"If someone bugs you it is not a crime" - it is very easy concept and we were taught it in kindergarten. It is almost like they don't teach it anymore.

Thanks to Brad Koehn for putting this on Diaspora. I don't know much about the original author, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, but I believe his argument here is correct.

New law-enforcement powers would inevitably be turned against minorities and progressive dissenters.

By Russ Feingold

A violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, intent on overturning the results of the presidential election. We can and must prosecute the people responsible to the fullest extent of the law. But we shouldn’t grant those who failed to abrogate liberal democracy a partial victory by rushing to pass unnecessary “domestic antiterrorism” laws that would undermine civil liberties.

I understand the desire to respond to this outrageous act of insurrectionary violence. But I believe we shouldn’t rush into ill-considered actions that undermine our freedoms and do nothing to increase our security. That is why I was the only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001 and why I oppose new domestic antiterrorism laws today.

History makes clear that these new powers are likely to be used predominantly against black and brown communities and progressives. Consider the Palmer Raids against socialists and union organizers during the first Red Scare in 1919-20, or J. Edgar Hoover’s “Cointelpro” assault on the civil-rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, or the targeting of Muslim Americans in this century’s war on terror.

The overwhelming tendency in domestic antiterrorism has been to use invasive and unconstitutional surveillance techniques to criminalize legitimate dissent. In recent years, many states have continued the trend by passing laws that treat antipipeline protesters—often indigenous Americans—essentially as domestic terrorists and saboteurs, imposing harsh criminal penalties on activities protected by the First Amendment.

This history was a basis for the recent statement by 135 civil-rights and civil-liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and the NAACP, in opposition to any new domestic terrorism laws. I am proud to echo their call.

There can be no doubt that America faces a very dangerous right-wing and white-supremacist political-violence problem. The Trump years saw multiple mass murders carried out by white supremacists who targeted members of minority groups, as well as the rise of dangerous militias and street-brawler groups such as the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and Proud Boys. Especially alarming are the ties these groups have with some right-wing politicians, media figures and members of the police and military.

Political leaders must insist that federal law enforcement, which under the Trump administration saw resources shifted away from the fight against right-wing and white-supremacist violence, aggressively pursue the leaders and foot soldiers of the insurrection and the broader movements from which it arose. The Justice Department and Congress should use all legal means to investigate so that those who have engaged in violence and those who have supported them are held accountable.

We must not, however, confuse the need for a forceful response with the need for new law-enforcement powers. The law already gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors extensive powers to counter those who use violence for political purposes. As former FBI agent Michael German has pointed out, current law defines domestic terrorism and identifies 57 “federal crimes of terrorism.” With the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, or RICO, and various conspiracy statutes, federal law enforcement already has sweeping power to get at criminal organizations and those who support them.

In using these powers domestically, however, federal law enforcement is bound by the Fourth Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. This seems to be the real concern for supporters of new domestic terrorism laws. What they want is new, less-constrained surveillance powers that might allow, say, law enforcement to use wiretaps without first demonstrating probable cause that a crime is being committed and obtaining approval from a judge.

I know that some progressives support swift legislative action on these issues. While sharing their concerns about right-wing violence, I have been pleased that President Biden has taken a more measured approach that emphasizes using the great powers authorized under existing law to understand the threat and respond to it. I urge him to continue leading the country in this direction.

As James Baldwin observed more than 50 years ago, when we bring home battlefield notions of counterinsurgency, we end up burning down our own communities, ostensibly in order to save them. Let us not repeat that mistake.


Mr. Feingold is president of the American Constitution Society. He served as a Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, 1993-2011

#civil liberty #freedom #antifascism #anarchism #communism #politics