Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the call from both the right and the left for protesters to be declared domestic terrorists. With rising anger over protests and counter protests, politicians are rushing to join calls for the government to not simply investigate these groups for hate speech but actually terrorism.
Here is the column:
More than 200 years ago, France descended into a period known as “la terreur,” or the reign of terror. Revolutionary Bertrand Barère declared at the infamous September 1793 convention, “Let’s make terror the order of the day!”
A couple centuries later, we appear to be on the brink of achieving Barère’s dream to an extent that even he could not imagine. If you read the comments from the left and the right in the last two weeks, it would seem that most everyone can be defined as a terrorist in this age of rage. There are now calls from both groups demonstrating and counter-demonstrating in Charlottesville to be declared domestic terrorists. The question is what will be left of free speech if terrorism becomes merely a type of extreme speech.
The Illinois legislature is considering a measure by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat, that calls on the government to “pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner and with the same fervor used to protect the United States from other manifestations of terrorism.” Harmon insists that the measure takes a “stand in total opposition to the hatred, bigotry and violence displayed by these groups.”
Yet, the racist protesters in Virginia had a permit to march and Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas denounced the violence on both sides. That raises the question of whether the presence of a “criminal element” on either side is enough (when combined with extreme views) to meet a new evolving definition of terrorism. Some have insisted that Nazi rallies are inherently threatening to public safety and terrorizing to various groups. The clear message is that politicians want these groups not simply denounced for hate speech but declared actual terrorists.
Conversely, over 100,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Trump administration to formally recognize the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization. The petition states, “Terrorism is defined as ‘the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.’ This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. Antifa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the Pentagon to be consistent in its actions — and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare Antifa a terror group — on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.”
A similar movement has called for Black Lives Matters to be declared domestic terrorists for the violence seen at various protests. There is a striking similarity in the rationales for declaring both sides to be terrorists. Neither side is willing to recognize, let alone respect, the right of the other side to free speech regardless of the content of their views. For years, some of us have been warning about a dangerous tide sweeping over Europe as Western countries in the criminalization of speech deemed offensive or insulting while banning whole groups deemed hateful. The West is losing faith, and patience, with free speech.
It has not worked, as history has consistently shown. Germany criminalizes symbols like the swastika or Holocaust denials. Neo-Nazis however continue to flourish and simply slightly altered their symbols and salutes. France, England and other countries routinely prosecute people for expressing views deemed hateful, but both extremism and terrorism continue unabated. The reason is simple. The enforced silence produced by these laws is purely superficial. It does not stop extreme views or change minds, it merely forces it below the surface.
As shown by Europe (and Canada), criminalizing of speech places countries on a slippery slope toward what the Framers feared as the “tyranny of the majority.” It becomes an insatiable and satisfying appetite for those who want to simply silence opposing views. For their part, politicians want to show voters that they feel their anger by declaring unpopular groups “terrorists” or unpopular speech crimes. If you are not with those declaring the other side terrorists, you look like you are not sufficiently appalled or opposed to their views.
The fact is that the two groups protesting in Charlottesville was not the largest convergence of terrorists in history. James Alex Fields is under investigation for possible terrorism in mowing down counter-demonstrators. His actions rather than his values will be the basis for any terrorism charge. Moreover, whether he meets that definition or not will not alter that likely demand for a death sentence for murder.
Like most Americans, I was disgusted by the appearance of torch marching neo-Nazis in the streets of Charlottesville. I was shocked that so many held such hateful views. Those views can clearly intimidate or scare others. However, if that is the standard for terrorism, the difference between a protester and a terrorist is merely how their speech is interpreted by others.
We have had Nazi rallies in this country going back to the 1930s, including the infamous Nazi rally in 1977, which took place after the U.S. Supreme Court supported their right to march. We tolerate such demonstrations, not because their speech has objective value, but rather because free speech as a whole has value. We have refused to limit the right to speech for everyone to combat the few.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
i don’t remember which former United States Supreme Court Justice used those words, but they are important to remember. In light of the idea of making certain symbols illegal “just because they represent hateful organizations of the past,” it forces evil underground, where it further festers until it explodes. When their evil is out in the open, they tend to behave.
Brandeis, ironically, and never take quotes out of historical context. It can render them as meaningless as the language that is abused and misused.
And history does not support your assertion. And that cat has already escaped from that bag. Federal Law Enforcement’s current view and many Americans are glad. White nationalism is threat Numero Uno when it comes to domestic terrorism today.
And you as transparent as pain of glass. And I do mean pain.
Louis D. Brandeis, Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It 92 (1914): “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
Yes, Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence.
Looks as if it’s snowing. I wonder what triggered that?
Lenny Bruce, a white Jew, survived the outdated obscenity laws, being jailed for doing an act that made Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy very rich. I am afraid your position on the issue is what I would call “quaint.”
We also have a moral and patriotic obligation to stand against all enemies, foreign and domestic.And this is the new battlespace, Hybrid, and nonlinear warfare, rendering any first amendment absolutism a legitimate issue of national security and open to debate.
