Thread by @BarbMcQuade

Thread. 1/ Based on current facts, Atlanta spa shootings appear to be a situation where federal terrorism laws do not apply. A statute making domestic terrorism a crime would fill the gap, but presents valid civil liberties concerns. It is a debate worth having.

2/ FBI abuses in 60s & 70s against political groups create concerns about investigating US citizens involving speech and association. FBI has since adopted guidelines that limit investigative techniques and forbid probes based solely on First Amendment protected activity.

3/ Today, a perpetrator of a mass shooting could be charged under state homicide laws or, if there is evidence of a racial motive, federal hate crimes. But both have shortcomings.

4/ The absence of a DT statute means we are unable to make such crimes morally equivalent to international terrorism. See excellent piece in @USATODAY by Chuck Rosenberg and Tim O’Connor. This type
of conduct is deserving of society’s moral condemnation.
google.com/amp/s/amp.usat…

5/ And a more significant drawback is the FBI’s inability to disrupt attacks before they occur, what FBI calls “left of boom.” Without a DT statute, FBI is sometimes unable to open an investigation even when it learns of plans for violence. More here.
lawfareblog.com/proposed-bills…

6/ State law enforcement agencies have murder statutes, but often lack the resources for proactive investigations that could disrupt attacks.

7/ A domestic terrorism statute would enable proactive federal investigations left of boom, ie, before an attack, but may involve use of undercover agents, informants, sting operations, and wiretaps, techniques used in IT, organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption cases.

8/ But in DT cases, civil liberties concerns arise because the groups that would be scrutinized would be groups that also exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly.

9/ A DT law would need to be based on violent conduct, not ideas, and would need to address concerns about civil liberties intrusions. We should have that debate and consider whether we can develop a DT statute that safeguards civil liberties.

10/ Our First Amendment rights are essential to an informed and effective democracy, but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. /END.