Late Monday night, 28-year-old white Army veteran James Jackson from Baltimore reportedly stabbed black New Yorker Timothy Caughman, 66, to death with a sword. Jackson later told police that he has hated black men his whole life, and that he traveled to New York to kill black men. Jackson turned himself in on Wednesday morning just after midnight. The group behind the Women’s March called for people to join a march against hate crimes in honor of Caughman on Friday afternoon.

NYC: Meet us at 6pm in Union Square as we stand against hate crimes. #SayHisName: #TimothyCaughman! https://t.co/QD14criLvA pic.twitter.com/dPfhZojzIU

— Women’s March (@womensmarch) March 24, 2017

Jackson, like Dylann Roof, had written down his thoughts and beliefs about race and told police that he planned to deliver them to the New York Times. He took the bus to New York, aiming to get a lot of news coverage. According to his manifesto, he planned to kill multiple people.

Jackson was arraigned in Supreme Court in Manhattan on Thursday, charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime. But the prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi, said that additional charges may be forthcoming, such as first degree murder as “this is an act, most likely, of terrorism.” A police officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the New York Times that Jackson said that he had hated black people his whole life, since he was a child. Apparently he was particularly upset by black men who are in relationships with white women.

This act by someone who appears to be a white supremacist–although there are no confirmed ties between Jackson and any groups or organizations, he was obviously fueled by racial hate–has caused outrage. Many people are wondering why many politicians are not doing more about this type of homegrown terrorism, let alone acknowledging it.

Many hours ago, a terrorist stabbed &killed an American in a major international city. No not London but NY. A white supremacist. Forgotten.

— Wendell Pierce (@WendellPierce) March 23, 2017

Hi @PressSec, this is James Jackson. Extremists like him have been committing underreported acts of terror against Americans for centuries. pic.twitter.com/DeM7imzS47

— Dab Aggin (@DabAggin) March 24, 2017

There is also a notable difference in how the media covers murders of people of color compared to white people. New York Daily News writer Shaun King lashed out at his own colleagues on Friday, criticizing them for focusing on Caughman’s criminal history; he was arrested a couple of times for petty crimes, most recently 15 years ago. As King points out, a criminal record is irrelevant to murder. But the media appears to be more likely to focus on criminal history when writing about a black man who was killed than, for example, when covering the deaths of white people who tragically died in the London terror attack.

What my employer, the @NYDailyNews, & other outlets, did to #TimothyCaughman, a hate crime victim, was plain wrong.https://t.co/09OPGkG8pO

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) March 24, 2017

Caughman was a well-liked, quiet man from Queens, who used to run a federal anti-poverty program for youths. He had many different jobs during his lifetime and at the time of his death he lived in a room in a building for formerly homeless people transitioning to permanent housing. Caughman also read a lot and loved getting autographs from celebrities and keeping up with celebrity news. Actress Shari Headley used to communicate with him on Twitter, and she expressed her condolences on the social media site.

My heart is heavy typing this. Timothy Caughman was a fan of mine since 1991. He only spread LOVE His murder was senseless. RIP @timrock715 https://t.co/gZLt45bqQ6

— Shari Headley (@shariheadley) March 23, 2017

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke out against the crime on Friday, calling it “domestic, racist terrorism,” and comparing it to Dylann Roof’s killings in Charleston. He said that the election of Donald Trump has “unleashed forces of hate all over the country” and that attackers of this kind need to be punished harshly. But Trump, who quickly expressed condolences for the American tourist who was killed in the London attack, has yet to say anything about his fellow New Yorker.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White Man Who Traveled to New York To Kill Black Men Charged with Hate Crime appeared first on Law Street.

The trial in the Bundy brothers’ Oregon standoff case–when armed activists led an occupation of a wildlife refuge for 41 days–is getting closer. On Wednesday jury selection started and the first statements are scheduled to begin on September 13. The case already has plenty of attention online.

They’ve been charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility. In total 26 people were charged but only seven are going to trial now. Seven more are going to trial early next year and the rest have already pled guilty.

The Shoes

Journalists were live-tweeting from court on Wednesday, fascinated with the nature of the case. The Bundy brothers’ lawyer had argued that his clients need to be allowed to wear cowboy boots, because they are cowboys.

2a. Mumford first giggled a bunch about the jail issued shoes, calling them “urban loafers.” Jdg Brown: “I do not find it comical at all”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

2c. Ammon Bundy: “I prefer to be wearing boots.”

