like their agenda - now you have fang-like that can get groups together to hate by the thousands per minute. Good on the aclu for once mentioning “The reality is that the federal government already has more than sufficient authority to investigate and prosecute white supremacist violence.” So it's gotta make one wonder - it really seems like they are setting up new fed groups to train other fed and local groups to find dirt on non-centrist 'others' specifically - and it seems they are focused on what they call extreme right wing. personally I don't see right wing / left wing - if you incite violence and destruction / intimidation it's just wrong. So is sending agents out to create drama for PR points on specific groups to make your tribe feel some type of way.. but that's been ongoing for a long time it seems - and strange to see so many okay (or just burying their head in the sand) with that, and many happily pushing for more.

What's changing is admitting that terrorism is still terrorism, even when those doing it are American citizens.

I don't know where you got terrorism from. The definition under question is "domestic extremism" which is not well defined. Depending on who you ask an extremist can vary between anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment to actual terrorists.

dragontamer 5y ago
Its like pornography. You know it when you see it. * Abortion-center bombers? Clearly terrorism. * Oklahoma City bombing? Clearly terrorism. * Beltway Sniper? Terrorism. * Eco-terrorism? Such as bombing gas pipelines? Terrorism. * Blowing up a AT&T communication hub? Not terrorism, surprisingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing . Seems to be "standard" workplace grievance. (EDIT: I thought this was terrorism originally, but apparently the investigation came back and said not-terrorism) There are some edge cases: a random shooting inside of a grocery store? Well, could be terrorism, might not be. ---------- Violent actions, even those that do not result in loss of life (ex: abortion bombers / eco-terrorists), that are designed to push an ideology is terrorism. Simple enough, right? Sure, there are edge cases here and there. But in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases, there's no controversy in the label.
- pumaontheprowl 5y ago
  By your definition, the guys who burned down the Wendy's in Atlanta are domestic terrorists, but I've yet to see anybody in the media or law enforcement refer to them as such. The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Sure there are edge cases, but the vast majority of cases I'm aware of are pretty clear cut. Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
  - stevenicr 5y ago
    I knew a girl some 15 or so years ago who was charged with terrorism in atlanta. Apparently while trying to wiggle out of being arrested she 'attempted to light a cop car on fire' - so got that charge. I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch? Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such. It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.
    - SauciestGNU 5y ago
      People have been charged under the PATRIOT Act for nonviolent pipeline protests. It's not a new phenomenon that people who act contrary to the interests of the ruling class and the ownership class will see extraordinary state force used against them.
codezero 5y ago
Yep, total brain fart. I totally read terrorism. That definitely changes the discussion since were using a different word.

stevenicr 5y ago

wiki entry shows it's not very well defined. However there is a mention of "Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code as "premeditated, politically motivated violence.." I'm not sure that is well defined either - Is 'assault by intimidation' violence? People yelling at you / over you while you eat? Spitting? Throwing objects at buildings? By that definition the person running over people with his car was likely not 'premeditated' - so it's outside of that. (imho - ianal etc) Is threatening violence outside the definition? adding to the gp? comment - the article does say in a couple places things like: "Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering." "“These programs almost always end up targeting Black and brown communities,” Ayoub said. He added: “It does seem that the focus...will be on white supremacy.”" other things in the article seem to indicate that this is being created to have a focus on getting data about (extremist?) white people primarily - so I think the mention of "defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington" is pretty accurate. It's been said that previous intel collecting on 'domestic terror' stuff has been focused on black/brown people (in the article) - but I'm not sure antifa info gathering qualifies as that - maybe they are referring to after 911 the NY stuff - Whichever situations they are referring to - it does appear that the big gov as a whole is and has been directed to use it's powers to collect info regarding those who sip info from watering holes that 'anything outside the center left/right consensus' And that may be more of a testament to the tech algos of recent years actually - before social media it was rare to have hundreds of thousands being “who may be radicalizing, or have radicalized, to violence.” (DHS) - with today's tech you don't have to meet at some secret hideout to talk about hurting people because you don't like their agenda - now you have fang-like that can get groups together to hate by the thousands per minute. Good on the aclu for once mentioning “The reality is that the federal government already has more than sufficient authority to investigate and prosecute white supremacist violence.” So it's gotta make one wonder - it really seems like they are setting up new fed groups to train other fed and local groups to find dirt on non-centrist 'others' specifically - and it seems they are focused on what they call extreme right wing. personally I don't see right wing / left wing - if you incite violence and destruction / intimidation it's just wrong. So is sending agents out to create drama for PR points on specific groups to make your tribe feel some type of way.. but that's been ongoing for a long time it seems - and strange to see so many okay (or just burying their head in the sand) with that, and many happily pushing for more.