17 ms·
U.S. Justice Department forming unit to counter domestic terrorism
- ArtDev 5y agoIt's been 27 years. I had to look it up. The Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 19, 1995. I heard the government moves slow but that is crazy.
- Panino 5y agoThe KKK was formed in 1865.
- ethbr0 5y ago1865, 1910, and 1950+, depending on which iteration
- er4hn 5y agoI'd argue the KKK is not a good example. The Ku Klux Klan Act was passed in 1871 to target and stop the klan (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act ). This was successful until the Klan was refounded in 1915, thanks to the movie "The Birth of a Nation".
- dilap 5y ago
- spamizbad 5y agoNegative 36.5 years ago? MOVE bombing comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
- Lammy 5y agoLet's make it an even negative-100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Attack_by_air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Attack_by_...
- dilap 5y agoBad, but not as a bad as routine summary execution by unmanned drones (which is standard now in other countries, but not yet deployed domestically).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zo1 5y agoNot before we see medical isolation camps and forced separation of children from parents.
- throwaway879080 5y ago
- lettergram 5y agoRelevant (8/2021): https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1426566250428211205 https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/14265662504282112... Potential Terror threats (from HHS): - Opposition to COVID measures - Claims of election fraud, believe Trump will be reinstated - 9/11 holidays and religious holidays Relevant (today, started 10/2021): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10391397/Biden-education-secretary-solicited-National-School-Boards-letter-comparing-parents-terrorists.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10391397/Biden-educ... Potential Terror threats (from DOJ): - Parents at school boards
- kstrauser 5y agoEven if those were true -- and I don't believe they are -- Washington Times authors and the Daily Mail are terrible sources to prove it.
- lettergram 5y agoDailyMail tends to have some of the more accurate reporting. They always cite their content (unlike say, CNN - go check, they always self-reference). You can see the letters in the article. I don’t know what to say, it’s clearly there. Same with the news broadcast on NBC, watched it live just searched a video and Twitter popped up).
- kstrauser 5y ago> DailyMail tends to have some of the more accurate reporting. You're joking, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability
- lettergram 5y agoThat all looks political to me... I'll stick with reviewing content with citations (and reviewing associated citations). Wikipedia is fairly partisan. Thus far, as stated, it's clear to me DailyMail provides more citations I can use to confirm the data myself. I guess to your point, I don't believe them, the New York Times, NPR, NBC, etc unless I can confirm the data myself.
- goostavos 5y agoThe global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well. ...
- mmaunder 5y agoWonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.
- cronix 5y agoYou don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.
- notch656a 5y agoThe legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.
- cronix 5y agoRight, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.
- tssva 5y agoSo there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch. The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.
- kstrauser 5y agoGood. Between insurrections in DC, women's clinics burning down, church fires, etc., etc., etc., we need a federal-level team coordinating efforts against this stuff.
- notch656a 5y agoHopefully they will start with the domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
- mulmen 5y agoThey did, you can see the consequences of that in Malheur.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mikecoles 5y agoThey tried to give Chipman a top-level position. This indicates the target of this new regime is after.
- syki 5y agoThe federal government executed a search warrant on the Branch Dravidian compound. It was a legally executed warrant and 4 government agents were killed in a gun battle. After this the FBI surrounded the compound for 51 days before using tear gas to storm the compound. A fire started (possibly due to FBI incompetence) and a lot of people died. This does not qualify as domestic terrorism. If a government can’t enforce a search warrant then it’s pretty much useless. It’s weird to use Waco and not a multitude of other legitimate examples of government law enforcement overreach. At any rate, none of those would qualify for the label “domestic terrorism” in the strict sense of the word but would suffice for a broader point you might be trying to make. To wit, are there adequate checks on the abuse of police power. The answer is no and one group that tried to bring up this issue, ironically given your apparent political leaning, is BLM. Police in the U.S. regularly mete out non judicial punishments and there are virtually no real checks against this. The common ground, perhaps, that we share is that government overreach and abuse of police powers ought to be addressed in a meaningful way before expanding police powers or creating new investigative units. Especially when the charge is to stop domestic terrorism. That phrase can be twisted and abused in a such a manner that a non violent advocate like Martin Luther King could be labeled a domestic terrorist.