“Weaponized narrative seeks to undermine an opponent’s civilization, identity, and will by generating complexity, confusion, and political and social schisms. It can be used tactically, as part of an explicit military or geopolitical conflict; or strategically, as a way to reduce, neutralize, and defeat a civilization, state, or organization. Done well, it limits or even eliminates the need for armed force to achieve political and military aims”
FTW, I was following you just fine until that last paragraph in quotation marks about ‘weaponized narrative.’ Who, exactly, wrote that paragraph? And what the blazes did that person mean by it? Is it even possible in the first place for everyone properly to distinguish between the rhetoric of political campaigns for public office versus ‘weaponized narrative?’ If not, then the problem has no solution other than the current one: harsh, negative criticism of hateful speech. For surely we can and should draw a proper distinction between words, images and signs on the one hand versus bullets, bombs, sticks and stones on the other.
We ought not to criminalize political speech. The government simply cannot be trusted equally to police the thoughts and words of “both sides,” “many sides,” nor even any sides at all.
Antifa and BLM actually are violent, which the alt-right is not (in any systematic way). The thing is, neither antifa nor BLM would be consequential at all without the connivance of university administrators and local politicians. The authors of the fiasco in Charlottesville were Michael Signer and Terry McAuliffe, who played favorites and engaged in legal gamesmanship.
Signer and McAuliffe and various and sundry twerps running colleges and universities are manifestations of a problem in the political culture which shows no sign of abating: the inability of progtrash to argue or operate in good faith and the inability of those elements in any venue to conceive of themselves and competitors or participants in an argument. They think they’re school principals dealing with unruly adolescents.
Amen.
Nicely said, DSS.
Point well made. I would add that the neo-Nazis are a fringe group rejected by almost all people, while Antifa is embraced by the mainstream left.
“Antifa is embraced by the mainstream left.”
And mainstream Republicans like Mitt Romney. Romney thinks the Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceable assembyl should be thrown down the sewer when you’re “fighting racism.”
Some articles I’ve read state that under Virginia law the police chief is able to act independently and does not have to answer to the mayor. At least said to be the case in Cville.
What are you talking about? Neo-Nazis are not ‘flourishing’ in Germany or Austria. The political party representing Nazi sympathizers in both countries is called the “National Democratic Party”. It has been around for 50+ years and has never scored more than about 4% of the vote in a national election in either country. It was at its peak around 1969. The remnants of the communist party in East Germany have much more of a constituency.
i have a question for the bloggers here. In the Gone With The Wind movie, what was the name of one of the women? Was it Miss Scarlett or Miss Charlotte? Was it Scarlett O’Hara?
(music)
Well I went out with a waitress…
That I hardly knew.
How was I to know….
She was with the Russians too?
And seriously Prof. Turley. A see-saw is a slippery slope that slopes two ways, and as such, it makes for a rather useful scale for a moral equivalency meter.
Many Americans need these meters recalibrated.
I don’t think the Canadians are in any danger of bringing back the guillotine, do you?
They’ll have to start doing it naked. Unarmed. ACLU won’t do that ever again. Someone else can try, but I doubt the SCOTUS will touch that. States, counties and municipalities will be left to decide for themselves, as it should be. If the town don’t want you, it ain’t gonna have you.
Our country can now be categorized as Noam Chomsky on steroids. Chomsky stressed the importance of words. He was correct. However, some on the American left (and not even the far left) think that words alone are all that matters. For example, President Trump has been criticized for not speaking out against anti-semitism, yet every day of his life he pokes his finger in the eye of anti-semitism. He has Jews as his closest advisors and has Jews as beloved family members. He walks the walk every day without much fanfare. He leads by example rather than by preaching like his predecessor.
Getting back to the point at issue, some on the American left appear to believe that talking the talk is better than walking the walk. These same people conversely believe that talking the talk is worse than walking the walk. It is ok to tear down art work or throw missiles at the police but it is evil to speak certain things. Noam Chomsky on steroids.
Vince, I adamantly refuse to be lumped in with Chomsky–steroids or otherwise.
Diane,
I was not lumping you with anything or anybody. I was simply making an observation that, as a nation, we seemed to be more impressed with talking the talk rather than walking the walk.
Vince, I figured you weren’t accusing anyone in particular of being a Chomskian. I just wanted to go on record as a detractor of Chomsky.
Intersting. I would like to hear why you consider yourself a detractor of Chomsky?
Allan, most of my objections to Chomsky involve his theories of language and grammar. They’re too far off the point that Vince made about Chomsky’s undue influence on the political left.
So, with respect to Vince’s point, the so-called propaganda model that Chomsky advanced in The Manufacture of Consent may very well have distracted the political left into increasingly exclusive efforts at counter-propaganda [See Vince’s ‘talking the talk’] at the expense of genuine political organization for the sake of resolving our political disputes [See Vince’s ‘walking the walk’]. In effect, reducing the political process in America to a mere “discourse,” as in an academic exercise involving a war of words and the ideas behind those words only divorced from any underlying social, economic or political reality.
If so, then that would seem to be consistent with Chomsky’s “synchronic” disposition towards language and grammar analyzed without any “diachronic” reference to historical development–including even the psychological development of language in the human mind. It’s like Richard Pryor’s comedy routines about The Church of What’s Happening Now.
Is that vague enough for you, Allan?
Diane, Yes, the response is vague enough that I am pulling out my microscope to reread what you wrote.