— Leah Sottile (@Leah_Sottile) September 7, 2016

The Background

It all started when two farmers, a father and son, were convicted for arson on government land in 2001. Dwight and Steven Hammond claimed they started a controlled fire on their land to get rid of weeds and brushwood that could cause wildfires, but that they lost control over the fire. They turned themselves in in January of this year and were given the minimum sentence of five years, but this caused some local supporters to start protesting. The leaders of the protests were the sons of Cliven Bundy, who had a separate previous standoff with federal authorities in Nevada. Bundy claimed the government was just trying to punish the Hammonds for not selling their land. The government, on their hand, said the Hammonds tried to cover up poaching activity with the fire.

Currently on trial (and pictured below) are Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, David Lee Fry, Jeff Wayne Banta and Neil Wampler. Kenneth Medenbach is missing from the picture below.

Jury selection begins for #OregonStandoff trial #LiveOnK2 https://t.co/9swhvvHq6o pic.twitter.com/tLzyfXXsAR

— KATU News (@KATUNews) September 7, 2016

The protesters didn’t give up, and instead occupied a federal building until they got what they wanted. The group, led by the Bundys, started calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and one of their viewpoints was that the government owns too much land and misuses that land. The fact that the group was opposed to the government and was armed led some to call them domestic terrorists. But they continue to paint themselves as cowboys and freedom fighters.

A picture from the courtroom illustrates the jury selection.

NOW: 31 potential jurors vetted by Judge Brown. Asked how much media exposure they had to the case. #Oregonstandoff pic.twitter.com/V1kEyyP4LN

— Eileen Park (@EileenParkTV) September 7, 2016

Most of the arrests were made during a traffic stop on January 26, in which the spokesperson for the new movement, LaVoy Finicum, was fatally shot.

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to take even longer than the occupation did. The protesters claim they were just using their First Amendment rights to peacefully protest, and their Second Amendment rights to carry licensed guns. The brothers’ father, Cliven Bundy, is also facing trial in Nevada, because of another standoff near his cattle ranch in 2014. That trial will take place in February in Nevada.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Bundy Brothers’ Trial is About to Start: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

As people recovered from New Year’s Eve and went back to work, attention returned to the challenges facing the United States, from Russia to the Middle East. However, while Americans continue to fret over ISIS sleeper cells, an armed, anti-government group occupied a wildlife refuge in Oregon. While the group’s specific demands remain unclear, this type of armed insurrection is nothing new in the United States.  Starting with the nation’s inception to the present, with several high-profile cases in the 1990s, anti-government rhetoric and militia type groups have been and remain a major issue.  This article will look at the specifics of this incident, the history of these types of groups, similar organizations, and the impact all this has on the United States.

A Wildlife Refuge under Siege

The catalyst for this most recent incident was the conviction of father and son ranchers, the Hammonds, on charges of arson on government land. While they claimed to be merely clearing dangerously flammable brush and invasive species, the pair was convicted of starting the fire to cover up poaching activities in 2001. Although the two men turned themselves in and ended up receiving the minimum sentence for the crime they were convicted of, this was not enough to stem the controversy that has since ensued.

In response, a group led by Ammon Bundy, whose father led a similar stand-off against the government in 2014, held a rally and protest, then seized control of a federal building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group, now dubbing itself the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, has remained in the buildings, which were unoccupied, since the night of January 2. While the group’s demands are still unclear, their complaints seem to center on people having greater access to federal land and the release of the convicted ranchers.

While their exact motivation also remains uncertain, what is clear is that Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is not the first group of its kind. While the group has had previous run-ins with the government, movements protesting federal control of land have roots that go back decades, even centuries. For much of that time, the debate has been between those who wish to conserve areas and those who wish to utilize the land for resources. In the 1970s and 80s the idea that the land should be controlled locally gathered steam and became what has been dubbed the Sagebrush Rebellion.

That movement’s primary complaint–and one of the complaints offered by the group in Oregon–is that the government controls too much land and is not using it appropriately. While the methods being used by the Bundy family are certainly illegal, the protesters may have a point. In total, the government owns roughly one-third of all land in the United States and 53.1 percent of the land in Oregon respectively. Regardless of the validity of these claims, the Oregon group’s inability to articulate its specific complaints have made dealing with it a challenge.  This challenge is only exacerbated by how the group is viewed and portrayed by different people and organizations.

What Do We Call Them?