- anonymousiam 5y ago
- bla15e 5y agoSo who are they going to start with, the CIA or the FBI?
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoWhen times are good and trust is high you get lone wolves like McVeigh and Kaczynski. The fact that extremist groups are able to do much of anything means their message resonates and therefore they can secure members and resources. These politicians are too busy complaining that the bird is annoying in to see the canary in the coal mine. If things were looking up people wouldn't be joining extremist movements. No task force will fix that.
- slavboj 5y ago"Terrorism" expands to fill the resources available for "countering" it.
- fuoqi 5y agoSo for all those years of fighting Islamic terrorism they did not need such unit despite huge domestic population of potential collaborators. But now they do. It sure going to end well...
- willis936 5y agoBecause there's been an uptick in domestic terrorism? As in not from foreign nationals (eg Islamic terrorists). The richest country in the world with the biggest military almost failed a year ago. Something should be done about it.
- ng12 5y ago> almost failed Is there some magical switch inside the Capitol which can turn off our democracy? I really don't understand the constant hyperbole about 1/6.
- willis936 5y agoYeah, it's called the entirety of congress and the peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power is a fragile miracle and almost having it ripped apart is not something to downplay. Say what you will, I will live in the real world.
- ng12 5y agoI earnestly cannot understand what a tiny minority of people trespassing could have done to destroy anything meaningful. Our country has survived much worse. Don't forget that same building was once burned down by a hostile invading force.
- willis936 5y agoSaying "tiny minority of people" is a flaccid lie. Watch the footage and stop lying. When has the country failed to have a peaceful transition of power? When has the entirety of congress been ripped apart by a mob of a thousand extremists? When has USA survived worse?
- 18237198371q 5y ago
- willis936 5y agoIt doesn't matter if they're your political opponent or political ally. If they're a terrorist they're a terrorist and should be prosecuted as such. No need for insurrection apologetics.
- chroem- 5y agoAgreed. Terrorism charges against antifa and affiliated "black bloc" extremist groups are long overdue.
- bilbo0s 5y agoTerrorism charges against all these nut jobs are long overdue. From antifa to the mullet mujahedin. We've got the camera footage. We've got the phone records. We've got the internet traffic. Use this new wing of the DoJ to settle all family business as it were. Sweep them all up. From foot soldier right up to financier. This nonsense has gone on long enough.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"If they're a terrorist they're a terrorist and should be prosecuted as such. No need for insurrection apologetics." Ah yes, but who will distinguish between terrorism and protest? The CHAZ/CHOP certainly had the hallmarks of an insurrection, too. Edit: Ultimately, the decision/determination to charge someone with "terrorism" will be made by a District Attorney or some Attorneys General. These positions are all political in nature and the people holding these offices are under a great deal of pressure behind-the-scenes. THAT is where my trepidation comes from, as political adversary vs. political ally has a massive influence in who gets charged with what.
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoYou think the definition of terrorist won't change whenever it's convenient for the government in power at the time?
- ethbr0 5y agoHere's the AP story: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-national-security-terrorism-899caf47624dd8741d04f73e65659e68 https://apnews.com/article/united-states-national-security-t... And in an attempt to find a universally accepted starting point, a definition: "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" I'd hope that everyone can agree it's worthwhile having a dedicated branch of the DoJ looking at incidents of lawbreaking that meet that definition, even if perpetrated by legal residents of the US.
- rafale 5y agoJan 6 doesn't fall under that definition. It wasn't systematic.
- lookalike74 5y agoIt absolutely was and there's extensive documentation on who paid for it and how it came about.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Invictus0 5y agoIt wasn't even terror.
- dkobia 5y ago5 people died as a result.
- Invictus0 5y agoQuantity of death should have no impact on whether something is terror or not. 10 people died at Astroworld, that was obviously not a terror attack. If the Boston bombings had merely injured people instead of killed them--or even if it had miraculously failed and hurt no one--we would obviously still call that a terror attack. No one is going to be scared to visit the Capitol on January 6, 2022 or 2023, unlike how people were afraid to go to las vegas or the Boston marathon after the attacks.