Has anyone noticed “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” has gone and now it’s White Supremacy, White privilege and remove the statues. Just disruption and resist from the Dums, MSM, BLM, AntiFa and WWP. As for the GOP I don’t give them a pass having a majority they do nothing.
Mueller’s mulling. It’s what Muellers do. Except for the other Mueller who gropes. Oops. Unintended double-intendre–my bad.
Declaring political protest to be terrorism is the ultimate criminalization of politics. Any government that outlaws political protest is a government that no longer requires the consent of the governed. Any government without the consent of the governed is an illegitimate government. If law is to become the end result of something other than a political process, then what name other than antinomy should we give to such an apolitical source of law?
.
Plenty. Tyranny for one. Communist Party of the PRC for another. I could go on. And on…
Yes, of course, David. But do any of those many examples of tyranny follow from, or lead to, anything other than a political process?
If not, then it might be literally impossible to outlaw politics–no matter how many tyrants have attempted that impossibility.
Some tyrants have fallen. So far not the government of the PRC.
Perhaps we should stop doing business with the PRC. Or would we lose the leverage of our soft power if we did? Have the sanctions against The Russian Federation weakened our leverage over them? The last I heard, they’ve outlawed political protest, too.
Diane, I think this is a good definition for terrorism: “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.” Antifa seems to have exceeded all thresholds and likely should be designated a terrorist organization. I don’t know that BLM or the Nazi’s met that threshold for I am not sure that either of the groups intended violence to shut down the other.
If the exercise of free speech does not have a direct infringement of the natural rights of others, then it should not be criminalized. When that speech moves from mere words to actions that infringe the natural rights of others, then it should be criminalized.
Thanks Olly, but I would be careful of the latter idea. Sometimes rights conflict with one another and actions need not be violence or criminal.
I do err on the side of rights. Would you mind giving me an example?
A classic example of conflicting rights would be abortion. The rights of the mother vs the rights of the child to survive. Another example, the right to report news and the right of a person not to be libelled.
However, rereading what you said perhaps you were thinking solely of the right of free speech and the extension of that free speech into a violent action (instead of a conflict with another right). One might have the right to use the words “lynch the man”, but not if that statement is made where there is a crowd that is likely to follow through.
Rights, as generally understood during the founding era in the US did not conflict. The natural, unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence were negative rights, like modern libertarians’ non-aggression principle, essentially the right to be left alone and enter into any voluntary relationship in which all parties agreed to engage. Rights conflict only under a regime of positive rights in which positive obligations are imposed on some just for the privilege of living in society.
Many libertarians or classical liberals see abortion as an act of aggression against the unborn. This is a serious point of contention within that group. As a practical matter, we have a philosophical and legal question about when a person achieves the natural rights of personhood, not a conflict over competing rights.
For much of what you say JR I agree and I agree that the creation of postive obligations creates all sorts of problems, but even with just the natural rights of life, liberty and happiness (property) there are conflicts.
JR, African slaves were deprived of their right to own their own lives, bodies, health and liberties as their own property–not their master’s property. Whence the notion that the founders “generally understood” that “natural rights” could not conflict with one another is directly refuted by Madison’s argument that the right to property was the most basic and fundamental guarantee for the right to life and the right to liberty. Why else would Jefferson have changed the tune from “property” to “the pursuit of happiness?”
P. S. There is nothing negative about The Rights of Man. Go read John Locke, again.
P. S. There is nothing negative about The Rights of Man. Go read John Locke, again.
Diane,
You are misunderstanding the use of the word negative in the definition of rights. Negative in this context is referring to those rights that do not require an action from another. For instance, you have a natural (negative) right in your life, liberty and property, if left alone, you are secure in that right. To be more secure in those rights, you and others may empower government to take positive action to provide that security.
Olly, there would be no life without the prior action of the mother, or of the father, for that matter. Even after birth there are a great many subsequent actions of mothers and fathers that are required to sustain the lives of their children till they can fend for themselves. That children have a right to live despite the required actions of their parents does not make the right to life negative in the context that the founders understood.
Meanwhile, the right to property requires the action of labor either from oneself or from another. Likewise, the laborers could be free (in the sense of liberty) or enslaved. In order for each of us individually to own our lives and our liberty as our property we require that action of restraint from one another with which we refrain from enslaving one another. That we have said right to own our lives and our liberties as our property despite the action of restraint we require of one another does not make our right to property negative in the context that the framers understood.
The foregoing case for the positive right to property can be shown to hold for a positive right to liberty as well, with one important distinction: that each of us must restrain himself or herself from violating the rights to life, liberty and property of each and every last other one of us–lest we be deprived of our liberty under due process of law.
Locke’s philosophy had property at its core, most importantly the ownership of one’s self. Essentially no one today denies that slaves were denied their natural rights of personhood. The existence of slavery was a grotesque contradiction of the Founders’ general philosophy, not a refutation of it, and certainly not an example of conflicting natural rights. The most bloody war in our history resulted primarily from that contradiction which caused such severe strain within the Union.
You don’t seem to understand the meaning of “negative” with respect to natural rights. It merely refers to rights that don’t impose positive obligations (paying for your neighbor’s health care) but merely an obligation to refrain from violating the natural rights (the illicit use of force) of others. The term does not imply something bad or inferior.