Much of the debate over this group and why they are protesting concerns how they should be classified. More specifically, is this domestic terrorism?  While many people were quick to denounce the group’s tactics as unpatriotic, there was a noticeable lack of coverage and condemnation of their methods. In fact, many argue that the media coverage of the occupation–which some have even called a peaceful protest–is unfair and biased. Critics contrast the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom’s efforts with other protests, such as the ones in Baltimore and Ferguson, which were called riots and met with armed confrontation from authorities.

So what is this group, then? They are clearly protesters speaking out against something they view as unfair. But the presence of weapons and their vague demands over land use rights, freeing the Hammonds, and fighting against government intimidation appears to make them something more. In fact, the group’s actions do seem to fall more in line with the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, which includes any action that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” The key to identifying this group then ultimately appears to rest with their intent. Since their actions appear to be based on specific perceived injustices and are tied to specific demands, we can differentiate them from mere protesters.

For context, other examples of the importance of intent in defining an act as terrorism concern two of America’s most recent and deadly shootings. In the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza’s actions were not technically domestic terrorism because there was no ideological intent aside from killing; whereas the shootings by Dylann Roof at a Charleston Church were an act of terrorism as the intent was racially and politically motivated. In other words, although the occupiers in Oregon have not yet used force, the threat of force remains and when you couple that with their intentions they appear to be domestic terrorists. For greater clarity the accompanying video gives another voice to the domestic terrorist debate:

Militia Groups in the United States

Historically, one of the primary perpetrators of domestic terrorism in the United States has been militia groups.  Like the definition of terrorism, the definition of a militia is also vague. The general consensus is that a militia is an irregular military force made up of citizens that are called upon only in the event of an emergency. Once again the protesters in Oregon do not fit neatly within this definition; however, many of them are members of a self-styled militia group known as the Patriot movement. This movement began back in the 1970s and was originally concerned with protecting the United States in the event of a foreign occupation. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the group has refocused its attention to standing up against perceived threats from the government, particularly fear of the government taking away their guns. While the protesters, or domestic terrorists, in Oregon are the latest example of this type of group, they are by no means the only one.

In fact, the number of anti-government groups has mushroomed since 2008, coinciding with the election of President Obama. The number of these groups went from 149 that year to an estimated 1,360 groups by 2012 according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Again, the extent of the threat that these groups actually pose is up for debate. Some counter that their numbers and danger are overblown by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who compiled the numbers as means of drumming up donations. However, others view them as a far more serious concern. The Southern Poverty Law Center also notes that during the 1990s only 858 such groups were identified, almost 500 less than 2012. Even with population growth factored in, that level of increase is concerning. It is especially troubling given the number of high-profile conflicts between the government and anti-government groups during the 1990s.

History of Discontent

The 1990s were a time of numerous conflicts between the government and anti-government groups.  The government standoffs and civilian deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco raised the specter of government repression, especially among militia-type groups. This culminated with the Oklahoma City Bombing, which left 168 people dead when an anti-government sympathizer blew up a government building. While this attack greatly reduced support for militia groups, particularly for the Patriot movement, it was certainly not the end of the violence or domestic terrorism.

In fact, the American Prospect compiled a list of bombings from 1867 to the present. The list includes attacks from anti-war groups, anarchists, foreign separatists, lone wolfs, and the Boston Bombers to name just a few. In addition to bombings, mass shootings in the United States also involve an element of domestic terrorism, such as the recent San Bernardino shooting.

Currently, the protestors in Oregon have stated that they will only resort to violence if forced into a confrontation by authorities. So far, the authorities have aired on the side of caution, letting the group be in an effort to wait for the occupation out.

Even if the protesters in Oregon leave peacefully, the threat of right-wing militias remains. In fact, in a survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum last year, the number one threat identified was these militia-style groups, even relative to the threat of foreign terrorism from groups like Al-Qaeda. The protesters’ biggest impact may come in the form of shedding greater light on these groups. The following video gives a look at the militia movement in the United States:

Conclusion

As of right now, much of what is going on in Oregon remains unclear. Even how the group should be classified is debated; are they protesters, terrorists, a militia, or something else? About the only thing that is clear is that what they are doing is unpopular. Already the town has come together and asked them to leave. The Paiute Indian Tribe, which can trace its lineage to the area back 9,000 years, believes they have no legitimate complaint and they should leave. Even the Hammonds–the two men convicted of the crime that supposedly sparked the protest–have distanced themselves from the protesters.

While the debate rages over how to treat them, the specter of FBI assaults on seemingly similar groups in the 1990s lingers. Additionally, figuring out how to deal with groups like these takes on ever-increasing importance as their numbers swell and they become increasingly well-armed.

