Domestic terrorism and how it is disregarded and neglected in the judicial system in comparison to international terrorism.

DomesticTerrorismvs.HateCrimes.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Domestic terrorism and how it is disregarded and neglected in the judicial system in comparison to international terrorism.

Running head: DOMESTIC TERRORISM VS. HATE CRIMES

Domestic Terrorism vs. Hate Crimes: Differences and

Commonalities

Jamie Schork-Morency

American Military University

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 2

Abstract

The line between hate crimes and domestic terrorism is ill-defined in the United States, a blurry

no-man’s land seemingly dependent on body count. Resulting in equally blurred roles between

law enforcement and homeland security, the lines has skewed back and forth over preceding

decades. Examining the characteristics of each category will help to define where the line sits

currently as well as the responsibilities on each side and atop that line in the ever-shifting

intelligence community.

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 3

Introduction

In the Preamble to the Constitution, the authors proclaimed their intent to “insure

domestic tranquility,” a goal that has become staggeringly complex with the growth and

globalization of the American Experiment. In seeking a balance between the rights of the

individual and the responsibility for the safety of the many, crimes of intolerance can be

indistinguishable from acts of domestic terrorism. The line between hate crimes and domestic

terrorism is ill-defined in the United States, a blurry no-man’s land seemingly dependent on body

count.

Identifying, comparing and contrasting the distinguishing characteristics of each

category, clarity in the matter is sought from a perspective of intelligence and law enforcement,

rather than the more legalistic viewpoint common to such examinations. As the intelligence

community increases cross-agency collaboration and networking, a solid awareness of this topic

will help guide all who touch upon these fields.

Overview

The overlap between domestic terrorism and hate crimes is a relatively little examined

one. While a plethora of literature exists on the topics individually, it is at their intersection that

less attention has been focused. Legislative developments in the last decade have given the

federal government greater authority in the prevention and prosecution of both domestic

terrorism and hate crimes, and these changes will impact the role of intelligence in their

specialties. Given the differences in state and local roles, focusing primarily on the federal level

provides both specificity and context.

The primary federal agencies tasked with domestic security are the Department of Justice

and Department of Homeland Security (Fitzgerald, 2007). Multiple bodies within the

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 4

intelligence community are members of these departments, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Customs and Border

Protection, and Transportation Security Administration (Richelson, 2008). The FBI categorizes

domestic terrorists into three groups: left wing, right wing, and special interest. It is this ‘special

interest’ category that violent hate crimes are sorted into, as well as groups such as

environmental radicals and extreme animal rights groups. (Ronczkowski, 2007)

Domestic Terrorism

In the broadest sense, a Dutch study of over 100 definitions of terrorism compiled the

following amalgamated definition: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent

action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic,

criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of

violence are not the main targets.” (Carlisle, 2007) The most visible incidents of domestic

terrorism in recent years have been aimed at the American government, by Muslim extremists,

and homegrown anti-government movements.

US Code, Title 22, defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence

perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national or clandestine agents,” (Carlisle, 2007)

and it is this definition that predominantly guides the intelligence community. ("Central

Intelligence Agency," 2008) This definition omits ideological motivations such as religion,

crucial to understanding many current threats. (Sageman, 2004)

While the American Revolution can certainly be thought of as a successful campaign

against an existing government, the use of formal armies, identifiable heads and legislative

delineations set the founding fathers outside the category of domestic terrorists. The

phenomenon certainly became apparent when an attempted excise tax on whiskey resulted in the

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 5

Whiskey Rebellion, ground roots uprisings by guerilla groups collectively named ‘Tom The

Tinker’s Men’. Naming themselves after the unidentified Tom the Tinker, the group sought to

instill fear in those who were charged with enforcing the tax as well as those who complied with

the law. (Boyd, 1985)

Tax collectors have been the target of the earliest incidents of domestic terrorism, with

the initial actions of post-Civil War white supremacy groups largely targeting tax collectors and

land registrars. In their capacity as the administrators of the defeated South, they were often

viewed as oppressors, and the first symbols of a new and unacceptable social order. (Blee, 2002)

This legacy lives on in attacks against government and law enforcement agencies, including the

Internal Revenue Service. (Potok, 2009) Over the years, labor and anarchic terror gave way to

leftist radical groups such as the Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army, followed by

extremist right wing groups often associated with pro-gun, anti-federalist militant movements.

(Ronczkowski, 2007)

The modern faces of domestic terrorism are those of Oklahoma City bombers Timothy

McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and that of Major Nidal Hasan, the Army psychiatrist and Fort

Hood gunman. Domestic terrorism concerns that arise from the last fifteen years of threats are

increasingly domestic manifestations of transnational terrorist groups, in addition to continuing

threats from extreme right wing groups, radical environmentalists and social revolutionary

groups.