There are no rights without law.
There is no law in the state of nature.
Ergo, there are no rights in the state of nature.
The Rights of Man require the action of law.
P. S. You don’t seem to understand, JR, that I am altogether rejecting the distinction between negative versus positive rights on the grounds that self-restraint in the illicit use of force is a positive obligation that the law places upon everyone who seeks to avoid a due process of law that would otherwise deprive one of one’s liberty or one’s life or one’s property, for that matter. For the law cannot long persist in the absence of the citizenry’s respectful obedience to, and observation of, the law.
That, too, was part and parcel of the original post for this particular thread. Should we, now, criminalize political protest as a form of terrorism?
There are no rights without law.
There is no law in the state of nature.
Ergo, there are no rights in the state of nature.
The Rights of Man require the action of law.
Just so you know Diane, I am altogether rejecting your entire post. JR is correct regarding negative and positive rights.
You have natural rights as a result of your existence, whether that be alone in the state of nature or among millions living in civil society. These are negative rights. They go where you go and they do not require an action by anyone else.
Government is created to secure these rights. There is no other legitimate purpose for the establishment of government. If your natural right to life, liberty and property were as secure in nature as it were living in civil society, then no government would be necessary.
Olly, just so you know, natural rights without governments to secure them are utterly useless trinkets, baubles and gew-gaws.
First, natural rights exist in a state of nature. People may defend their natural rights using reasonable force with or without man made law. Government and its laws are legitimate to the extent they secure natural rights. A majority of the public clearly has the power, but not the right, to enforce a system of positive rights that will by necessity violate the natural rights of the minority. That’s why we need a constitution that imposed limits on democracy, and why it must be interpreted textually.
Olly, just so you know, natural rights without governments to secure them are utterly useless trinkets, baubles and gew-gaws.
Good. That brings us to the 3rd self-evident truth in the DoI.
JR, I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief in the existence of natural rights in the state of nature. Instead, I doubt only the actual existence of natural rights in the state of nature, primarily on the grounds that they would be so bereft of utility under that condition as to nullify their existence. Yes, an egalitarian band could still defend itself; but it could not obligate any other egalitarian band to defend it except by entreaty.
However, we were to juxtapose “natural rights” to “artificial rights,” then the utility of said natural rights might be that the government cannot deprive us of the former without forfeiting our consent as well as that government’s own legitimacy. But we’d need a formal government in the first place.
Otherwise, basing The Rights of Man upon the state of nature is like founding a nation atop a soap bubble. The dread Hobbesian view would be loitering with intent just around the next corner. The social contract known as government would soon revert to the rule of the strong [minority] over the weak [majority]. Where’s the negative right of a feudal Landlord to his serfs’ labor from which his Lordship derives his property?
Diane – our rights are what the Supreme Court says they are today, Hobbs or Locke. Tomorrow, our rights may change.
Paul, as a matter of practice, I fear you may be right about the transient nature of our rights.
As a matter of political theory, the supposedly inalienable attribute of our rights was asserted against a government, Great Britain, that was held to be depriving our forebears of their rights without their consent, thereby causing Great Britain to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the signers of The Declaration of Independence.
If we now use anti-terrorism laws to prosecute en masse the members of political dissident groups, we might very well be enabling our government to deprive us of our rights without our consent; such that, our government may end up losing it legitimacy the eyes of the governed; namely, the people.
Today it will be Antifa; tomorrow, The Ku Klux Klan; the day after tomorrow, some other such group of political dissidents. This is the stuff of which Orwell’s Big Brother nightmares were made.
I doubt only the actual existence of natural rights in the state of nature, primarily on the grounds that they would be so bereft of utility under that condition as to nullify their existence.
Diane,
That response provides the solution to what is causing your doubt. You shouldn’t be looking for utility or action from a negative (natural) right. The utility comes from the actions you take to secure those rights.
A classic example of conflicting rights would be abortion.
That is as you say a classic example but it is made less difficult to resolve if one begins with the belief in the natural and unalienable right to life.
The easy side to argue for is of course the child. The child is completely innocent, The mother on the other hand is far more complicated. If it was her free will that led to her pregnancy, then she has an obligation to respect that child’s right to life. If her rights were violated and that led to the pregnancy, then a case could be made that the pregnancy be terminated. The most difficult decision to be made would be in the case where the life of the mother is at risk. Forcing the mother to continue with a pregnancy that risks her life is an infringement of her natural and unalienable right to life.
Regarding the libel and free speech issue; I don’t see the conflict. Don’t we already have laws that protect both the exercise of free speech and the innocent from libel?
You are of course correct Olly (on abortion) and that is what makes the rights conflicting. The choices are all difficult and I believe can never be worked out. I wish it never became a federal problem.
Re libel and free speech, we do have laws, but we are constantly determining which right prevails.
Olly, Allan is correct about the conflict. The mother owns her life, her body and her health as her property. Therefore, the mother’s property right does, in fact, conflict with her child’s right to life.
Diane,
I had agreed there was a conflict in rights. What I had proposed was a possible resolution to that conflict that would come as close as possible to protecting rights of both mother and child.
