Thread by @JohnFPfaff

I’m really struggling to understand what a “domestic terrorism” law would add.

Here’s the core part of Fed’s international terrorism statute:

Note that everything covered by the statute—murder, kidnapping, etc.—must already be a crime.

There’s nothing new… but real risks:

The assumption is a domestic version could be used against shooter in El Paso or the Pittsburgh synagog. And it could be.

But think about who else could be accused of trying to “influence govt policy by intimidation or coercion.”

This could EASILY extent to, say, BLM protests.

As I pointed out earlier today, these sorts of “anti-terrorism” laws rarely stay limited to their nominal purpose:

https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1159073271213645824

And we already see a push to describe BLM and antifa (which has killed no one) as dangerous, violent groups.

Now, again: can’t trigger a terrorism law without committing an already-existing offense.

So why do we need these laws? According to Lawfare, for the messaging: lawfareblog.com/its-time-congr…

But again, see the double edge here: this would allow a Trump DOJ to table BLM “terroristic.”

Given what we know about criminal sanctions and deterrence, and given that any act of domestic terrorism will already be a stand-alone non-terror crime, there’s no deterrent gain here.

This is about symbolism. Symbolism that is easily redirected in problematic directions.

Be wary of addressing any social ill by expanding our already massively-expansive criminal codes.

Criminal laws will inevitably be written broadly, and that breadth will inevitably mean they will expand their reach.