Another opinion, we don't need a domestic terrorism statute i.e. remember 'The Patriot Act'

 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN on Sunday that last weekend’s massacre at a Buffalo supermarket, allegedly perpetrated by an overt white supremacist, was “domestic terrorism.”

Payton Gendron’s suspected manifesto appears to show that he did hope to inflict terror on the Black community. His goals were political, making “terrorism” seem to be an appropriate label for his actions.

But if the two decades since 9/11 should have taught us anything, it’s that the government can and will use fears of “terrorism” to surveil, prosecute, and harass any number of people and communities—especially racial and religious minorities—no matter how specious their ties to terrorism actually are, wrote Lucy Steigerwald for The Daily Beast.

Nevertheless, Pelosi and other Democrats continue to push the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 350). This bill would add new offices and funding to the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and Department of Justice. Most concerning is the enhancement in “information sharing” between the offices and state and local law enforcement.

Vast surveillance dragnets already catch up the data of millions of Americans. Federal agencies—from the FBI to the NSA to ICE—have nearly unfettered access to data revealing the movements and faces of practically everyone in this country.

Supposedly tailored restrictions, such as the No-Fly List, are still too vast to catch dangerous people, not to mention the fact that they frequently place completely innocent people under government suspicion. And it’s still nearly impossible to challenge the list of scores of thousands of names of people whose right to travel in US airspace is gone without trial or even being informed.

The Patriot Act made it easier to spy on and harass countless innocent Muslims, particularly in New York City.

And though racial and religious minorities will suffer the most under the weight of any new “domestic terror” law, political radicals and “extremists” (i.e., people with unpopular politics) should not be forgotten. Plenty of groups that you may not like or entirely condone are not necessarily terrorists, but they are called potentially violent and dangerous by the federal government.

In 2005, the FBI dubbed environmentalists the most dangerous domestic threat. You don’t have to agree with—or want to decriminalize all of their activities (usually trespassing, theft, and property damage)—to realize this is absurd. The FBI considers Juggalos, those enthusiastic fans of the band Insane Clown Posse, to be a gang threat. An 18-year-old rapper was nearly charged with terrorism in the wake of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Another rapper was charged with terrorism for anti-police lyrics.

The FBI even labeled Black Lives Matter a “Black Identity Extremism movement” to justify its secret surveillance program targeting the movement.

The overbroad labeling of “suspected terrorists” or people suspected of “ties to terrorism” went into hyperdrive after 9/11, but its roots stretch back a few years earlier.

After a white supremacist bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people, then-President Bill Clinton pushed through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This was the proto-Patriot Act, increasing the government’s investigation and surveillance scope. It also damaged the constitutional habeas corpus rights of prisoners, meaning that innocent people (or those who had a lousy defense at trial) had fewer opportunities to challenge their status.

John Oliver cited the AEDPA in a March 2022 episode of Last Week Tonight on wrongful imprisonment and the impending execution (currently stayed) of Melissa Lucio, who many advocates believe to be innocent of killing her daughter. She’s not exactly Timothy McVeigh, but she is exactly the kind of person who is swept up in the dragnet of “good” legislation passed by politicians desperate to show they are “doing something” in the wake of a tragedy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has repeatedly stressed that the AEDPA was fatally flawed legislation. And there are so many more where that came from. “We can’t prosecute our way out of racism,” as ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said on a post-Jan. 6 ACLU podcast.

The Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol fueled calls for new anti-terror legislation.

But it was Democratic “Squad” members—including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as the lone dissenting vote in 2001 against authorizing the war in Afghanistan, Barbara Lee—who penned a letter to Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders on Jan. 9 warning against the impulse to fight “domestic terror” with sweeping new law enforcement powers.

In their letter, the members cited the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (HUAC), the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), the Patriot Act, and recent actions against Black Lives Matter activists as concrete examples of “patriotic” law enforcement run amok. “[W]e have been here before, and we know where that road leads,” the letter read, noting that government actions taken against truly violent threats are just a fraction of those taken against a whole bunch of regular people.

The questions after Buffalo are myriad. How do you stop a massacre before it happens? How do you reach disaffected young men before they’re radicalized into racism, extremism, and violence? Can the media even report on these tragedies without helping to fuel the next one?

But there are other questions that need to be answered by those begging for new domestic terror laws: Why would these new powers be the ones that succeed in tamping out extremism, even after all the others have failed? How many innocents need to be ensnared before the cost of stopping one potential terrorist is too high? And why should we trust the government, which has abused its own power so many times in recent history, to not abuse new powers?

The atrocity in Buffalo was meant to terrorize. We need to remember not to be so frightened that we bet the civil liberties of the marginalized on the vain hope that the only way to stop the next bad guy is more intrusive tactics, and less accountable law enforcement agencies.

To read more CLICK HERE

Has the far reaching authority of the PATRIOT Act ever thwarted a terrorist attack?

Sixteen years ago President George W. Bush signed into law the most weeping, publicly acknowledged domestic surveillance authority in American history, according to the Cato Institute. Enacted six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the bill passed the Senate 98-1 and the House 357-66.

The bill had been rushed through Congress before any 9/11 inquiry had commenced, much less concluded. Congress had yet to investigate why the attacks had succeeded in the first place. Thus, the PATRIOT Act was a solution to a problem that remained unexamined at the time it became law.

Within three years of its enactment, two separate national reports—one by Congress, the other by the 9/11 Commission—would conclude that it was not a lack of data, but a lack of focused intelligence analysis and dissemination that impeded the intelligence community from detecting the terrorist plot. The PATRIOT Act’s constitutionally compromised, data-centric approach was, and remains, the wrong solution for preventing future attacks.

Indeed, in the nearly 20 years since it became law, it has become clear that none of the 160 provisions of the PATRIOT Act have ever been shown to have stopped an attack on this country.

You will search in vain to find any reports by relevant agency or department Inspectors General or the Government Accountability Office, that show, based on a truly independent review of the available data (classified or otherwise), that any PATRIOT Act authority can be credited with stopping an attack on America. In fact, multiple examinations of such claims have found the opposite.

Worse, a number of the bill’s provisions have been used to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, and to chill debate over the so-called War on Terror.

There are documented reports of American Muslims curtailing or even ceasing charitable contributions to American-based Muslim charitable organizations in the wake of the passage of the PATRIOT Act in fear of being accused of providing financial support to a “terrorist” organization. That fear proved well-grounded when the “material support” provision of the PATRIOT Act was used to prosecute the Humanitarian Law Project for engaging in peace-making work between Kurdish rebels and the Turkish government.

The American Library Association was so alarmed by the PATRIOT Act’s effects that at its 2005 meeting it issued a resolution condemning the law and its chilling effect on libraries and their patrons who worried that their book checkout and online browsing histories would be subject to disclosure to the FBI under Sec. 215 of the law. That provision was initially labeled “the library provision” of the PATRIOT Act precisely because the FBI sought those very type of records from a Connecticut library in 2005. The law’s sweeping language allowed the government to demand any “tangible things” from public or private entities involving American citizens as long as the “tangible things” sought were “relevant” to the collection of “foreign intelligence information” or terrorism.

But it was former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s amazing revelations in 2013 that helped highlight just how out-of-control government surveillance under Sec. 215 of the PATRIOT Act had become more than a decade after its passage and its two intervening congressional renewals. Snowden’s disclosure that Verizon was, under FISA Court order, providing bulk telephone metadata to federal law enforcement and intelligence entities provoked a rhetorical uproar in the press and on Capitol Hill.

To read more CLICK HERE