- kryogen1c 5y ago
- fassssst 5y agoPretty sure everyone working inside the Capital that day felt terrified.
- mikecoles 5y ago
- commandlinefan 5y agoThe Kavanaugh protesters did the exact same thing just a year prior, though, and nobody was arrested and nobody claimed to being terrified that day.
- joshuamorton 5y ago> The Kavanaugh protesters did the exact same thing just a year prior Minus the whole forced entry thing. > and nobody was arrested Also untrue (or at least equivalently untrue. People were charged with crimes, although afaict all misdemeanors because there was no forced entry or threats of violence) > and nobody claimed to being terrified that day Probably because they weren't the same.
- space_fountain 5y agoI think that's not true. I'm sympathetic to this sort of violence not being dissimilar from some violence on the left. Things like storming police stations, but people were arrested (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-us-capitol/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-u...) and it seems to me like waiting in line to sit in the observation gallery and then making some noise or confronting people isn't the same as pushing past police barricades and killing people or dragged them into a crowd and beat them (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/capitol-mob-violence-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/capitol-mob-violence-p...). I'm a person who often falls into false equivalents so it's very important for me to be reminded that these aren't the same
- pphysch 5y ago> "We have seen a growing threat from those who [...] ascribe to extremist anti-government and anti-authority ideologies," Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general of the department's National Security Division, told a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wonder what the discussions are like between the domestic security agencies (FBI, NSA, etc.) and the foreign insecurity agencies (CIA, NED, BRL, etc). Doesn't this undermine the efforts of the latter to e.g. overthrow governments in foreign nations?
- lyinglibbyliars 5y ago
- smm11 5y agoNot a second too soon.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
- joconde 5y ago> Last week he makes a very divisive speech, with language like "I will stand here in the breach to fight this battle" -- is he throwing down fighting words to incite people? After Congress was attacked to try to overturn an election, I think "battle" isn't the wrong word. > Last week he makes a very divisive speech It divides people who want to overturn elections from those who don't, I guess. That doesn't seem like a bad thing. Call it whataboutism, but his predecessor's speeches were much more divisive, and for worse reasons. Here's a quote from him before the capitol attack [1]: > “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. … > “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” To summarise: Fight, but don't be violent. Go to the capitol, cheer, but actually don't, and definitely don't be weak. We're getting hit and we're so nice [nothing else said, but that's definitely implied to be a bad thing]. I wouldn't do it differently if I wanted to incite violence while keeping a way of pretending I didn't in court. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html
- screye 5y agoIn 2062, US healthcare costs continue to rise. Congress gets together to discuss a bill to fix it. Increasing healthcare funding would put them 5% in deficit. They could reduce the military budget which takes up 50% of the total. Afterall, the US hasn't had a war since it pulled out of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 40 years ago. Yet, funding has continued going up. The Cabinet chief of domestic terrorism argues that funding is needed for domestic efforts. Those in support argue that the National institute of Domestic terrorism's (NIDT) funds are key to academic research in the sciences, meta verse and improved AI sentience. Those in opposition argue that their funding breakdown is a black box, and they need to be audited. The NIDT must be held accountable to the constitution. Compromise is struck. The Congress approves another 10$ billion for an audit and accountability department in the NIDT. Another $10b are allocated to an exploratory team on healthcare policy. President XÆA-12 calls it a historic moment. The power output of the Kafka and Orwell grave-power-plants is 10GW higher today. All is right in this world.
- chana_masala 5y agoWell written. I hope it remains fiction, though
- JaceLightning 5y ago50% of the total? The US military currently accounts costs less than 9% of all taxes collected annually.
- kadabra9 5y ago50% of discretionary spending.
- the_only_law 5y agoWith a little bit more reading comprehension ability, you’d realize this is a satirical scenario about sometime in the future.
- aaomidi 5y agoI'm not a fan of counting medicare or social security in "all taxes collected". They're collected separately (and they're also really badly designed, but whatever). So I rather us look at the amount we're spending on stuff that doesn't get a different line item on our paychecks.
