Tag: Domestic Terrorism
Domestic Terrorism for the FBI’s purposes is referenced in U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5), and is defined as activities:
• Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
• Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping;
and
• Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
This is a definitional statute, not a charging statute. We talk about the threat these actors pose as Domestic Terrorism threats, but each of the FBI’s threat categories, described in further detail below,
uses the words “violent extremism” because the underlying ideology itself and the advocacy of such beliefs is not prohibited by US law.
In using the term Domestic Terrorism, DHS looks to the Homeland Security Act definition of terrorism, 6 U.S.C. 101(18), which is substantially similar but not identical to the title 18 definition. That provision defines terrorism as any activity that:
• Involves an act that:
o Is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key
resources; and
o Is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other
subdivision of the United States; and
• Appears to be intended:
o To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
o To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
In this vein, the FBI and DHS use the term Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) to describe an individual based and operating primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
who seeks to further their ideological goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. It is important to remember that the mere advocacy of ideological positions and/or the use of strong rhetoric does not constitute violent extremism, and in some cases direct or specific threats of violence must be present to constitute a violation of federal law.
