Democrats’ Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act Shields Jihadists By Andrew C. McCarthy
You needn’t read far into this bill to hear the alarm bells.
H ow interesting that the familiar array of Islamist-apologist and left-wing groups, notoriously opposed to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, has lined up in support of congressional Democrats’ latest push for a “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.” Could it be because the proposed legislation goes out of its way to shield domestic terrorists who are catalyzed by foreign jihadist organizations?
You needn’t read far into the bill to hear the alarm bells.
Section 2 provides a definition for “domestic terrorism.” Sounds sensible . . . until you remember that federal law already has a definition of domestic terrorism. The term is codified by Section 2331(5) of the criminal code. It’s been there for a long time, and it’s perfectly fine. So why would we need another one?
Obviously, Democrats are not defining but redefining. The point is not to clarify what is already clear about domestic terrorism. It is to carve out an exemption from the definition — specifically, to create a new safe haven for a very specific category of terrorist.
Under the longstanding Section 2331 definition, “domestic terrorism” means activities that occur primarily within the territorial U.S., that are “dangerous to human life,” that violate state or federal law, and that are intended to accomplish one of the following three objectives: 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2) to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or 3) to affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Among the best things about this straightforward definition is that it has no exceptions. As long as the activities involved meet the stated criteria, the definition “domestic terrorism” applies to any terrorist, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, or any similar characteristic. It makes no difference whether a terrorist is animated by white supremacism, sharia supremacism, black separatism, communism, anarchism, or any other -ism. If the terrorists are operating in our country, and they use or threaten to use force to intimidate our citizens or coerce our government into acceding to their demands, they are engaged in domestic terrorism. Period.
Not so with the Democrats’ new proposal. After throat-clearing about how “domestic terrorism” means what Section 2331 says it means, the proposal hastens to add “except . . .”
Except what? Domestic terrorism is heinous, so why would we want to exempt from the definition any person or group who engaged in such conduct? Apparently, to insulate domestic jihadists from scrutiny — or, if you prefer, to guard against mutiny by the Democrats’ Islamist allies.
The proposed exception states that the standard definition of domestic terrorism
does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by (A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization … ; (B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 [which relates to foreign terrorists and foreign entities] … ; or (C) a state sponsor of terrorism[.] [Emphasis added.]
In other words, if a Muslim in the United States commits a mass-murder attack because he has been inspired by al-Qaeda’s call for believers to attack American targets, or by the Iranian regime’s revolutionary jihadism, that attack would not be considered domestic terrorism.
You may be thinking, “Hey, McCarthy, stop getting everyone all riled up. Your hypothetical terrorist doesn’t need to be covered under domestic terrorism because he’s already covered under foreign terrorism, right?”
Wrong.
Comments are closed.
