Justice Dept. wants cases that stick
In his speech on the eve of the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, an uncharacteristically forceful U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland assured the American public that perpetrators of the insurrection, at all levels, will be held accountable. Many have been calling upon the attorney general to be more aggressive in both action and rhetoric. But Garland is right to follow his methodical approach. History shows that the Department of Justice must take action, but it must do so in a way that does not rely on weak evidence, undermine due process, or breach the trust of the American people.
Political violence in America isn’t a new phenomenon, although there has been a sharp rise in the past five years. In the immediate aftermath of last year’s deadly insurrection, many compared the event to the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 when, following a contested election, armed, coordinated groups of white-supremacists, known as the Red Shirts, Rough Riders and members of the White Government Union, burned down the African American community center in Wilmington, N.C. The insurrectionists indiscriminately shot and killed dozens of Black citizens and forced all Black and anti-racist office holders to resign. The murderous mob was never held accountable.
But unlike the government’s response to the Wilmington insurrection, the Jan. 6 attack has led to over 700 arrests. Most are for misdemeanor charges such as “entering and remaining in any restricted building” and “parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.” Many defendants, though, have been charged with felonies related to the assault on the Capitol, obstruction of Congress, and less frequently, conspiracy.
Although more needs to be done, the arrests so far are much more far-reaching and aggressive than the consequences faced by a different group of extremists intent on attacking members of Congress and overturning the government.
In the late 1930s, a mob known as the Christian Front formed around the fiery, anti-Semitic radio talk show host, Father Charles E. Coughlin. Energized by Coughlin’s sermons, his followers started street fights, smashed the windows of Jewish-run businesses and used other intimidation methods to threaten and terrify American progressives. In January 1940, the FBI arrested 17 members of the terrorist group when it uncovered a plot to bomb buildings and bridges, seize power plants, assassinate over a dozen members of Congress and overthrow the government. An unconvinced jury acquitted nine and returned no verdict for the rest of the would-be assassins on charges of sedition. Emboldened by their release, some of the accused became erstwhile cult figures for the far right. Coughlin’s decline came only when public sentiment shifted during World War II and radio stations canceled his program, silencing his vitriol.
Attorney General Garland, whose grandmother fled anti-Semitism in Belarus in the early 20th century, knows how hatred ignites political violence and how the failure of the rule of law can destroy nations. He surely understands, too, the potential damage that can be done if perpetrators of the Jan. 6 insurrection are indicted but not convicted. A failure to convict could encourage rather than deter such calamitous action — putting our democracy further at risk.
While many would like to see a more boisterous and confrontational attorney general, Garland’s judicious approach and insistence on his department’s political independence safeguards our rights. Not all of his predecessors agreed. In 1919, the Bureau of Investigation, which later became the FBI, and the Department of Justice used far less restraint or respect for due process following a series of anarchist bombings targeting prominent conservative politicians and capitalists. Some of the mailed bombs were intercepted and others deployed, including one that exploded at the home of then Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. The bombings killed at least six and maimed several others.
In response, Palmer, a presidential hopeful, assisted by Justice Department attorney J. Edgar Hoover, compiled lists of thousands of largely foreign-born progressives to target for arrest and deportation. In what came to be known as the Palmer Raids, or “Red Raids,” agents rounded up, arrested and deported progressive immigrants, mostly from Russia, without warrants, sufficient evidence or due process. On a single day in January 1920, Palmer’s raids led to the arrest of 3,000 people affiliated with communist and labor organizations.
With little evidence and pandering to anxious Americans exhausted by a flu epidemic, Palmer ignited widespread panic and fear of progressives, especially Eastern European immigrants, painting them all as insurrectionists. Thoughts and political opinions were criminalized. Palmer’s rhetoric was so effective, we hear it echoed today, particularly from Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her allies.
Nevertheless, Palmer lost the presidential nomination and was censured by the Senate in 1921 for his raids. According to the FBI’s history website, the Palmer Raids “turned into a nightmare, marked by poor communications, planning, and intelligence about who should be targeted and how many arrest warrants would be needed.” Congress questioned the constitutionality of the raids and criticized Palmer’s “overzealous domestic security efforts.”
Attorney General Garland has said that “the success of the Department of Justice depends on the trust of the American people.” An impassioned, vengeful reaction or failures to convict key players would ultimately undermine that trust. Hard as it may be to swallow, to ensure that justice is done and our democracy is protected, we have to allow that, in America, everyone is “innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.” We can hope that Garland’s approach will remove any such doubt.