PerspectiveInvoking “Terrorism” Against Police Protestors
President Trump on Sunday tweeted that the United States should designate Antifa, a movement of leftists radicals prone to violence, as a “terrorist” organization. Shirin Sinnar writes that leaving aside the fact that current law does not grant the president the authority to designate the movement a terrorist organization, the deeper issue is this: “The sad irony in all this is that, over the past two years, some on the left have vocally supported an expansion of domestic terrorism frameworks” – calls which neglected the many concerns that civil rights groups.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump tweeted, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” Attorney General William Barr followed the tweet with a statement committing to use the dozens of regional FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) against “violent radical elements,” which he reiterated on the president’s call with governors on Monday. Shirin Sinnar writes in Just Security that much of the legal commentary that has followed focuses on the lack of presidential authority to designate Antifa, a loose network of anti-racist and anti-authoritarian protestors, as a terrorist organization under existing law. (See examples here and here).
Sinnar writes that such analyses, though correct, do not fully capture two important points: first, terrorism frameworks for responding to a problem can have important legal, political, and cultural implications regardless of the lack of formal designation authority (see the disturbing commentsby Rep. Matt Gaetz [R-Florida] and Senator Tom Cotton [R-Arkansas]); “and second, many on the left have irresponsibly advocated expanding such frameworks in recent years, despite concerns expressed by civil rights groups and communities of color about such an expansion.”
We should note, Sinnar writes, that “The sad irony in all this is that, over the past two years, some on the left have vocally supported an expansion of domestic terrorism frameworks” – calls which neglected the many concerns that civil rights groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights or the Brennan Center for Justice (and see Sinnar’s own contribution to the dscussin in legal scholarship, op-eds, and a written submission to a Senate committee assessing the domestic terrorism response).
He concludes:
In advocating for new federal domestic terrorism laws, some Democrats remarkably seem to believe that FBI agents, DOJ officials, and U.S. attorneys can generally be trusted with expanded powers—even when the head of the Justice Department is Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr. The deeper problem seems to be the belief that anti-terrorism activities were generally fine during the Obama administration, and that only the Trump administration’s bad faith misuse of legal authorities—as in attempted Antifa designations—raises concern.
That belief is profoundly misguided. If the events of recent weeks demonstrate anything, it is that many U.S. law enforcement institutions and officials see black and brown people as dangerous and are willing to deploy exceptional violence in response to them (or to others who seek to support them). While those on the left may now oppose the administration’s calls to treat Antifa activists and others related to the protests as terrorists, some have long supported the expansion of punitive criminal and national security frameworks that make possible such treatment in the first place. Rolling back those frameworks is the real need, not merely pointing out that Antifa can’t be formally designated.