Olly, I understand the distinction you drew. My comment merely added a different conflict between the right to property versus the right to life. Your resolution applied to a conflict between one person’s right to life versus another person’s right to life.
I agree with Madison’s view that the property right is the surest basis for the right to life and the right to liberty. I mentioned that in my reply to JR.
Olly, I agree in principle. But there already are plenty of criminal statutes that can be used to prosecute violent criminal offenders including rioters at political protests. Thus the question should be when, exactly, do violent crimes become acts of terror that require either additional penalties under the law or just-plain, flat-out military responses?
Test cases from known history might include the federal government’s suppression of the original Ku Klux Klan or, if one prefers, the mass arrests of The Knights of Labor on charges equivalent to hooliganism. There may be other historical examples on the side of government over-reaching.
Correction: There were mass arrests of labor activists after The Haymarket Riots except for The Knights of Labor who refused to support the strikers or the arrested activists. Likewise, The KOL specifically repudiated The Molly Macguires who were the original hooligans.
As for government over-reaching, consider The Battle of Blair Mountain following The Matewan Massacre.
Allan, sorry for being late. I was busy elsewhere. The definition at issue is acceptable for ordinary usage; but it’s not narrow enough for a legal definition. We ought to be just as wary of criminalizing political protest as we are wary of militarizing law enforcement.
I would recommend attempting to define the sorts of “political aims” that terrorists seek to achieve through the use of violence and intimidation so as to distinguish the “terrorist” aspect of certain violent crimes from the more common, criminal aspects of those same violent crimes. I’m not suggesting that that would be an easy task–just a useful, possibly necessary, one.
For instance, attempts to overthrow the government might be one example that separates terrorism from common crime. Attempts to delegitimize the government might be added to the definition if, and only if, the violent crimes were intended to provoke an indiscriminant over-reaction from the government in which innocent civilians were made to suffer at least as much, if not more so, than the suspected terrorists were made to suffer; such that the government sullies and besmirches its own credibility in the eyes of its own citizenry whose political behaviors the terrorists presumably seek to change or control.
But even then, Allan, such a government would have to restore its credibility and legitimacy by accepting its fair share of the responsibility for having given into the terrorists’ provocation to engage in an indiscriminant over-reaction. For the government must always earn, deserve and preserve its citizens’ respectful willingness to obey and observe the law.
Previously I wrote: “Diane, I think this is a good definition for terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.”
You responded: “it’s not narrow enough for a legal definition. “
Are you saying that ”violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims” is not terrorism? Explain. In your next paragraph you seem to be making excuses for “violence and intimidation”. Tell us when it would not be terrorism when the aim is political and to shut down other voices?
I am not going to deal with your additions to the definition for your complaint was the definition wasn’t narrow enough and your additions don’t seem that well thought out in relationship to your complaint.
Are you trying to justify Antifa’s use of violence along with its intent to avoid prosecution by wearing masks?
No. I’m not trying to justify anyone’s use of violence. I’m trying to urge caution against the criminalization of political protest. Go read my suggestion again.
You have to define the difference between violent crimes committed by terrorist organizations versus violent crimes committed by rioters or protesters in order to bring terrorism charges against any group of political dissidents without outlawing political dissent for everyone. That definition of difference should hinge upon the “political aims” that terrorists seek in juxtaposition to the political aims that ordinary political dissenters seek. Meanwhile, use existing criminal statutes to prosecute violent rioters and protesters.
As a general principle, a legal definition that is tailored to fit one group of people at the passing moment will eventually include many groups of people on almost any number of future occasions.
Diane – violence as a means of protest is terrorism. The question is, who started it. In Cville, it was AntiFa who has some 20 of their people arrested. Press didn’t cover that, did they?
Paul, our country has a long and sordid history of riots and political protests that turned violent. Most of the violent crimes committed at riots and protests from the past were prosecuted under existing criminal statutes. If we are now going to outlaw dissident groups using a definition of terrorism, then that definition has to be narrow enough to allow political dissent at protests that take a violent turn when rioting breaks out by charging at least some rioters and some violent protesters with statutory crimes other than terrorism.
Diane – when you have professional rioters, they are terrorists. Amateur rioters are just rioters.
“Go read my suggestion again.”
I read it over and over again, but now you are backstepping. My comment involved the use of violence and intimidation with the intent of shutting down the political views of others. See my first entry on this subject which I have recopied in the next paragraph.
“Diane, I think this is a good definition for terrorism: “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.” Antifa seems to have exceeded all thresholds and likely should be designated a terrorist organization. I don’t know that BLM or the Nazi’s met that threshold for I am not sure that either of the groups intended violence to shut down the other.”
I think, Diane, you should reread your last two comments and then focus on what was originally said. I think you are trying to revise your thoughts because the earlier of the two comments was quite a bit fuzzy and your latter comment didn’t correct the problem. Maybe you should start all over.
Allan, your definition of terrorism utterly fails to exclude the White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis from being declared terrorist organizations. You seem to have been rather obtusely unaware your own foregone conclusions when formulating your definition of terrorism. Maybe you should do the necessary head-scratching, Allan. Try to define the difference between a non-terrorist protest group versus a terrorist protest group. Then report back.
I don’t see your point. The KKK nor Antifa are terrorist organizations until they use violence with the aim of depriving another of his legal rights.
