A February 6 “New York Times” headline reads: “U.S. Considering More Resources for FBI to Counter Domestic Extremism.” The article carefully avoids the word “terrorism” in favor of “violent extremism.” Deciding what it is isn’t difficult but the next step––what to do about it––is.
In November 2020, former acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, reported that white supremacist extremist groups in the U.S. have been “exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks.” Since 2018 white supremacists have conducted more lethal attacks on the U.S., including on law enforcement officers, than any other group. The attacks include infiltrating peaceful protests “causing violence, death, and destruction in American communities,” according to Wolf. The intent was not just disruption, but also deflection intending to cast peaceful protestors as criminals.
Terrorists who break the law are tried and punished under current criminal law, but there is no law against simply being a domestic terrorist. Since the Patriot Act in 2001, it is legal to surveil and target foreign terrorists, but not so their domestic equals. Prime examples of making America safer are the tracking and killing of Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, in 2011, and Gen. Qassim Soleimani, director of Iran’s policies and second behind the Supreme Leader, in 2020. Taking such non-judicated action on a U.S. citizen is unthinkable.
Our protection agencies often have information gleaned from publicly posted, legal sources, including prior knowledge of the January 6 terrorist insurrection and occupation of the U.S. Capitol. The attack resulted in death and destruction of public property, but taking preemptive action before any laws were broken was impossible. The fantasy-world solution would be authorities knowing of an assassination attempt; getting to the scene and, after the sniper fired, committing the crime of attempted murder; snatch the bullet out of the air before reaching its target. That fantasy illustrates the impossible reality law enforcement faces.
We have plenty of domestic terrorist activity and adjudication in our history to set precedent. The four presidential assassins were all executed: one by authorities while resisting arrest, two by execution after trials, and one, bizarrely, by a private citizen, who was tried and jailed. Unfortunately, the full list is too long to elaborate here, but it is worth noting from where some individual terrorists came: The 16th St. Baptist Church bombers in Birmingham, Alabama that killed four young girls in 1963 were members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan is a long-standing terrorist group that arose out of Reconstruction era efforts to enculturate newly freed Black citizens. They spread lynching and arson terror across the American South with impunity until President Ulysses Grant decided to stand up to the bullies in 1871. He aggressively prosecuted every illegal act, eventually sending Klan terrorists into the shadows––only to reemerge during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and ‘60s.
The Oklahoma City bombing principals came from a militia in Michigan. The only justice for the 168 adults and children killed in the 1995 attack was the trial and execution of one major perpetrator and life imprisonment of another. There was little authorities could do with the prior knowledge of intent and political leanings of their terrorist militia. One of several current terror-based militias, the Wolverine Watchmen, planned the kidnapping and eventual assassination of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. Fortunately, there was enough information and preemptive military action taken to stem the plot. The perpetrators were arrested and pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to kidnap. The sentence could be life imprisonment if the intent was to kill or 35 years if the intent was to maim.
Laws do what they can. It is illegal, in all 50 states, for private, unauthorized militias to engage in activities reserved for police or military. These laws preserve the constitutionally protected laws of speech and thought by adjudicating only illegal activity.
The term “militia” has taken on a visceral meaning in recent years. The Constitution sanctions militias to defend citizens and country. However, that official military charge was transferred to the National Guard in 1903. Since, militias have spanned everything from innocent gun-clubs to illegal, paramilitary, terror operations. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference, making law enforcement efforts that much more difficult.
The Biden administration is considering adding FBI agents to field offices to address the threat of domestic terror. There are reviews and studies in progress, but the fact remains, our American freedoms make it impossible to enact preemptive measures that would allow arrest or charges prior to any illegal activity.
Domestic terrorism problems initiate those think-tank reviews and studies, but offer little in the way of active solutions that may eliminate said problems. We can’t abridge the Constitution’s protections of individual rights and we shouldn’t want to.
One slow-moving solution is to foster an American unity and atmosphere of acceptance that will cause all but the fringiest of extremists to want to live without the threat of terror. Grant’s 1871 standing-up to the bully helped for a while. If we all overtly denounce and keep pressure on the narrow thinking of white nationalists calling for terror attacks on minorities, government, and law enforcement––all-the-while encouraging those attempting to expand inclusion and freedom for all, perhaps we can send the domestic terrorists back under their rock for good without shattering our freedoms.
Duane Fayerweather says
Interesting article! It would be i formative to provide info on the author as well.
Steven Balek says
This is a great Blog Terry but you failed to mention BLM and Antifa in addition to “White Supremacist Organizations”. Is there a reason for that?
Terry Donnelly says
Neither BLM nor Antifa sympathizers are listed as imminent domestic terrorist threats by the DOJ, FBI, DHS, or any other national security agency. White nationalism, white supremacy groups and militias are the top threats at this time according to those agencies and the focus of ongoing investigations, congressional hearings, and recent arrests for domestic terror activity. In fact, BLM and Antifa activity have been specifically cleared from responsibility in recent terror attacks.
Mike Baldwin says
Terry – Donnelly, I think you somehow got it backwards it is not white terrorists attacking minorities, government and police, it is the leftists and black terrorist and their supporters attacking businesses, government and police. The democratic party seems to support this by dismissing charges against rioters in many democratic controlled states and cities. While rioters in Washington D.C. are being hunted down and arrested. Even people who attended the rally in Washington DC and did nothing wrong are being hunted down and intimated by the FBI. The people who broken into the Capital should be arrested and prosecuted but so should those who burned and looted cities across the country be prosecuted. Let’s not blame it all on white people, even if that is the cause of the day, week, month and year. You call for Unity but your party does not deliver. Just look at the recent votes in the house.
Terry Donnelly says
Mr. Baldwin, To be bipartisan does not strictly mean the issue is confined to Washington D.C. The “recent votes in the house” were politically based but the individual programs and details within the relief package are favored by some 76% of the population that includes 40% of Republicans. There are several Republican mayors and governors who are in favor of the relief bill. They are close to the people and see the need within their states and cities. The people’s interests and state officials are what make the rescue bill bipartisan and unifying, not the congressional vote.
As for your first sentences about who the terrorists are: my statements come from the official national security sources I cited in the column from official documents, official statements and statements under oath. Who is involved is not my opinion, but the reported findings of authorities and courts. My opinions are based on those facts.
Teri Nehrenz says
I’d be interested in viewing the source of your “76% including 40% republicans” who support that bill.
Terry Donnelly says
I’m sorry, I was incorrect in my reporting. “Business Insider” (www.businessinsider.com) reporting by Gracie Panetta shows 76% voter approval for the recovery package, but my 40% reporting was wrong, it’s 60% according to B.I. I did see a poll of 40% Republican support, but I’ll go with the two 60%s here.
“Morning Consult” reports the same 76% support including 60% Republican support (89% Democratic support as well). (www.morningconsult.com – Claire Williams reporting)
Along with that Quinnipiac University Polling shows 72% favorable from the public.
Small business owners support the relief package at 69% with 46% Republican support and 61% Independent support.
80% or Texas mayors support the relief package––Republicans Jeff Williams of Arlington, TX and Francis Suarez of Miami support passage.
The Republican West Virginia governor is also a big supporter.