Dangerous motives in a new domestic terrorist unit

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced that it will create a internal unit to focus on domestic terrorism. Citing ethnic and politically motivated murders in El Paso, Pittsburgh, Charleston, and two attacks against Congress – last January 6 and the shooting at a Republican practice draw for the annual congressional baseball game in 2017 – Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that fighting violent extremists in the country is one of the “highest priorities of the DOJ.” Olsen adds that the new unit will work closely with the Civil Rights Division, potentially alleviating civil libertarian concerns about excessive government access.

Certainly, with disturbing episodes of violence intended to harm or intimidate political opponents and national organizations involved in such events, a coordinated federal response seems appropriate. Indeed, federal law enforcement is most justifiable when state and local agencies cannot or, in the worst case, do not want to effectively protect civil rights and the liberties of individuals in their jurisdictions. The federal government is often the organization best positioned to find and prosecute political actors repeatedly engaged in violent incidents in various jurisdictions across the country.

However, the political and ideological views and the right to popularize and organize around them – no matter how pernicious – are protected by the Constitution to the extent that such actions promote violence. or other crimes. Even with the best intentions and staffed with the highest integrity attorneys from the start, domestic counterterrorism teams are inherently vulnerable to political change and potentially targeted missions. Protected First Amendment activity is unacceptable and violates the due process rights of law-abiding Americans. .

This is hardly an unfounded worry. Recent history is full of examples of federal abuses violated American civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Most famous, Church Inquiry Committee revealed how the FBI, CIA, and NSA continuously illegally spy on and sabotage protected First Amendment activities as part of COINTELPRO operations from 1950s to early 1970s. Closer to the present day, the fear of terrorism has led to monitor Muslim communities in the United States before 9/11 and popularity increased after that, consists of unsecured wiretapping phone calls and surveillance of politically active Muslim Americans. Other investigations have resulted in obvious charges against incompetent individuals for conspiracies mostly or entirely formulated by law enforcement agencies or informants.

Since at least the early 2000s, progressives and civil liberties have repeatedly warned of the possibility and subsequently confirmed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in 1978 as a test of executive power to spy on Americans, their actions, and FISA court (or FISC) it was created that ended up triggering the very behavior they wanted to prevent.

After 9/11, FISC approved hundreds of requests that resulted in, inter alia, in the phone record Collect data on millions of Americans not related to terrorism or espionage. Although the post-9/11 abuses began under the George W. Bush administration, and reforms were initially resisted by Republicans, FBI agents then misrepresented the evidence to the FISC for investigation Carter Page, Trump campaign adviser, sparking outrage and calls for reform from conservatives.

Presumably, some domestic terrorism investigations will be on the radar of the FISC and its often secret procedures, but FISA’s evolution from a bulwark against government snooping has become a bulk data collection pipeline is indicative in three main respects.

First, well-intentioned laws are not sufficient to protect American civil liberties. Law enforcement procedures can naturally develop into patterns and norms that impede oversight and prevent accountability, especially in agencies that are not often subject to public scrutiny. they.

Second, especially in a law enforcement context, it is imperative that any investigative agency strives to gather as much information as possible, even to the point of collecting more data than the investigative agency can handle. can reasonably be handled. This is not because law enforcement is inherently bad; rather, the nature of investigation is to gather information, and it is therefore unreasonable to expect such agencies to severely restrict a core function to their discretion.

Third, bureaucratic institutions can never be completely isolated from partisan pressure or interference. Politics will always play some role in how an institution of government is run and what protection it receives from elected branches of government. This is not to say that every new president or attorney general will target specific groups or shelter others, but that political appointments and publicly stated enforcement priorities will. always affects those who end up facing investigative scrutiny.

Thorough internal reporting, ongoing congressional scrutiny and overt legal challenges to government authority have been proven essential to curbing possible procedural breaches. in any federal enforcement agency. Current practices provide many reasons to be wary of future abuses.

Last year, Patrick Eddington, senior fellow at the Cato . Institute Written inside Orange County Register that the FBI had opened an “review” of Women Who Care for America (CWA), a conservative nonprofit organization. The review is a type of FBI investigation, created by US Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008, that doesn’t need direct evidence of criminal activity to begin with. According to internal documents obtained by Eddington, the Obama-era FBI launched a review of the CWA in 2016 after it received a two-star rating from Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog that evaluates the work of CWA. use funds from institutions on a five-star scale.

The agency is ostensibly investigating “possibility of fraudulent activity,” but put simply, the assessment is a way for the FBI to track down criminals it has no good reason to suspect. This is a blatant violation of the fundamentals of due process, less than 2011 New York Times The report shows The FBI has initiated more than 80,000 assessments over a two-year period, most of which is insignificant – as is the CWA’s assessment.

But just because the government ended up dropping an unfounded investigation doesn’t mean they’re harmless. News of federal investigations could be ruined personal reputation, Even if The ultimate goal is exonerated. Furthermore, if criminal investigations become commonplace among political actors, they could have a chilling effect that prevents Americans from exercising our constitutional rights.

Importantly, all of the above happened do not have a dedicated domestic counterterrorism unit at the DOJ. Adding a new unit increases the likelihood of similar abuses occurring.

Creating any law enforcement entity with an open mission is always motivating to accomplish that mission, no matter what the best use of resources at any given time. Just as the gang, drug and gun task forces in local police departments can always find something to do, the potential for domestic terrorism will never completely disappear. So even if the threat of domestic terrorism goes down, any attorney in that unit will have a built-in incentive to find new terrorists. As long as the DOJ and the FBI have investigative authority to look into political groups for no particular reason, the risk of abuse is so great it can be seen as inevitable.

Ethnic and political violence cannot be tolerated in a free society, and the government has an obligation to protect Americans from such intimidation. However, governments must not violate our political rights in the name of their protection. And while it’s too early to judge the initial actions of the new domestic counterterrorism unit, history and experience teach us to be wary of its power going forward, regardless of its potential. how well it serves or what political party is controlling the office. .