Explain how the KKK or Antifa are excluded from terrorism based upon my definition. I am not saying my definition is the perfect definition rather good enough for the context of the discussion we were having where additional thoughts could be added. Unfortuantely, you added none.
Take note how you mentioned names, but didn’t say why you thought them terrorists and at the same time how my definition excluded them from being called terrorists.
“Try to define the difference between a non-terrorist protest group versus a terrorist protest group.” Violence with the attempt to deny rights to others.
Now it is your turn to report back.
Allan, I stated that your definition fails to exclude White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis from the terrorist designation. Therefore your definition is too broad for the law. Your latest definition of difference between terrorist versus non-terrorist protest groups–violence with the attempt to deny rights to others–still fails to exclude White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis from the terrorist designation and is, therefore, still to broad for the law. Recall that ordinary criminal statutes are available to prosecute rioters and violent protesters.
Can you show that Antifa seeks the overthrow of the government? Can you show that Antifa seeks to delegitimize the government by provoking an indiscriminant over-reaction from the government? Can you show that Antifa seeks to assert political control over a civilian population in a given political territory?
Those are examples of the typical political aims of typical terrorist organizations. Your definition of terrorism should make use of those typical terrorist aims to exclude rioters from terrorism charges.
Diane, I am still waiting for you TELL ME HOW IT FAILS. I admit it isn’t fool proof, but it seems you wish to exclude Antifa from the terrorist designation where videos have demonstrated its violence yet claim the inexcusable KKK is a terrorist organization. I haven’t said the KKK is or isn’t a terrorist organization.
Violence and intimidation
political aims denying others their rights
Both are cornerstones of terrorists. One doesn’t have to demonstrate that the objective of an act is an attempt to overthrow the government.
allan – there isn’t enough left of any one KKK organization to make them a decent terrorist organization. The real big klaverns have been broken up. Right now, probably half of every KKK organization is either FBI agents or informants.
Allan, it’s truly difficult to believe that anyone could be so persistently obtuse as you’re being without merely pretending to be so.
I have not asserted that any of the alt.right groups at Charlottesville are terrorist organizations. I have asserted only, and repeatedly, that your woefully inadequate definition of terrorism could be, but ought not to be, applied to each and every last one of the opposing groups at Charlottesville and untold others besides.
As such, your position, here, on this issue is reactionary in the much the same manner as The Palmer Raids, or Cointelpro, or The Red Scare after The Haymarket Affair. That approach does not achieve the goal you seek; namely, securing the rights of the citizenry. That approach sullies and besmirches the government’s credibility without which the citizens lose respect for the government. Causing the citizens to lose respect for the government just so happens to be one of the political aims that terrorist organizations typically seek.
Be wary of unwittingly giving Antifa what Antifa wants, Allan.
Diane, when your logic and your defense runs on empty you attack the messenger. Over and over again you have been asked to lay out what my definition was lacking and instead of doing so you chose to call me obtuse and a reactionary. How does that advance the dialogue in a positive direction?
Violence and intimidation with political aims (such as the recent attempts at preventing the free speech of others citizens) I believe to be the cornerstone of a terrorist group. Explain why that is wrong. Explain why you think (if you do) any of the recent activities of the KKK have been proven to be terrorist activities. Explain why you think terrorism should not be considered in the recent violent activities of Antifa.
All you have asserted is that the off the cuff definition of terrorism which I proposed (and is very similar to the dictionary interpretation) is wrong without saying why or proposing your own definition of terrorism. In fact let us hear your definition of terrorism and tell us how that applies to Antifa and the KKK.
“Be wary of unwittingly giving Antifa what Antifa wants, Allan.”
If Antifa wants jail terms, I’m willing to give them what they want. Right now it appears that violence, burning down buildings, threatening lives of those that have alternate opinions is acceptable especially on college campuses. As soon as people recognize there is a penalty for such action many of the people and students will disappear from this riotous behavior and disagree in a civilized manner. Your choice, barbarism vs civility.
“allan – there isn’t enough left of any one KKK organization to make them a decent terrorist organization.”
Paul, I think you may be correct, but I leave all options open.
I think Diane is afraid that certain actions either of government or powerful groups can overpower the citizenry. In a way what she is doing is providing a strong defense in favor of the second amendment. 🙂
Allan, either you read what I wrote or you didn’t. Either you understood what I wrote or you didn’t.
I gave you examples of the political aims that terrorist organizations typically seek. Take those as my definition of terrorism. I gave you examples of what happens when the government attempts to outlaw political dissent. Take those as my explanation of what’s wrong with your definition.
Your persistent demands that I should give you what I’ve already given you on multiple posts are preposterously dense. I refuse to believe that you do not understand how incomparably boorish you’re pretending to be. You are perfectly capable of behaving in a more reasonable manner, Allan.
Diane, of course I read what you wrote and I read it all more than once, but you are unwilling to state what you believe. You gave examples, but you didn’t deal with the actors that were under discussion. You also didn’t you provide an alternate definition for terrorism or a correction to what I wrote. Instead you called me names and added a bit of “intellectual gibberish”. [Turley]
“ you do not understand how incomparably boorish you’re pretending to be. “
More insults. Have I offended your intellectual integrity? Perhaps, but that was self offense and not an offense originating elsewhere.
