Denying ‘Domestic Terror’
Terry H. Schwadron
May 24, 2022
The response to the clearly identified racially motivated shootings in Buffalo has trod the unfortunate, predictable path.
There was initial outrage across political and racial lines, there were the expected denunciations of both gun availability and counterarguments about mental illness affecting a single individual, and there was public handwringing over the too-often repeated conspiracies particularly among Republican politicians and select cable and social media that support a “Great Replacement Theory.”
There also were charges filed against the 18-year-old who live-streamed himself gunning down Black citizens in that Tops supermarket. He actually owns three long guns, all legally obtained, and untouchable by any law or order even recently announced, like those limiting “ghost” gun kits.
There seems no dispute so far that the teen, who had been seen by mental health professionals after having threatened his high school classmates, drove three hours to arrive at Tops with an illegally modified weapon, published an outwardly racist manifesto and having shared with 15 apparently like-minded people in his chat room what he intended to do — with none calling the police.
Even his parents are reticent about coming to his public defense.
But a week later, despite the usual calls to Do Something, as a matter of law, health and gun limits and racial tension itself, we are largely where we were before the shootings, watching funerals of 10 people who were buying groceries in the only supermarket in an identifiably Black area.
Indeed, the next governmental shoe to drop will be a Supreme Court decision expected to make it much easier for everyone to carry concealed weapons in public, a ruling expected in the next month.
We’re now just waiting for the next mass shooting; we had at least three in the week following Buffalo.
Domestic Terrorism Questions
This time, President Joe Biden joined with the usual array of talking heads in promoting an approach to target “domestic terrorism.”
The argument is that the reach of conspiracy theories, white supremacism, nationalist efforts to overthrow our democracy have built to a crescendo that takes the requirements of enforcement beyond singular homicide charges. Christopher Wray, the FBI director, has led those arguing that the work of white supremacists is now our top domestic danger.
A bill to target domestic terror passed by the House on a mostly party-line vote is headed to the Senate this week. And predictably once again, Senate Republicans are lining to up kill the effort.
The bill would create offices in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the FBI to target domestic terrorism to take more action against the threat perceived in the long string of incidents that includes the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and several mass shootings targeting Blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans and Jewish people.
Senate and House Republicans somehow have twisted a bill about crimes into a blanket defense of free speech.
Empowering government to new authority to monitor domestic terrorism could easily morph into federal policing of political speech, they argue. Conservatives worry that surveillance or other attempts to avoid mass shootings would be more targeted toward anti-government, anti-immigration activists than extreme left-wing groups.
Here’s Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a reliably predicable dissenter: “I’m completely opposed to this idea that we would be giving the federal government and federal law enforcement power and authority to surveil Americans, to engage in any kind of monitoring of speech that is directed toward censorship. I think it’s extremely frightening and I can’t believe they haven’t learned their lesson from the disinformation board debacle.”
In simplified terms, the free speech Hawley wants to protect surround the repetition of a Great Replacement Theory that says Jews and leftists are bringing in immigrants of color to replace white, Christian Americans, and justifies any actions to resist. It is what this alleged shooter and others have cited in the mass killings in recent years.
An Associated Press/NORC poll last December asked respondents to assess the statement “There is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants who agree with their political views.” Thirty-two per cent either “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed, noted The New Yorker magazine.
Disinformation as Target
Republicans recently decided that a proposed disinformation panel in Homeland Security was another guise for stamping out free speech. That was an idea born in the Donald Trump administration to rebut misinformation about border or other national security-related issues. Because of the opposition, its executive director, Nina Jankowicz withdrew, and it’s not clear what its responsibilities will be.
Clearly, there also will no new national legislation about the availability of guns nor more money for mental health services either.
By contrast, the same Senate Republicans were among the first to proclaim a need to protect Supreme Court justices from peaceful protests outside the court or their homes after the recent leak of a pending decision to outlaw abortion as a federal protected act.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has frequently attacked Black Lives Matter protests, said law enforcement is already supposed to be tracking domestic terrorism threats. Johnson said “there’s a huge double standard” between calls by Democrats to authorize federal law enforcement to track extreme speech when it comes from groups on the right compared to groups on the left.
The Justice Department announced in January the formation of a special unit to fight domestic terrorism and has doubled its investigations of people suspected of fomenting domestic extremism over the past two years, as a priority for Attorney General Merrick Garland. Last June, the Biden administration unveiled a 32-page plan for identifying domestic extremists.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he would be very surprised if the bill gets 10 Republican votes to overcome an expected filibuster. “I get a little concerned when people want to pass new laws to supplement laws that are already in place that would be used to charge people with crimes. I don’t necessarily believe we need a new law to convict people who have committed other crimes,” he said.
The issue, of course, is whether we want to do anything about what gives rise to the shooting crimes, not to pad the eventual charges.
##