Law enforcement needs to take far-right terrorism more seriously - but not with a failed "War on Terror" framework

"A War on Terror modeled after the post-9/11 response would probably be not just ineffective but disastrous," writes Dave Neiwert. (As Biden tries to tackle white-supremacist terrorism, he should steer clear of any ‘War on Terror’ Daily Kos 01/22/2021)

Dave has been an advocate for more serious attention to the problems of far-right terrorism for years. But as he explains again in this piece, even after years of far-right, non-Islamic terrorism being far more of a problem than "radical Islamic terrorism," to use one of the Republicans' favorite magic conjuring phrases, law enforcement is still plagued by the problem of being blind in the right eye, not least because some in law enforcement as active sympathizers of the far right. And, of course, the obvious white racism in law enforcement nationwide means that many of them are unlikely to regard the white supremacy that is a core orientation for the far right.

This piece draws heavily on two other recent articles: Spencer Ackerman's Biden Taps a War on Terror Veteran to Stop White Supremacists Daily Beast 01/21/2021 and No, We Do Not Need New Anti-Terrorism Laws to Combat Right-Wing Extremists 01/11/2021.

What they all stress is that the central problem of fighting far-right terrorism has not been the lack of laws, but the lack of focus on the problem. Bayoumi writes:

While the USA Patriot Act did redefine terrorism to include its domestic variety, it did not create a specific set of penalties for such acts. Instead, prosecutors can use many of the broad terrorism laws that are on the books to prosecute acts of domestic terror (the majority of which have been committed by far-right actors). The problem is, they simply don’t. (my emphasis)

The milieu of domestic white-supremacist terrorism is very different from that of Islamist terrorism, including the nature of foreign connections that may be involved. To use Democrats' current favorite foreign enemy Russia as an example, Russia does encourage and subsidize far-right movements and groups in foreign countries, but aren't so likely to subsidize radical Islamic jihadist groups. Although our common terminology that distinguishes "far-right" from "Islamic" terrorism is a bit murky, because in terms of political ideology, jihadist Islamism can also legitimately be described as far right in terms of its authoritarianism and cultural politics.

For that matter, if there actually are far-left terrorist groups active in the US (if there are any, they are staying well concealed!), that would also be a distinct political and cultural environment than those of white-supremacist far-right or violent Islamist groups.

But the nearly 20-year-long War on Terror has been almost exclusively focused in practice on Islamist groups. And in the real world, there is a lot of ideological and organizational inertia to do more of what they've been doing in the past. As Bayoumi puts it:

[A] terrorism double standard exists. And the double standard is deeply entrenched both in our laws and in our broader culture. Left unexamined, this same double standard feeds off of its own bigoted limitations and assumptions and grows like yeast in a warm oven. One result of this is the discourse we’re now all familiar with: White guy shooters get labeled as angry or desperate or losers, while Muslim shooters are defined as terrorists. The former are examined as troubled individuals. The latter no longer belong to humanity.

Ackerman's report focused on a key Biden appointee, Russ Travers, as deputy Homeland Security adviser in the White House. Travers "has marinated in the War on Terror," he writes.

But some worry that it will be natural—indeed, human—for Travers to apply his post-9/11 experience to far-right and white-supremacist terror. That would be a disaster, they warn, both for the Constitution and for success. With debate underway amongst Democrats over new domestic terrorism statutes, the path Biden chooses is likely to define his early tenure as president.

“War-on-terrorism tactics aren't the solution to our current problems. In many ways, they are a cause of them,” said Michael German, a retired FBI special agent who arrested white supremacists in the 1990s, and who spoke generically and not about Travers particularly.

Dave Neiwert makes the following key pointss: (1) US law-enforcment needs to take far-right domestic terrorism much more seriously; (2) there is a vigorous legal framework already in place to investigate and prosecute far-right terrorist groups, though the statutes on domestic terrorism may be murky in some ways; (3) the central problem is that white supremacist attitudes are deeply ingrained in law enforcement agencies, a bias that strongly favors permissive treatment for far-right criminals; and, (4) "the War on Terror has in fact failed."

I don't know if there may be some changes to the law that might be needed to combat the kind of insurrectionist groups behind the January 6 Capitol riot. But it's the responsibility of our representatives in Congress to scrutinize laws carefully for necessity, effectiveness, and protection of civil liberties and due process. Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration should definitely not use this as an opportunity to pass a wishlist of new measures without regard to the actual problems.

And, new laws or not, what Dave Neiwert writes here is critically important:

It’s not credible to expect our national law-enforcement apparatus to respond effectively to far-right domestic terrorism when its ranks are full of people sympathetic to their cause. So any effective solution to dealing with the spread of domestic terrorism will necessarily be wrapped up in the similarly major issue of larger police reform, which should probably begin with a focused effort on weeding out extremists within their ranks.

It also should emphasize providing training for officers to recognize, investigate, and prevent both hate crimes and domestic-terrorist acts — which has long been recognized as a significant factor in the ongoing problem of under-enforcement of hate-crimes laws. In the process, it is likely to create forces that are more attuned to the challenges facing communities of color and vulnerable minorities.

In general, an effective response to domestic terrorism will need to emphasize a ground-level response that engages local and state forces in the work, rather than placing the enforcement eggs in a top-heavy federal apparatus that responds slowly to conditions on the ground and usually becomes bureaucratically calcified in very little time. A War on Terror modeled after the post-9/11 response would probably be not just ineffective but disastrous. [my emphasis]

He also cites these two articles by Michael German, both prior to the Capitol attack: Why New Laws Aren't Needed to Take Domestic Terrorism More Seriously Just Security 12/14/2020 and Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement Brennan Center 08/27/2020.