What is your definition of terrorism?
What correction would you make to my definition of terrorism?
Either question can be answered by a grade school child, but unanswerable to one that has an agenda that doesn’t conform to the standard definitions.
Diane, it is very disappointing that despite a large number of posts, a lot of verbiage and a lot of insults you still decline to provide your definition of terrorism.
Well, one side had a parade permit, the other side didn’t. I would charge the side without the permit with terrorism.
“Right to peaceably assemble”.
If necessary, call in the riot police.
Whatever, it wasn’t “terrorism”.
David Benson – supposedly the gov of Virg pulled the cops. Now you saw the tape of Phoenix where we take riots seriously. They don’t screw around and that one young man may never have off-spring.
No, I didn’t see it and I don’t know what you are going on about.
David Benson – it has gone viral. Where have you been the last couple of days, in a cave?
David Benson – here is a link to the video. It is priceless.
https://www.infowars.com/phoenix-rioter-gets-shot-in-the-groin-with-pepper-ball-after-kicking-gas-can-at-police/
Permit or not, rights come with responsibilities. When free speech is used to stop the freedom of speech of others, speech turns physical, or damage is done; send in the cops and arrest those who step over the line for inhibiting the freedoms of others, getting physical, causing damage, regardless of permit or anything else. There is no need to infuse this with the concept of terror. That dilutes the actual terror going on and in some ways justifies it.
The rallies are necessary to expose the cancers in our society: nazis, white supremacists, racists, etc. The public opposition to the war in Vietnam did not help end that criminal endeavor by remaining calm cool and collected. A healthy society will voice its opinions. Those that participate by disrespecting the rights and freedoms of others, should have their rights and freedoms curtailed.
Paul S wrote: “I would charge the side without the permit with terrorism.”
Of course you would.
Realistically speaking, when looking at the KKK of today, the majority of their rank and file would by comparison make a bag of rusty hammers appear intelligent. The hyas muckamucks who administer each klavern might be slightly less inept, but when one wears a dunce cap willingly they usually don’t command a high level of ability.
How great a threat can they really be these days? Ignoring them can do much to take away their raison d’être.
Yup.
Right Darren, that motley crew in Charlottesville didn’t look like much, but they were certainly leveraged as useful idiots. Press and government got their negative PR. Was it ever really established why order was not kept in Charlottesville? I have not looked into it very much, but the couple of videos I saw seemed pretty damning. Pretty easy to see through this. I imagine the next bait and switch is dusting off some other inflammatory group that will trigger the franklys and Louise types that it has so effectively done so far.
Reblogged this on 1EarthUnited and commented:
Uh-oh, big gov’t playing the T card!
Right on, Turley!
“Conversely, over 100,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Trump administration to formally recognize the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization.”
I would like Trump.and his sorry administration to be declared terrorists, plus a few spineless Republicans on Congress along with them. These are the real terrorists and they are doing more harm to the country than any group.
Louise, the Trump administration is not a terrorist organization. Doing harm to the country is permitted under our Constitution. The only permissible solutions at this point remain the ballot and harsh, negative criticism of hateful speech. If, however, the Trump administration suspended elections and outlawed political protest, then you might declare Trump a tyrant; but you’d have to beat both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress to that punch.
Well, if people who routinely gather together, often in masks and with baseball bats and Molotov Cocktails for the purpose of depriving people like Ann Coulter, Milo, neo-Nazis and white supremacists of their Civil Rights by shutting down their people’s free speech rights aren’t terrorists, then who the heck is???
Antifa and the SJWs are nothing but violent street thugz and bullies, and I expect the violence to get worse. It’s pretty damn sad when the neo-Nazis are better behaved than Antifa and the SJWs.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Its why we have riot police.
Haymarket square and all that…
Please first answer this–since President Trump does not seem to want to answer it: Is the guy who killed Heather a terrorist or not? What makes him different? Why is that somehow if he is White, he’s either mentally deranged or “horrible”–but not a terrorist? Please also understand that with rights, comes responsibilities. Agitation on anyone’s side is uncalled for (Antifa/et. al) However, there is a question of leadership right now that is glossed over. Professor Turley, unfortunately, totally ignored the President’s News Conference and speech in Phoenix. America needs a President–not a agitator–there lies the problem. Leaders have to lead–and to make sure that they are inclusive–. This is not a “liberal” issue or a “conservative” issue–as you and your ilk seem to be so “hell bent” on labels– all are being Americans first. As for Ann Coulter (that you seem to be a big fan off) , she’s become extremely rich peddling her views–and that’s fine–more power to her–but she’s the one who has an intolerance for views she does not agree with–and nonsense like this she wrote on her website, “… the Emperor God gave a magnificent speech in Arizona Tuesday night. Curiously, when he talks to voters -… (that you can check by visiting her website at http://www.anncoulter.com) )). undermines the very credibility that you say she has–a sane individual should be at least concerned–although I understand that the Phoenix Arena was paid for by the Trump Campaign as the President has already begun his re-election effort.
I conclude with this hope: That The President tries to do some “governing”….
