Patriot Act Archives - Rise to Peace

January 11, 2022 by Chris Ynclan Jr

The Misuse of Counter-Terrorism: How Authoritarian States Repress Dissent

Within the past two decades, governments across the world have worked diligently to prevent large-scale terrorist attacks. Furthermore, when examining the current global state of counter-terrorism, it is evident that the counter-terrorism tools at the disposal of governments are the most effective they have ever been.

However, there has been a noticeable rise of governments detaining critics under the guise of counter-terrorism. To understand what can be done, we must understand what circumstances led to the rise of this worrying trend in recent years.

Origins of Contemporary Counter-Terrorism

Although counter-terrorism is not a new phenomenon, the modern way we conceptualize and practice it began after the September 11th attacks. The deaths of thousands of Americans on U.S. soil provided a wake-up call to the traditional agencies of our national security apparatus. These attacks provided the impetus for the creation of new agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, becoming the cornerstone of national security. In addition, the government passed the Patriot Act within the same year, giving newfound powers to agencies with a counter-terrorism focus.

The most infamous of these agencies which were given more authority to expand surveillance was the National Security Agency (NSA). The agency traces its heritage to the establishment of the Armed Forces Security Agency, which later became the agency it is today in 1952 to better coordinate communication intelligence (COMINT) across the government.

After the Cold War, the NSA was viewed similarly to other intelligence community agencies, as relics of a time where the USSR was our greatest threat. The agency was given a reinvigorated purpose in an era that had replaced the threat of Communism with the threat of terrorism.

Moreover, the United States shaped international counter-terrorism norms in the early years of the War on Terror. A wide coalition of nations supported the U.S. decision to combat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This became evident by the unanimous passage of Resolution 1386 of the UN Security Council, which established the International Security of Assistance Form (ISAF).

Counter-terrorism operations became apolitical among the states participating in the international system. The use of tools to conduct mass surveillance was also normalized as it was seen as necessary to combat terrorism. While the tools used to conduct counter-terrorism were seen as controversial, they were indicative of an attitude by the United States to fight terrorism by any means necessary.

Authoritarian “Counter-Terrorism”

As the War on Terror has progressed, many states adopted the norms and tools used by the United States. The progression of time has also led to more advanced technology being adopted each year by governments around the world. These conditions have allowed authoritarian states the unprecedented ability to spy upon their citizens, accessing their movements and online presence. They have used this information on those they consider dissidents to quell criticism against their regimes by having them recant statements made online.

In the most extreme of these cases, regimes have used the excuse of counter-terrorism to imprison their citizens whom they believe weaken their regime. Authoritarian states have consistently targeted journalists.

Authoritarian regimes survive by instilling fear within their state by ensuring any forms of dissent are met with harsh repercussions. In a healthy society, journalists act as a fourth estate that safeguards against government abuses. These imprisonments of journalists have occurred from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to as far as Myanmar. Such actions only delegitimize counter-terror operations which aim to defeat extremist organizations, such as ISIS.

What Can Be Done

It is important to note the current deficiencies existing in contemporary counter-terrorism when confronting this issue. The most pressing issue is the varying doctrines among states regarding how they combat terrorism. Several of these doctrines have developed primarily from military rules of engagement. Attitudes and norms have also molded theses from the War on Terror.

In order for reform to occur, there must be a codification of rules of engagement within international law. Such reforms would limit the scope of counter-terrorism operations to only extremist groups, which are widely agreed upon to be threats to international security. Deviation from these newly established norms would ensure that states will no longer be able to use counter-terrorism as a justification for their nefarious actions in a legal context.

Christopher Ynclan Jr., Counter-Terrorism Research Fellow

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments

August 13, 2019August 14, 2019 by Rise to Peace

Prosecuting “Domestic Terrorism” in the United States

El-Paso Memorial for the victims of the mass shooting that took place on 3 August 2019. Image Credit: Paul Ratje of Agence France-Presse (Getty Images)

Infamously coined ‘lone-wolf’ attacks or acts of violence, the United States has tragically experienced 2 separate mass shooting occurrences this month that claimed the lives of many innocents. The shooting in El-Paso, Texas, carried out by 21-year-old Patrick Wood Crusius, is being treated by United States Federal Prosecutors as “domestic terrorism”. Federal officials, however, have been hesitant to use the term “domestic terrorism” for the reason that although the term is defined in United States law; there exists no actual criminal penalty attached to what would be treated an act or incident of “domestic” or “home-grown” terrorism.

Given this paradox between definition and applicable legal criminal responsibility, how, then, can a mass shooting or any attack conducted by an individual such as Crusius be brought to justice as ‘domestic terrorism’? This article will examine the intricacies of “domestic terrorism” and the stipulation for precise criminal penalties tied to such an act of violence.

Domestic Terrorism as Understood in the Patriot Act and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Section 802 of the United States of America Patriot Act addresses domestic terrorism. It has been common to mistake Section 802 as a section that concretely defines ‘domestic terrorism’ as a criminal offence on its own. However, Section 802 is not to be interpreted in this way. Section 802 supplements the existing definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act, largely created to expand investigative powers onto an individual (or individuals) should they be suspected of engaging in domestic terrorism. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recognises “domestic terrorism” as an act (or acts) “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature,”.

This brings us to the way in which domestic terrorism has been worded. An individual is recognised as ‘engaging’ in domestic terrorism if they commit an act that “could result in death”, and is in violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States of America, or if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

The legal scope of Section 802 regarding “domestic terrorism” is therefore limited to an act (or acts) that meet the following criteria: (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Consequently, it becomes evident that Section 802 “opens” an act of domestic terrorism to a broad interpretation when proceeding with criminal responsibility and prosecution.

Justice for the El Paso Victims, and the “Future” of “Domestic Terrorist” Acts

John Bash, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, stated that Crusius’ act of violence will be treated as a “domestic terrorist case.” With consideration to the aforementioned, Crusius cannot be literally charged as a “domestic terrorist”. Therefore, in terms of actual criminal penalty and prosecution, Crusius’ horrific act will be charged as a capital murder. In the state of Texas, Crusius may face up to 99 years in prison or even the death penalty, if found guilty.

Horrific mass shootings such as Crusius’ are not a new threat or occurrence in the United States. It has been reported that individual ‘lone-wolves’ have similar backgrounds in terms of personality attributes, isolation from society, profound interests in select extremist groups, to name a few. As examined, prosecuting such an act specifically as a crime of “domestic terrorism” is currently not possible under United States law. The justice system must therefore rely on state laws pertaining to murder and other acts of violence, such as the charge for capital murder, in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Given the increasing prevalence of such mass shootings, it may be soon necessary for “domestic terrorism” to become codified in United States law as a criminal act of its own. However, the legal process of having “domestic terrorism” officially codified may pose issues. The debate regarding a mutually agreeable definition and criteria for what constitutes an act of domestic terrorism, or an individual who will be recognized as a domestic terrorist, will be subject to a broad lens.