- majinuub 5y agoThis is in no way going to be used to further infringe on our rights and liberties. Nope, never gonna happen. /s
- arminiusreturns 5y agoFBI et all use real terrorists as informants to generate plots then claim they stopped them, all the while those informants get off scott free and without accountability. Something like 97% of domestic terror plots adhere to this modus operandi. But its ok, just like censorship, dumbely assume its good because it will only go after those evil others... until the day you realize oops it goes after everyone but now its too late. So tired of people refusing to see the patterns at play with this stuff.
- boppo1 5y ago>Something like 97% of domestic terror plots adhere to this modus operandi. Can you support this assertion?
- arminiusreturns 5y agoOne of the best books on this is The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Maufactured War on Terrorism by Trevor Aaronson. My 97% is based on a memeory of that number being used by Mr. Aaronson in a talk he gave at politics and prose, so the exact percentage may be different the point is that it is the case in the vast majority.
- betwixthewires 5y agoI find the reference to Jan 6th funny. It tells me this is political theater and not a real attempt to stop domestic terrorism at all. And honestly, where's the domestic terrorism? The closest thing I can think of was the Vegas shooting, not known to be ideologically motivated. Before that it was the Boston marathon, which was foreign nationals, before that 9/11, which was foreign actors. And before that, Oklahoma city... January 6th? Really? Let's get real for a second on this one, partisans on the left claim this was terrorism when it wasn't and partisans on the right claim BLM protests are terrorism when they aren't. These are all protests that got a little out of hand. Do we really want a task force to deal with rowdy protests and prosecute them the same as the Boston bomber? What kind of country do you want to live in?
- trs8080 5y agohere's some! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#Post-2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#Post-2001
- betwixthewires 5y agoBut that's partisan, is there anything talking about "terrorism" as in, equally abhorrent acts without regard to partisanship? The article referenced has the January 6th protest listed there and then claims no deaths from left wing attacks, even though there are plenty of left wing protests comparable to January 6th in which people were killed. They are comparable, so it seems to me to be cherry picking what you'd call "terrorism." Any source that calls January 6th terrorism or BLM protests terrorism are not to be taken seriously for this reason. Either they both are or they both aren't, and I don't want to start calling every single disobedient act terrorism just because some people get out of hand, that's a slippery slope. The arricle puts jihadist and other right wing related violence under one umbrella, so as to pad the numbers it would seem. You can call jihadism "right wing" and you'd be right, but you'd be ignoring an ideological distinction so plainly obvious that one would be warranted in presuming said ignorance is deliberate.
- FFRefresh 5y agoWe have a well-funded national security 'state' in the United States, and a decreasing appetite to impose our will abroad. Looking inward/domestically seems like the natural response by organizations that want to stay alive and continue doing what they do. I'm not surprised that there is increasing rhetoric of the 'domestic terrorism' threat from our officials/traditional media, that doesn't have to be tied to increasing objective harm to the public by such threats. I would not expect this rhetoric to die down anytime soon, unless there are sufficient opportunities abroad for our security state/military to invest in. I know partisans want to hop on the bandwagon when their political opposition is being lambasted as the 'domestic terrorists' by the media/our officials, but they should really think hard about the precedent and power that they are bequeathing our security state. The application of that power will not just be limited to be used only on those YOU don't like.
- JaceLightning 5y ago
- tablespoon 5y agoI'm not Trumper, but honestly, I don't think this will end well. Words like "terrorism" and "extremism" are inherently subjective ideological judgements, and subjective ideological classification should has no place in domestic law enforcement. Also the way I'm hearing "extremists" and "extremism" used feels like people drawing up lines for a civil war.