As of right now, it is too early to know exactly how the events will ultimately unfold in Oregon. In all likelihood the protesters will run out of steam, most will likely leave and the masterminds, such as Ammon Bundy, will be held accountable. It could also go the other way if cooler heads do not prevail.

Resources

CNN: Armed Protesters Refuse to Leave Federal Building in Oregon

Al Jazeera: Double Standards Cited Amid Armed Protest in Oregon

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Merriam-Webster: Militia

USA Today: Record Number of Anti-government Militias in the USA

The American Prospect: A History of Terrorism on U.S. Soil

Time: This Is What It Takes for Mass Murder to Be ‘Terrorism’

National Geographic: Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West

The Blaze: Ammon Bundy Says There’s Only One Scenario in Which Armed Protesters Would Resort to Violence Against Authorities

The New York Times: The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat

CNN: Native Tribe Blasts Oregon Takeover

Politico: What Do the Oregon Ranchers Really Believe?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State appeared first on Law Street.

What do you get when you combine dozens of armed white terrorists and bored employees trolling Twitter the Monday after New Years?

Some puntastic trending hashtags, that’s what!

After news broke that dozens of armed ranchers were occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon on a vague mission to fight federal “government tyranny,” it didn’t take long for Twitter users to begin mocking the homegrown terrorists with the clever hashtag #YallQaeda.

We’re not sure who exactly to credit with coining the term, but whoever they are should know that the internet thanks them. Other creative users followed suit with more Jihadist puns such as: #YeeHawdists, #YokelHaram, and my personal favorite #VanillaIsis.

If you don’t have time to surf the web and weed out the inevitable really racist tweets, we’ve collected some of the best from the hashtags for your viewing pleasure below.

Every successful revolution starts with takeover of closed visitor center with gift shop. #OregonUnderAttack #YallQaeda

— Lars Petticord (@fatdownjacket) January 3, 2016

Wow this is really making me sympathetic to the plight of Oregonian ranchers who burn our federal lands to conceal deer poaching. #YallQaeda — summer (@summersumz) January 3, 2016

If your master plan is to overthrow the world’s most powerful government and you attack a remote bird sanctuary you might be #YallQaeda

— annie post (@apwriter) January 4, 2016

White people demanding that land that never belonged to them be returned to them, which is just the white-est. #YallQaeda — Daniel La Spata (@therealDFLS) January 4, 2016

Stop Mobilize and listen #VanillaISIS back w/ a brand new militia BLM grab the land so tightly Illegally graze my cattle nightly #YallQaeda — Tristan R. Salazar (@trslzr) January 3, 2016

The emergence of #VanillaISIS in Oregon sparks fears of radicalizing disaffected hipsters in Portland. — Khaled Bey (@KhaledBeydoun) January 4, 2016

Sorry folks. No coffee being sold this morning. The #YeeHawdists say our Starbucks beans are too liberal for consumption. #YallQaeda — Malheur Gift Shop (@MalheurGiftShop) January 4, 2016

Don’t worry Oregon I’ve got this one covered. #YallQaeda pic.twitter.com/76vCf0NZiL — Philip H. Beauregard (@fundatoris) January 3, 2016

Dumb dumb dumb da da dumb dumb. Dumb dumb dumb dumb da da dumb dumb #VanillaIsis baby! — W. Kamau Bell (@wkamaubell) January 3, 2016

The difference between a militiaman and a terrorist #YallQueda #YokelHaram #BLM pic.twitter.com/OHcmgXhJBN — Peacebird (@Peacebird9) January 4, 2016

Apparently I owe Hillary an apology. Turns out I’ve been featured prominently in several #YallQaeda and #VanillaISIS recruitment videos — Donald J. Drumpf (@RealDonalDrumpf) January 4, 2016

True fact: #YeeHawdists believe that when the die defending their homeland, 72 Vestal strippers named Brandi await them in heaven #YallQaeda — Drew Gibson (@SuppressThis) January 4, 2016

“What do we want? Ambiguous land rights! When do we want it? After we takeover a forest!” – #YallQaeda #VanillaISIS and the #YeeHawdists — ñïčk (@dongleganger) January 4, 2016

#YallQaeda #YeeHawdists #VanillaISIS next thing you know, Shania law pic.twitter.com/3SKZwY2rUh — Kas Thomas (@kasthomas) January 4, 2016

Whoever came up with #YallQaeda and #YeeHawdists–you are welcome in my house. — Maureen Johnson (@maureenjohnson) January 4, 2016

If all of those fantastic Vanilla Ice puns left you craving a bit of 90s nostalgia, feel free to liven up your post-holiday slump with the global hit that skyrocketed him to one-hit-wonderdom. Happy Monday everyone!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Mocks Oregon Gunman with #YallQaeda and #VanillaIsis appeared first on Law Street.