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are often identified by shocking imagery, reprehensible intolerance, and a

perceived stance of categorical primacy against its targets. Defined by the Department of Justice

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 6

as, “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of

their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” (Community

Relations Service, 2005), hate crimes are a concern in every state. Originally targeting crimes

based on racial or religious intolerance, the category has expanded to encompass sexual

orientation and most recently, gender identity (Paulson, 2008).

Previous laws regarding hate crimes are far more prevalent at the state level, and more

often typified as an examination more of motive than method (Paulson, 2008), setting it apart

from the more publicity seeking methods employed in domestic terrorism. Anti-hate crime

legislation on the federal level has been historically limited by restrictions on federal authority

under the commerce clause, preventing federal hate crime legislation from addressing crime that

does not cross state lines. (Paulson, 2008)

Established in United States vs. Morrison, Justice Warren clarified that appropriate

legislation may have potential legality due to the clauses in the Thirteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments. (Paulson, 2008) The 2009 passing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes

Prevention Act (HCPA) empowered federal law enforcement, under the auspices of the

Department of Justice (DOJ), to combat hate crimes on the federal level. Granting the DOJ

jurisdiction over hate crimes, additional measures fund efforts made at the state and local level,

both preventative and investigatory. (HRC, 2009)

The 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act began the task of tracking statistics for hate crimes.

The statistics gathered from 1992 through 2004 encompass “… crimes that manifest evidence of

prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including, where appropriate,

crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault,

intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property.” (James & Rishard,

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 7

2008) The recently passed HCPA continues these tracking efforts, expanding upon them with

the inclusion of tracked metrics for crimes based on gender and gender identity. (HRC, 2009)

Tracking these metrics, along with increased participation in tracking, allows for more

comprehensive data analysis of incidents, such as that compiled by the Anti-Defamation League.

Concluding that racial violence remains the most prevalent hate crime, over 50%, and of that, an

overwhelming majority is anti-black violence, a full 34.8% of all hate crimes in 2007. Spiking in

2001-2002, hate crimes had decreased considerably in the years following the September 11th

terrorist attacks, but have been trending upwards in the last two years. (Rintels & Loge, 2009)

Commonalities & Differences

Groups pursuing hate and terror agendas often have ostensibly legal fronts, from charities

to churches. White supremacist movements began the trend in the United States in the years

following the inception of the Klu Klux Klan (Blee, 2002), and it is a trend that continues today,

aiding the finance and propagation of such groups. In recent years, charitable donations have

come under greater scrutiny by law enforcement and intelligence (Crimm, 2004)

Both categories of crime have very specific targets, whether it be institutions or societal

groups. (Blee, 2002) Within these targeted groups, victims are largely interchangeable – the goal

of violence and intimidation in both categories is to induce feelings of insecurity and encourage

compliancy with the aggressor’s goals. (Shichor, 2007) In the Fort Hood shootings, government

service was the targeted factor - race, gender and religion were comparatively irrelevant.

(Department of Defense Independent Review Panel Related to Fort Hood. & United States. Dept.

of Defense., 2010)

The aftermath of these crimes, when studied, indicate that terrorist acts have a

significantly more sizeable group of potential victims, and thus are more likely to leave

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 8

widespread fear. The emotional impact of both categories of crime are similar, attaching little

stigma to one’s choices compared to other crimes, but the lingering fear is often more significant

due to the non-targeted nature of the crime. (Shichor, 2007) Iganski described the effects as

“psychic injury”, later going on to state that in contrast to conventional crimes, “Hate crimes hurt

more.” (Iganski, Burney, & Institute for Jewish Policy Research., 2002)

Distinguishing the two

It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between hate crimes and domestic

terrorism based on the targeted victims. Sometimes, it may be impossible, as hate crime do no

preclude terrorist actions, nor do terrorists abstain from hate crimes. In many instances, religion,

nationality, and government service are targets of both domestic terrorism and hate crimes. This

creates an increasingly thorny situation in terms of intelligence sharing and prosecution.

Perhaps one of the clearest ways to quantify the two is to examine the goals and tactics of

terrorists and criminals, rather than the motivating beliefs. Increasingly willing to use suicide as

a tactic, domestic terrorism seeks change through fear, while hate crimes often – but not always -

seek a regression or maintenance of the status quo. Often willing to claim responsibility,

terrorist groups are less likely to seek faceless anonymity, the bold claiming of a strong identity

further instilling insecurity in their targeted group.