- gremlinsinc 5y agoI'm pretty much a leftist but not supportive of either party.... but as I see the divides between liberals and conservatives (of which I'm neither) ... are (according to some news outlets) already starting a 'cold' civil war. If there really is a cold civil war, seems this might be to me a way for someone to at least gain the upperhand and put the military force behind one side or another... as fractured as D.C. is...and w/ elections coming up, and 2024 up in the air... I can't even tell which side would be in charge of the nation + military. I can see civil wars though coming from many angles: The current divide/conquer tactics creating polarization (check), and then it's just us vs them...(lib/cons)... Or it could be the labor class vs the elites. Because times are going to get rougher. We've got depression/stress rampant. Homelessness is rising. Wages are stagnant or were, maybe rising now because of actual labor rising up a bit... but still rent/housing is skyrocketing to the point they need to rise up in the first place... Unfortunately most people don't have any class consciousness, so it'll probably be the first one... I wish it were the second one...or the fabled "poor eating the rich scenario" ... but might be 20 more years till we get there.. 3rd option is governors and congress maybe decide to do a do-over and hold a constitutional congress and maybe re-organize more loosely like the EU as smaller city states. This would be a dream to me but hopefully we could organize into smaller states maybe where there's like 100 or even 500 autonomous cities that self-govern and maybe have some 10 year meeting of all governors to re-ratify the constitution, and add any changes, etc. A small fed govt would still exist for foreign affairs, and interstate agency management. Military would be a coalition force from all the city-states. People who live in really rural places might even live completely outside of a 'country' so to speak, if it's unincorporated, but would still have the rights as if they were in one.. like access to fire department and emergency services etc... to get the best scenarios...requires level heads and cooperation from decent politicians who have our best interests at heart.... so, we're f*ked.
- _dw7s 5y agoSo much doubt peddling, and disinformation spewed on these types of posts is astounding. I think we should permanently flag topics like these as they lead to repeated circular arguments about whether or not jan 6 was a big deal or if burning down a planned parenthood constitutes terrorism, everything is fine domestically, all terrorists are outside (or not fine, depending on which TV station your mind is plugged into), BLM AntifaCommunists China HunterBiden and other stupid bullshit. I find it so stupid that the people of a country with one of the most oppressive law enforcement legislations on the planet is getting triggered by a bureaucratic change because a 'protest went out of hand'. You have a problem with this? Go out and vote, write to your representative, run for office. Where the fuck were you when the Patriot Act passed?
- the_only_law 5y agoThese threads truly put to test the typical HN claims about site and comment quality. I’d argue that they’re off topic solely off of the description in the guidelines, but things have shifted so that the widest interpretations of the “on-topic” criteria are what determine that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Jason_Protell 5y agoI'm astonished by some of the responses in this thread. Why are so many of you upset about this development? Domestic violent extremists (DVEs) are killing more and more people every year. 2017 - DVEs caused 8 deaths 2018 - DVEs caused 17 deaths 2019 - DVEs caused 32 deaths [the most lethal year since 1995] We are talking about murderers here, primarily lone offenders. This isn't a malicious tactic for going after political opponents or free speech. "The FBI and DHS define a Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori... Are there more serious issues in America? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore this growing threat? No.
- krapp 5y ago>I'm astonished by some of the responses in this thread. Why are so many of you upset about this development? Welcome to politics on Hacker News, where nuance goes to die, all the conspiracies are true and anything that governments say or do inevitably lead to the camps. Grab some popcorn.
- seanw444 5y agoNot sure what you're smoking. I find Hacker News has the most nuance of any content aggregation website out there. Maybe you'd have a better time on Reddit?
- krapp 5y agoI'm not sure what you're smoking if you can read this or any political thread on HN and hold it up as an exemplar of nuanced thinking.
- mgarfias 5y agoWhat could go wrong
- sennight 5y agoMany years ago I had to get formally trained on the whole counter-terrorism thing. It was depressing, because of how obviously broken and compromised it was. You could clearly see that the military had done 99% of the leg-work in developing the SOP, and the bureaucrats poisoned the whole thing with their 1% contribution. Anybody who has done any reading about the activities of the USMC in its first 100ish years knows that this was a solved problem. Anyway, here is the most glaring problem that comes to mind for me (maybe it changed and is a non-issue now, dunno): the process for designating a terrorist group. 1) The group must demonstrate that it holds a disposition to terrorism. 2) The group must possess the means to wage a campaign to that end. 3) Be nominated by the Department of State Gee... I wonder where this whole thing will not only be totally broken - but eventually twisted in ways that only "conspiracy theorists" could imagine?
- boppo1 5y agoWell, I'm up $4 on my PLTR. Glad I hedged against "dystopian surveillance state"
- locopati 5y ago
- chakhs 5y agoWhat's the current definition of terrorism ?
- seanw444 5y agoI think they already had that covered. https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/feds-rally.jpg https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/feds...