Don’t rush terrorism laws
Jan. 6, 2021 will likely be a date that will endure in the American psyche for years to come. It’s the day we witnessed a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists and supporters of former President Donald Trump in what had all the signs of an attempted coup.
In the aftermath of this violent insurrection that left five dead, including two police officers, hundreds have been arrested. Mr. Trump has been impeached. Fear lingers in Congress as some members worry about colleagues who still defend a president accused of inciting the riot in an effort to overturn the election and hold power. There is talk of a domestic terrorism law.
And there are some in Congress who would apparently like to change the subject, among them Rep. Elise Stefanik of Schuylerville. After backing fake claims of election fraud, she is now questioning why the National Guard is even in Washington, D.C., anymore.
This is a time for thoughtful heads to prevail. Not partisans absurdly asking what the fuss is just three weeks after an insurrection. But we also don’t need Congress to rush to pass legislation just to look like it’s doing something.
This in no way is to diminish the concern that Jan. 6 may mark the start of a surge in right-wing violence. Those who study extremism warn that even a failed event like that can inspire more attacks. A National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin on Jan. 27 — the same day, incidentally, that Ms. Stefanik joined her colleagues in questioning why the Guard is still in Washington — warned of a “heightened threat environment nationwide” from “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
Without downplaying the threat, we should keep in mind the lessons of the response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Through laws and policies, we saw a rise in government surveillance and data gathering, as well as a long, vague and costly war on terror, with tactics including questionable stings, torture and detention without trial.
Civil rights groups understandably worry about how broadly domestic terrorism legislation might be written, construed and applied. How much could it erode or chill free speech by criminalizing, for example, statements critical of government and public officials that may happen to echo those made by groups or individuals who engage in terrorist acts? How much could it impair the right to peacefully protest if people fear that showing up at a rally where some people turn violent could open them to a charge of terrorism? How much proof of active participation beyond coincidental association would underlie such a charge? And how might such a law be used by a criminal justice system with a history of racial bias?
So far, we’ve heard no real argument that law enforcement lacks the tools necessary to monitor extremist activity, or to arrest and prosecute people who engage in or plot violence, whether in the name of white nationalism, antigovernment ideology, or the wacko conspiracy theories energizing some of Mr. Trump’s followers and even some members of Congress. If there’s a case to be made for a domestic terrorism law, let’s hear it, as well as the arguments against it — thoughtfully and thoroughly, in that place where U.S. laws have long been made.
That very process of sorting fact from fiction and reason from impulse can serve as an inspiration of its own, far more powerful than a failed coup stoked by lies and nutty conspiracy theories. It’s the inspiration this 244year-old republic can once again offer its people and the world, showing it can come through yet another crisis as strong and free as ever.