In past decades, tactics used in notable hate crimes have often come to greatly resemble

those of domestic terrorists, employing explosives, including secondary anti-personnel mines

intended to cause further casualties by impacting rescuers. Explosives aimed against

homosexuality and abortion rights activists have even killed a spectator the 1996 Summer

Olympics. Assassination, once a terrible memory of the civil rights era, has resurfaced in the

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 9

abortion debate, after the point-blank targeted killing of a Kansas abortion provider in church..

(Potok, 2009)

Chain of Hate

Given the often ethnic and religious hatreds that originate hate crimes, it is possible to

consider that hate crimes are a possible gateway to domestic terrorism – in effect, striking against

the institutions that support the object of intolerance. This theory is categorized by Gurr as

“Vigilante terrorism…initiated by private groups but is aimed at other private groups in

resistance to threatening social change.” (Gurr, 1989, p. 204) The most common type of

terrorism in American history, vigilantism can be planned or opportunistic, and varies in scale

from individuals to full-fledged riots such the Weather Underground’s “Days of Rage” riots in

Chicago. (Kushner, 2002)

Further concerns lie in the increasing transnational terrorist threat, and the opportunities

for those already disaffected domestic groups to become affiliated with or merge with larger

groups. (Ronczkowski, 2007) Al Qaeda’s recent public relations courting of far left

environmental terrorism illustrates the challenge of categorizing terrorism, but also that

subsections of hate and terror are subject to cross-pollination. (Blomfield, 2010) Particularly

given the increase in hate-motivated domestic terrorism so closely identified with the Salafi

jihad, and the growth of domestically originating jihadism, the transnational link to unrest within

a subset of the

Conclusion

Given the increasing commonalities between domestic terrorism and hate crimes,

previous delineations are often less than helpful. In examining potential sources of threats, the

core motivation of the group focus more on the objects and origins of conflict and the methods of

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM Jamie Schork-Morency 10

inducing fear in propagating their agenda, and less on the ultimate goal of social change – or lack

thereof – that the group seeks to implement. While all facets are important, and some are critical

in the short-term, understanding not simply the object of hate but also the agenda will further

analysis of both terrorists and hate criminals.

This supports more holistic examination of current environment and future motivation in

the process of evaluating threats, in which distinguishing between hate crime and domestic terror

is far less important than tactics and networks. Hate and fear of otherness is a pervading source

of conflict in human history, and the advertent intelligence professional will devote attention not

only to the source of the conflict, but the end goal and the possible tactics and links that may lie

along the way. In the end, hate begets terror, and both are unacceptable to security and

prosperity.

Jamie Schork-Morency Page 11

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM

References

Blee, K. M. (2002). Inside organized racism : women in the hate movement. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Blomfield, A. (2010, January 29). Osama bin Laden enters global warming debate. The Daily

Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7104143/Osama-bin-

Laden-enters-global-warming-debate.html

Boyd, S. R. (1985). The Whiskey Rebellion : past and present perspectives. Westport, Conn.:

Greenwood Press.

Carlisle, L. (2007). The Definition of Terrorism. London: Home Department.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2008). from http://www.cia.gov

Community Relations Service. (2005). Hate Crime: The Violence of Intolerance. Retrieved 31

January, 2009, from

http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/crs_pub_hate_crime_bulletin_1201.htm

Crimm, N. J. (2004). High Alert: The Government's War on the Financing of Terrorism and Its

Implications for Donors, Domestic Charitable Organizations, and Global Philanthropy.

William and Mary Law Review, 45(4), 1341+.

Department of Defense Independent Review Panel Related to Fort Hood., & United States. Dept.

of Defense. (2010). Protecting the force lessons from Fort Hood Available from

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-

Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf

Fitzgerald, A. L. (2007). Terrorism and national security. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Gurr, T. R. (1989). Violence in America. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Jamie Schork-Morency Page 12

HATE CRIMES VS. DOMESTIC TERRORISM

HRC. (2009, November 10). Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Retrieved February 4, 2010, from http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5660.htm

Iganski, P., Burney, E., & Institute for Jewish Policy Research. (2002). The hate debate : should

hate be punished as a crime? London: Profile Books in association with the Institute for

Jewish Policy Research.

James, N., & Rishard, L. (2008). How crime in the United States is measured. New York: Nova

Science Publishers.

Paulson, L. N. (2008). Hate crimes : legal issues and legislation. New York: Nova Science

Publishers.

Potok, M. (Ed.). (2009). Terror From the Right: 75 Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages

Since Oklahoma City. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.

Richelson, J. T. (2008). The US Intelligence Community (Fifth ed.). Boulder, Colorado:

Westview Press.

Ronczkowski, M. (2007). Terrorism and organized hate crime : intelligence gathering, analysis,

and investigations (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Shichor, D. (2007). Thinking about terrorism and its victims. Victims & Offenders, 2(3), 269-

287.

Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

individual use.