Read on Twitter
While it may feel good at first blush to call the Capitol Mob domestic terrorists, it will only end up hurting communities of color.
The always brilliant @dialash and I spilled some ink on the matter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/10/capitol-invasion-terrorism-enforcement/
The always brilliant @dialash and I spilled some ink on the matter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/10/capitol-invasion-terrorism-enforcement/
As we argue in the piece, we know that this is true because it's happened before.
For a year after the OKC bombing, congress tried pass legislation addressing that act of 'domestic terrorism.'
They ended up with AEDPA - the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
For a year after the OKC bombing, congress tried pass legislation addressing that act of 'domestic terrorism.'
They ended up with AEDPA - the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
Among other provisions that were eventually turned against communities of color (secret evidence, deportation for minor offenses, expanded habeas) AEDPA contained some of the first crimes explicitly criminalizing 'terrorism' - the material support for terrorism statutes.
In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the material support crimes into law at a ceremony commemorating the one year anniversary of the OKC bombing.
He said that they would 'strike a mighty blow against terrorism.'
Instead, the struck a mighty blow against marginalized communities.
He said that they would 'strike a mighty blow against terrorism.'
Instead, the struck a mighty blow against marginalized communities.
20 years later, Bill Clinton would remind us just who those communities are. But here's a sneak peak: they aren't the communities from which Timothy McVeigh came.
More on that later.
More on that later.
ANYWAY.
In the five years before 9/11, with the new laws in place, the DOJ prosecuted a grand total of 6 people for material support for terrorism.
They were *even* capable of charging violent white supremacists.
They did, in fact.
Once. https://apnews.com/article/c87ac55ed0c677ad5e72cb5a65b74be5
In the five years before 9/11, with the new laws in place, the DOJ prosecuted a grand total of 6 people for material support for terrorism.
They were *even* capable of charging violent white supremacists.
They did, in fact.
Once. https://apnews.com/article/c87ac55ed0c677ad5e72cb5a65b74be5
But the writing was on the wall before 9/11.
1. The 5 other people charged with material support pre-9/11 were - you guessed it - Muslims.
2. One material support crime required defendants to have a link to a Foreign Terrorist Org. so designated by the State Department...
1. The 5 other people charged with material support pre-9/11 were - you guessed it - Muslims.
2. One material support crime required defendants to have a link to a Foreign Terrorist Org. so designated by the State Department...
...In the 5 years before 9/11, State designated 21 FTOs.
13 of them were Muslim or Arab organizations.
5 of them were Palestinian *political parties*. https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
13 of them were Muslim or Arab organizations.
5 of them were Palestinian *political parties*. https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
Then came the events of 9.11.2001.
The DOJ picked up the material support for terrorism laws - loaded weapons theoretically passed to address an attack by a 'domestic terrorist' - and started unloading them on Muslim, Arab and other communities of color.
The DOJ picked up the material support for terrorism laws - loaded weapons theoretically passed to address an attack by a 'domestic terrorist' - and started unloading them on Muslim, Arab and other communities of color.
In the first 5 years after 9.11, the DOJ prosecuted 99 people for material support.
78 were Muslims or Arabs.
20 were accused of supporting the Colombian FARC.
1 was a white lawyer accused of providing support to her Muslim client.
More on those cases: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions
78 were Muslims or Arabs.
20 were accused of supporting the Colombian FARC.
1 was a white lawyer accused of providing support to her Muslim client.
More on those cases: https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/07/21/illusion-justice/human-rights-abuses-us-terrorism-prosecutions
This outcome wasn't a coincidence, of course.
As Diala and I argue in the @washingtonpost piece above, the infrastructure of the terrorism enterprise was, from its inception, aimed squarely at communities of color.
As Diala and I argue in the @washingtonpost piece above, the infrastructure of the terrorism enterprise was, from its inception, aimed squarely at communities of color.
Terrorism academics got funding to develop bogus theories which in turn drove law enforcement and military policy.
That policy spilled into the daily lives of the communities who were seen as either inherently dangerous on one hand, or deputized police on the other.
That policy spilled into the daily lives of the communities who were seen as either inherently dangerous on one hand, or deputized police on the other.
Remember Bill Clinton of 1996 AEDPA fame? At the 2016 DNC, Clinton re-articulated the terms of engagement:
"If you're a Muslim, and you love America and freedom, and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together. We want you."
"If you're a Muslim, and you love America and freedom, and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together. We want you."
Put differently:
IF you are a Muslim, and you
1. love America
2. love freedom
3. hate terror
4. help us (an us which doesn't include you) win (a war against your people who don't meet conditions 1-3)
THEN,
1. we want you.
A mighty blow indeed.
IF you are a Muslim, and you
1. love America
2. love freedom
3. hate terror
4. help us (an us which doesn't include you) win (a war against your people who don't meet conditions 1-3)
THEN,
1. we want you.
A mighty blow indeed.
Since 9.11, federal prosecutors have convicted almost 500 people of material support.
That's ~ 20 material support cases a year, compared to the ~1 a year before 9/11.
The *vast vast* majority of these convictions were of people of color.
https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/people/
That's ~ 20 material support cases a year, compared to the ~1 a year before 9/11.
The *vast vast* majority of these convictions were of people of color.
https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/people/
Many of them were convicted of spurious FBI entrapment schemes which cost the federal government hundreds of thousands of dollars to pull off; others were convicted of conduct that many (including me) argue is protected under the First Amendment.
All of this damage, and much more, was done with a law passed to commemorate the Oklahoma City bombing.
That's why we argue that terrorism as a legal construct is inseparable from its discriminatory legacy.
It has no inherent fidelity to its dictionary definition - its fidelity is to the state's power to suppress marginalized communities.
And it has to go.
It has no inherent fidelity to its dictionary definition - its fidelity is to the state's power to suppress marginalized communities.
And it has to go.
