“Biden’s administration announced their plans to create ways for Americans to report radicalized friends and family to the government, in an effort to fight domestic terrorism ... stopping politically fueled violence before it start ... ‘ If you see something say something’ ... ‘ creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers know that there are pathways and avenues to raise concerns and seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing’ ... Biden began his presidency with a stark warning in his inauguration speech about the ‘rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.’ On June 1, Biden described the threat from ‘white supremacy’ as the ‘most lethal threat to the homeland today.’ The Biden administration said it would also work with large technology companies on ‘increased information sharing’ to help combat radicalization ... The Department of Homeland Security also plans to deploy ‘digital literacy’ and ‘digital fitness’ programs to help combat ‘malicious content online that bad actors deliberately try to disseminate’ ... the Biden administration was taking the threat of domestic terrorism seriously and would redirect the focus of intelligence agencies on internal threats. ‘We are investing many agencies of the government and resourcing them appropriately and asking our citizens to participate,’ the official said. ‘Because, ultimately, this is really about homeland security being a responsibility of each citizen of our country to help us’”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...entially-radicalized-friends-and-family/

Today, the Biden administration released its "National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism". It’s loaded with proposals based (so it seems) on premises that have been discredited or attacked when applied to various ethnic or religious minorities during the “War on Terror” era, such as the FBI’s infamous “Don’t Be A Puppet” website with its anti‐​Muslim stereotypes and tropes.

It’s hard to imagine how the FBI and DHS could possibly provide more information to their state, local and tribal law enforcement counterparts, but that is one of the major areas of emphasis in the administration’s new approach:



That last line should trouble everyone.

Exactly who in the government (at any level) will decide who constitutes an “extremist” or what constitutes an “extremist view”? If terminology–and thus standards–vary between levels of government, crafting anything approaching a coherent, legally sustainable policy in this area becomes problematic at best.

Clearly, hateful speech attacking people of color or others on the basis of their religion, gender status, and the like is repugnant and should be condemned by all people of good will. But the Supreme Court long ago ruled that even the most vile speech is protected speech unless it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Biden’s approach seems potentially ripe for First Amendment challenges if implemented in ways that clearly contravene the Brandenburg standard.

The Biden approach also calls for “making appropriate use of the analysis performed by entities outside the government” by introducing “a new systematic approach for utilizing pertinent external, non–governmental analysis and information that will provide enhanced situational awareness of today’s domestic terrorism threat.” (p. 16)

Does that mean buying still more surveillance‐​relevant information from data brokers, a practice that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is trying to prohibit?

Concrete, specific threat information is what’s required to stop any violent criminal conspiracy. The FBI had that in the ongoing Wolverine Watchmen case in Michigan, which is why the plot to kidnap (and possibly kill) Governor Gretchen Whitmer was foiled. So did the Nashville Police prior to the 2020 Christmas Day bombing, but they failed to act aggressively on the credible tip from the bomber’s girlfriend. Sending taxpayers a bill for reams of information aggregated and sold to law enforcement organizations will only add to the data overload problem, not help find actual violent actors.

The President’s domestic terrorism strategy has other proposals that appear to represent a clear threat to First Amendment‐​protected online speech:

]

Does “limiting widespread availability online” mean gutting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? And given the distributed nature of the internet, exactly how would federal, state, and local authorities limit “widespread availability online”?

The strategy also places gun control back in the spotlight:



The most radical incident of domestic terrorism in U.S. history involved a truck bomb used against the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Al Qaeda used hijacked aircraft as flying bombs to destroy the World Trade Center and severely damage the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. One far‐​right extremist simply used his car to run over counter‐​protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, killing one and injuring many more.

There’s no question that preventing known criminals from getting guns is an appropriate focus for public safety professionals. But given the multitude of ways of engaging in acts of violence, we should be cautious about proposals that elevate one type of threat above even more lethal, truly mass‐​casualty causing technologies, old or new.

We should also be skeptical of government claims that its agents and officials can tell themselves, much less us, that they have a magic formula for predicting who will become the next Timothy McVeigh:



As the Brennan Center has noted, there is no, published, peer‐​reviewed data demonstrating “a discernible process of radicalization that results in terrorist violence.” Simply stated, the Biden administration is re‐​imagining a counterterrorism approach that has long since been discredited.

In the aftermath of a violent national trauma, there is a predictable political impulse by House and Senate members to “do something” in response. That’s understandable. But the point should be to “do something that makes sense”. The Biden approach does not, particularly when compared to the declassified domestic terrorism assessment it cites as justification for its massive new program:



This particular paragraph speaks to the very real challenge law enforcement faces in trying to prevent any kind of terrorist act. And as history clearly shows, membership in a given domestic group may, or may not, necessarily be indicative of someone representing a confirmed threat.

Expecting police to prevent every possible violent incident on American soil is a form of magical thinking. Expecting them to act on specific, credible information on particular known or suspected violent individuals should be the standard by which we shape our approach to preventing another Oklahoma City bombing or an attempted insurrection.