"Stone also identifies what makes the difference between restraint and excess: political leadership willing to maintain legal discipline even under pressure, courts willing to enforce constitutional limits even when the public is fearful, and robust democratic discourse that allows dissenting voices to be heard."
-----------------
0 for 3. The U.S. is headed for a real rough patch.
More to the point, what we're seeing in the U.S. isn't really a response to public fears at all. Haitians were not eating pets. Illegal immigrants actually commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens, which should not be surprising given that they can be deported as the fallout of a traffic stop.
The crisis currently playing out in Minnesota and other states was not an undisciplined response to public fears. It's the deliberate creation of public fear using what amounts to a private militia.
The thing is, often crimes aren't defined by laws.
In Sweden we do define terrorism and terrorist organizations by the laws, and what the government designates as one is irrelevant. Meanwhile, most countries just declare "X is a terrorist organization", with this being done by politicians and where the organization often has no practical legal recourse.
I think the US takes the second approach for the most part? You can't argue "X isn't a terrorist organization, it does violence, but it's an international armed conflict" or anything of the sort-- if the government thinks you support something they don't like they can get you by banning the group you're part of.
> The definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) is broad: acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal law, with apparent intent to intimidate civilians or influence government policy, occurring primarily within the United States. It sounds precise. In practice, applied to protest activity, it creates enormous discretion.
The drift starts with how an incident is viewed and interpreted, even if no laws are broken, simply due to how an investigation is carried out.
> Consider how the label functions operationally. Once conduct gets coded as “domestic terrorism,” cases flow through joint terrorism task forces rather than ordinary criminal investigations. Prosecutors reach for terrorism sentencing enhancements. Banks and tech platforms treat individuals and organizations as if they’ve been officially designated, even when no such legal designation exists. The government’s internal machinery shifts and with it, the tools investigators use and the questions they ask.
This is magnified when there is a crime.
Suppose I block an ICE vehicle. That's illegal. I know full well I'll do the time.
But what's the crime? I might expect a public-order misdemeanor. I'm ready for that time.
What if ICE agents say they feared for their life and were intimidated by my clear attempt to influence government policy? Is my act now criminal intimidation, where I will be prosecuted as a terrorist? Even if found innocent, prosecutions like this historically "diverted investigative resources away from genuine threats while traumatizing thousands of people whose only offense was their politics."
That lack of precision about what 'terrorism' means - a problem pointed out when the law was made! - combined with institutional pressure "to treat the current threat as uniquely dangerous and the old protections as luxuries we can no longer afford" causes that line to drift.
All quotes and the scenario come from the linked-to piece.
Let's be clear about this, barging into a church to "set them straight" while physically obstructing parents from their children is clearly terrorism. I don't see anyone being charged with terrorism though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ just some more commie pretending and hallucinating.
Or antisemitism lol. Equating Israel with Judaism is the greatest feat Sharon has pulled off.
Let’s not forget the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. No protest or civil disobedience needed, just need to look a certain way.
"Stone also identifies what makes the difference between restraint and excess: political leadership willing to maintain legal discipline even under pressure, courts willing to enforce constitutional limits even when the public is fearful, and robust democratic discourse that allows dissenting voices to be heard."
-----------------
0 for 3. The U.S. is headed for a real rough patch.
More to the point, what we're seeing in the U.S. isn't really a response to public fears at all. Haitians were not eating pets. Illegal immigrants actually commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens, which should not be surprising given that they can be deported as the fallout of a traffic stop.
The crisis currently playing out in Minnesota and other states was not an undisciplined response to public fears. It's the deliberate creation of public fear using what amounts to a private militia.
> The U.S. is headed for a real rough patch.
I agree with everything you say, but I would say we're well beyond "headed for" at this point...
dont ingnore The Dangerous Drift to Redefine Terrorism as Government.
The witch trials never end, they are simply renamed.
Link for when it gets flagged and removed:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-dangerous-drift-to-...
[flagged]
Laws are interpreted by humans, whose conception of "crime" most definitely drifts.
The thing is, often crimes aren't defined by laws.
In Sweden we do define terrorism and terrorist organizations by the laws, and what the government designates as one is irrelevant. Meanwhile, most countries just declare "X is a terrorist organization", with this being done by politicians and where the organization often has no practical legal recourse.
I think the US takes the second approach for the most part? You can't argue "X isn't a terrorist organization, it does violence, but it's an international armed conflict" or anything of the sort-- if the government thinks you support something they don't like they can get you by banning the group you're part of.
The definition of terrorism is broad.
> The definition in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) is broad: acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal law, with apparent intent to intimidate civilians or influence government policy, occurring primarily within the United States. It sounds precise. In practice, applied to protest activity, it creates enormous discretion.
The drift starts with how an incident is viewed and interpreted, even if no laws are broken, simply due to how an investigation is carried out.
> Consider how the label functions operationally. Once conduct gets coded as “domestic terrorism,” cases flow through joint terrorism task forces rather than ordinary criminal investigations. Prosecutors reach for terrorism sentencing enhancements. Banks and tech platforms treat individuals and organizations as if they’ve been officially designated, even when no such legal designation exists. The government’s internal machinery shifts and with it, the tools investigators use and the questions they ask.
This is magnified when there is a crime.
Suppose I block an ICE vehicle. That's illegal. I know full well I'll do the time.
But what's the crime? I might expect a public-order misdemeanor. I'm ready for that time.
What if ICE agents say they feared for their life and were intimidated by my clear attempt to influence government policy? Is my act now criminal intimidation, where I will be prosecuted as a terrorist? Even if found innocent, prosecutions like this historically "diverted investigative resources away from genuine threats while traumatizing thousands of people whose only offense was their politics."
That lack of precision about what 'terrorism' means - a problem pointed out when the law was made! - combined with institutional pressure "to treat the current threat as uniquely dangerous and the old protections as luxuries we can no longer afford" causes that line to drift.
All quotes and the scenario come from the linked-to piece.
Let's be clear about this, barging into a church to "set them straight" while physically obstructing parents from their children is clearly terrorism. I don't see anyone being charged with terrorism though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ just some more commie pretending and hallucinating.