Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 06:31 AM - Edit history (2)
when one ignores acts perpetrated by domestic extremist groups. SPLC has a myriad of publications and articles about this. For example this - https://www.splcenter.org/20170925/hate-god%E2%80%99s-name
Ironically, the pretzel twist is when it comes to "hate crimes", they are apparently eliminated from consideration as "terrorism" despite involving identical tactics. That is discussed here -
The impact of terrorist attacks, far more than that of most other crimes, goes way beyond the number of victims. Such attacks send shock waves through targeted communities — racial groups, sexual minorities, Jews, Muslims, police and so on — and also can result, as security is ramped up, in a real loss of daily freedoms.
Other findings that emerged from the SPLC survey:
-Almost half of the attacks during the period apparently were motivated by the ideology of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement, including “sovereign citizens,” whose movement has been described by the FBI as “domestic terrorist.” A little more than that (51%) came from ideologies of hate, ranging from white supremacy to misogyny to radical Islamism.
https://www.splcenter.org/20150212/lone-wolf-report
If you read through this publication, starting about 1/2 way through, there is a timeline of every case from 2009 - 2015 (with a brief description and pictures and it is obvious who is being discussed).
That SPLC study also references a report done by the Congressional Research Service in 2012 (PDF). From that you find the following -
Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity
It may not be possible for investigators to describe the criminal activity involved early in an investigation as domestic terrorism. In these instances, investigators can work toward clarifying the motives of the suspects involved.25 Domestic terrorism cases differ from ordinary criminal activity in key ways. Most importantly, unlike ordinary criminals—who are often driven by self-centered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy prey—domestic terrorists are driven by a cause or ideology.26 If the motives involved eventually align with the definition laid out in 18 U.S.C. §2331(5), presumably the case becomes a domestic terrorist investigation. In some instances, ideologically motivated actors can also collaborate with profit-driven individuals to commit crimes.
To further cloud matters, another category of criminal activity, hate crime, may appear to involve ideological issues. 27 However, as described by one federal official, a “hate crime” “generally involve[s] acts of personal malice directed at individuals” and is missing the broader motivations driving acts of domestic terrorism.28 For investigators, distinguishing between “personal malice” and ideologically motivated actions may be difficult in specific cases. This suggests that sorting domestic terrorism from hate crimes depends on the degree of a suspect’s intent. Did the suspect articulate an ideology, belong to a domestic terrorist group, or follow an extremist movement? The grey area between domestic terrorism and hate crime hints that in some instances, suspects with links to domestic terrorist movements or ideologies supporting domestic terrorism may be charged with hate crimes. 29 It is unclear to what extent this influences how the government understands the threat posed by extremist movements that hold racist beliefs. If some individuals of this ilk commit crimes against police or judges, for example, is the government more apt to label this activity as terrorism while individuals sharing these same racist motivations but targeting ordinary citizens based on race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation are charged with hate crimes?
<...>
But here is the kicker (from same publication) -
<...>
Extremism vs. Terrorism
Another concept that muddies discussion of domestic terrorism is “extremism.” The latter term is commonly applied to homegrown actors, whether they be domestic terrorists or adherents of ideologies forwarded by foreign groups such as Al Qaeda. National security expert Jonathan Masters has suggested that many law enforcement officials likely view “extremism” as largely synonymous with “terrorism.”34
Masters has also found that there is a “lack of uniformity in the way domestic terrorist activities are prosecuted” in the United States.35 Presumably, using the term “extremist” allows prosecutors, policymakers, and investigators the flexibility to discuss terrorist-like activity without actually labeling it as “terrorism” and then having to prosecute it as such. This flexibility is certainly an asset to prosecutors. They can charge subjects of FBI domestic terrorism investigations under a wider array of statutes and, as a result, not describe the subjects publicly as terrorists. However, for policymakers this flexibility makes it hard to determine the scope of the domestic terrorist threat. One cannot get a clear sense of scope if some individuals are charged and publicly described as terrorists, others are discussed as extremists, and still others enter the public record only as criminals implicated in crimes not necessarily associated with terrorism, such as trespassing, arson, and tax fraud.
<...>
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85433/m1/1/high_res_d/R42536_2012May15.pdfAs you can see in the above, the Congressional Research Service points out the pretzel-twists.
Roof also adhered to a racist social/political ideology, and, as I said, was labeled a terrorist as a result.
He wasn't labeled as anything other than a hate-monger when it came time to prosecute. Edit to add this -
<...>
Under federal law, it is much easier to deploy terrorism-related charges against individuals inspired by radical Islam, because even elements like retweets can be considered material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. does not label domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations, as banning Americans from supporting U.S.-based organizations would raise First Amendment issues.
Certain acts of terrorism are already illegal under federal law regardless of motivation, including airplane hijacking, the use of particular explosives and weapons, and assassinating a government official. But stabbings and shootings aren’t included.
Nor would ramming a car into a crowd of people count as an act of terrorism under federal law. The legal omission is a problem that has come up in other domestic terrorism incidents that have come under federal investigation.
In the case of mass killer Dylan Roof, former FBI Director James Comey was hesitant to describe the Charleston, South Carolina, church shootings as domestic terrorism, though former Attorney General Eric Holder (who was out of office at the time) did describe the attack as terrorism. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch investigated Roof’s attack as a potential act of domestic terrorism,
but the federal government ultimately brought only hate crimes charges, which Lynch described as “the original domestic terrorism.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charlottesville-attack-domestic-terrorism-doj_us_5991eaa2e4b09071f69bb648And as a note, the exclamation of "Allahu Akbar" is not some indication of an "allegiance to an ideological movement". It is nothing but an Arabic phrase that praises "God" as the most powerful and is part of the Islamic prayers. No different then someone saying
"God is great, God is good, thank you for our daily bread (or some variation), Amen." in Christianity before eating. Someone using that phrase before committing a crime does not suddenly make the statement a criminal one. It makes the person uttering it a criminal who has chosen to abuse the term for their own reasons.
= new reply since forum marked as read
