Beware of a New War on Domestic Terrorism
Policymakers must resist the expansion of the “War on Terrorism” framework
The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, perpetrated by supporters of President Donald Trump, has elicited a conversation on the appropriate framing of, and response to, politically motivated violence. In particular, there is a strong sentiment for describing this violent event as domestic terrorism. While the desire to use extreme language to label extreme violence is understandable, it also sets the frame for a new domestic war on terrorism, reminiscent of the post-9/11 civil liberties nightmare. As a furious public reflexively calls for government action in response to the threat of political violence, the domestic terrorism paradigm and its concomitant law enforcement overreach must be rejected.
Terrorism is statutorily defined as a criminal act that is “dangerous to human life” and is intended either to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” The acts committed by the riotous mob at the Capitol certainly fit this definition. Far more relevant than statutory definitions, however, is the discursive effects of framing political violence as terrorism. Language directly influences policy. Labeling something as terrorism demands counterterrorism solutions, many of which are repugnant to civil liberties and basic constitutional rights. Mass electronic surveillance, infiltration of First Amendment-protected activities, and secret government watchlists, for instance, are regularly employed by law enforcement agencies in the name of thwarting terrorist acts.
It is impossible to separate the terrorism label from the government apparatus it manifests. Following the violence in Washington, D.C., as the terrorism framing emerged as the dominant narrative, President-elect Joe Biden pledged to support legislation making “domestic terrorism” a federal crime. Law enforcement and prosecutors already have sufficient statutory resources to investigate and prosecute violent crime, including that which falls under the definition of terrorism. Over 100 individuals have been arrested and charged in connection with the riot at the Capitol. Nevertheless, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has suggested that Congress provide the government the same tools to investigate domestic terrorism as it has to investigate international terrorism. Such a suggestion is constitutionally abhorrent. Many of the intelligence authorities used to go after foreign terrorists would deprive Americans of their constitutional rights if they were to be used domestically. In fact, some of these purportedly foreign intelligence tools — such as warrantless mass surveillance conducted under FISA Sec. 702 — are currently used in violation of Americans’ rights. These authorities need to be drastically reined in or repealed altogether, not expanded via a new domestic terrorism law.
Well-intentioned individuals arguing for far-right political violence in particular to be labeled terrorism have called out discriminatory disparities in who the government labels and treats as terrorists. The FBI, for instance, has a long history of surveilling Black and Muslim activists and communities without individualized suspicion of criminal activity. The No-Fly List, to which it has been suggested that the Capitol rioters be added, has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge on due process grounds and has wrongly blacklisted countless innocents, including Muslims who refused to become FBI informants. Doubling down on the domestic terrorism paradigm under the pretense of combating political violence will further legitimize and entrench this security state that has systemically violated the rights of all Americans and especially members of marginalized communities. When the government is enabled to violate the rights of objectively bad people, the rights of law-abiding individuals are almost always violated as well, both incidentally and intentionally.
In times of crisis and unrest, it is easy, and perhaps instinctual, to fall back on familiar frameworks as templates for addressing current challenges. However, it is incumbent on policymakers to acknowledge the dangers of the “War on Terrorism” legal framework and resist its expansion. Allowing the recent acts of violence to be an impetus for more federal laws, more surveillance, and more civil liberties violations will turn this tragedy into a preventable travesty, the consequences of which will undoubtedly be felt for long after this moment has passed. During times when fear and anger may be reasonable reactions, liberty must be an intentional choice.
