ARGUMENT: Anti-domestic terrorism statutesDefining Domestic Terrorism: Does the U.S. Need New Criminal Penalties for Domestic Terrorism Events?
Debates over what legally constitutes domestic terrorism—and the barriers to prosecuting these incidents—stretch back decades. “Significant political opposition to anti-domestic terrorism statutes are already being observed among lawmakers,” Lucy Tu writes, adding that “Individual lawmakers, however, are not the only opponents to the new bill.”
Two months after the 6 January attack on the Capitol, FBI director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, warning against the rising and critical threat of domestic violent extremism: “It is like cancer. The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing across the country for a long time now and it is not going away any time soon,” Wray said in his opening statement.
Lucy Tu writes in Harvard Political Review that as Wray delivered his statements, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an unclassified threat assessment stating that violent extremists motivated by political or racial bias have posed an “elevated threat” to the United States this past year.
Tu adds:
Debates over what legally constitutes domestic terrorism—and the barriers to prosecuting these incidents—stretch back decades. Most legislative definitions of “domestic terrorism” assert that there must be a political or ideological motive to classify an incident as an act of domestic terrorism. However, definitions differ from state to state, and even vary at the federal level. Furthermore, although the U.S. has designated approximately 60 foreign terrorist groups, there is no federal list of domestic terrorist organizations, which further impedes expedited investigations of potential domestic terrorism events.
….
Significant political opposition to anti-domestic terrorism statutes are already being observed among lawmakers. Several senators, including Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse , have highlighted international terrorism as a more pertinent and substantial threat.
….
Individual lawmakers, however, are not the only opponents to the new bill. In a memo sent on the final day of the Trump administration, officials from the Department of Justice addressed ongoing anti-domestic terrorism legislation, arguing that the proposed changes would bring “bureaucratic headaches, jeopardize ongoing investigations, and endanger witnesses.”
Tu notes that insight from national security experts suggests that the significant restructuring of national security infrastructure needed to address domestic terrorism is highly unlikely to be solved by new legislation.
Still, Tu writes, “ new intelligence reports warning of the rising threat of [violent extremists] add urgency to calls for more resources to fight the growing issue of homegrown extremism.”