Cheers…
IMHO, the killer is a murderer, not a terrorist. I am nor aware of any organized group to which he belongs to calling for depriving anybody of their rights, or calling for their deaths. I would classify him as a murderer (based on the available facts) who happens to be a whatever he calls himself.
In a cosmic sense you could call anybody who murders somebody or threatens somebody a “terrorist.” And in most states, you have a crime called “Terroristic Threatening”, but I think the broader sense of the word requires a group affiliation.
Maybe a better way to approach the question is to ask if MS13 is a terrorist group? They definitely kill people, and slice them up. They are not shy about it, and in fact, use fear to increase their bottom line. Sooo, would you call them “terrorists” or would you call them a violent drug gang? Would your definition change with the number of people they kill? Are they and other Narco gangs “terrorists” in Mexico, or Central America? I think they are, but because of the large amount of fear and violence.
But what do you think?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thanks for the thoughts–I will only note this because you seem to agree that anyone who kills is a killer–this includes MS13; Islamic State..etc… –cheers….
I would like thank you for your thoughts on terrorism, but I notice that you did not bother to offer up a definition. Perhaps, after a good night’s sleep you will feel like tackling the problem. If you have a sleep machine, might I suggest the “Ocean Waves” setting. I find that increases my creativity immensely. Why just last night I dreamed of the Andy Griffith Show, and a Jamaican-like black dude with dreadlocks who came to Mayberry to raise up a bunch of zombies. Sheriff Andy told him that was a big no-no in Mayberry and him and Barney (who was sort of scared of the juju man because he gave Thelma Lou a case of the vapors) escorted the rascal to the county limits. Then Andy had a talk with Opie about race.
Sooo, try the wave machine.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Your feeble attempt at sarcasm is appreciated. I suggest you first try the “Wave Machine” and do try and get some sleep..and do try and brush up on Your history. I also will note this for your edification: What you define as a Terrorist is someone else’ freedom fighter–I will remind you that Washington/Jefferson et. al were considered terrorists by the British..and I will also remind you that they conveyed the Constitutional Convention “illegally” as they realized that the Articles of Conferation were tearing the Country apart….to close out, I will only close out with this from the great Edward R. Murrow, “..Good Night..and Good Luck” Girl Reporter….
Sooo, you can say: “What you define as a Terrorist is someone else’ freedom fighter–I will remind you that Washington/Jefferson et. al were considered terrorists by the British” and yet you still opine that Lee/Stonewall Jackson were definitely traitors??? Didn’t I already tell you that above???
Geeeesh, just apply the same standards to everybody, OK???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – Washington and Jefferson were traitors to England, but even then had friends in Parliament.
Squeeky, I’m not a lawyer, but . . . by seceding from The Union the Confederacy may have granted itself and its citizens temporary, transactional immunity from treason charges as defined in The Constitution.
Dude identified with Nazis squekkky.
Ken – dude identified with Obama, too.
Well, are the Nazis in this country an actual terrorist group? They were in pre-Reich Germany. But here? I haven’t seen the American Nazis blowing up stuff. or attacking people sua sponte to shut down their free speech rights. Like I said above, it is pretty bad when the Nazis are better behaved and more law-abiding than the SJWs, Antifa, and BLM. And what do the American Nazis even stand for??? I don’t follow them at all.
Also, the Communist Party has been pretty terroristic across the world, hasn’t it? But not in this country. Some of their Marxist offshoots have been terrorists, but not the American Communist Party, per se. I don’t think you can just call someone “terrorists” because you disagree with them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I don’t think you can just call someone “terrorists” because you disagree with them.
Bingo. Game Over.
Squeeky, you always seem to get to the essential nub of the issue, both clearly and concisely. Refreshing. When and if you write a book, please clue us in. Do you have a blog? Thank you.
He is a murderer and perhaps a terrorist. If he intended to make people afraid to go about their normal business, he’s a terrorist, if not just a hate filled disgusting murderer.
Ann Coulter is not my cup of tea and is intolerant of other views. But she doesn’t try to silence the other side. She prefers instead to fight speech with speech, much of it insulting but speech nonetheless.
That’s a pretty funny (if sad) observation. But look at how the Bolsheviks acted with the Romanov family. Seems to be par for the course. The left seems to regress to the limbic system to reach their goals, and therefore are very useful. Although the neonazis in Ukraine and Libya proved their usefulness. But tit-for-tat… is there any real difference? One group may just have more incentive from somewhere else to be more violent.
It seems to me that just attacking people with sticks and stuff is against the law, and the lawbreakers should be arrested. Unless they are acting on behalf of another hidden perpetrator who is able to pull strings to make sure they are not arrested.
I apologize for careless reference in my post. I was replying to Squeeky’s on the nature of the violent left tactics.
Hi Slohrss!!!
You said, “. . . the lawbreakers should be arrested. Unless they are acting on behalf of another hidden perpetrator who is able to pull strings to make sure they are not arrested.”
True, which they are. Antifa, the SJWs, and BLM to a lesser extent, are acting on behalf of the Democratic Party. Which is why so few of them have been arrested, or expelled from college. You don’t see Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer escorting Ann Coulter and Milo thru the rabid, liberal mob do you???
They’re getting the old wink and nod treatment.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No question about it. The Progressive Dems are the REAL problem here. And the spineless, unprincipled Republicans are only slightly less offensive.