Chances are you’ve heard of the “protest” currently underway in Oregon involving a couple dozen ranchers armed with guns insisting on the end of “government tyranny” by “any means necessary.” Well for starters they’re not just protestors, they’re terrorists–and here’s why.

Terrorism, by definition, is the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Therefore, the armed anti-government occupation of a wildlife refuge building clearly qualifies.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s try to decode the motivation behind this vague showdown.

Where are they?

The militants are holed up at the HQ building of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The 187,000 acre refuge is known for its extensive marshland and large bird populations. Since the occupation, the facility has been closed to the public until “further notice.”

Who are they?

The ring leader of the group is Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who had his own armed confrontation with the federal government over grazing rights in 2014. The rest of the group is comprised of mostly male protestors and militia members, all of whom are presumably armed and claim they’re willing to defend themselves if forced is used against them. Reporters estimate there are over 100 members.

Who the Hell is Ammon Bundy, the Oregon Militia Ringleader? https://t.co/mYIAL77vOH #OregonUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/edcGe54B6R

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 3, 2016

What do they want?

Well this is where it starts to get a little confusing.

When a CNN reporter asked Bundy what the purpose of the occupation was, he responded with a series of vague statements, claiming he wants the “government to abide by the constitution” and “play by the rules.”

But when you delve a little bit deeper, everything seems to come back to the Hammond family and their legal troubles.

Who are the Hammonds?

Dwight Jr. and Steven Hammond are local father and son ranchers, who were convicted of setting fire to over 130 acres of land in 2001 and 2006, supposedly to cover up illegal deer poaching on federal land. The Hammonds, however, claim the fires were meant to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property against wildfires.

They were convicted three years ago and already paid $400,000 in fines and served time–the father three months and the son one year. But the ranchers are mad because the pair was sentenced again and ordered to turn themselves in Monday afternoon.

Why were they sentenced twice?

According to Rolling Stone, the pair was sentenced under a law known as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This law requires a five year minimum sentence for individuals who “maliciously damage or destroy” by fire any property owned by the United States.

How will this end?

That is the big question on everyone’s mind.

Bundy himself doesn’t even seem to have a clear set of demands or exit strategy for the occupation. So far most news organizations covering the standoff are wary even to call  it “domestic terrorism,” and the federal government hasn’t made any visible moves to dispel or arrest the militants.

The anti-government agenda has also already turned into campaign fodder among the crowd of Republican presidential candidates, with some calling for an end to the “lawlessness,” while others lend their sympathy. Either way it will be important to see how the government reacts if it continues, especially on the heels of President Obama’s proposed upcoming gun control executive orders.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terrorists, Not Protestors: What’s Going on with the Oregon Militia Standoff? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was taken into custody after attacking a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three people–two civilians and one police officer–were killed and nine others were wounded. News outlets are reporting that Dear told the police who arrested him “no more baby parts,” presumably in reference to the heavily edited videos about Planned Parenthood released this summer by the Center for Medical Progress, but there are still a lot of questions about his exact motives. But despite the fact that there’s still plenty of questions, that shouldn’t stop us from labeling Dear’s actions for what they were: domestic terrorism.

That’s not to say that plenty of writers, journalists, commentators, and politicians haven’t called it domestic terrorism. Many have turned to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism to make their case, which is compelling. It reads:

‘Domestic terrorism’ means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to 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; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

But many others have stopped short of that designation, referring to Dear’s crimes as murder, or as Attorney General Loretta Lynch called it a, “crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood.” While “murder” and “crime” are correct, they whitewash the fact that Dear does appear to have had a political motive.

Because even if Dear does have serious mental health problems, he clearly went in with the intent of coercing either the government or Planned Parenthood in some way. I’m having a hard time buying the argument that he was just a crazy guy who randomly chose Planned Parenthood; that he wasn’t convinced by some political, social, or moral reason that his attack was justified. Perpetrators of attacks on this level, such as mass shooters, are rarely totally mentally stable, but that doesn’t keep them from being held accountable for their actions. Dear’s defense team could, of course, argue the insanity defense, but that is a very difficult burden to meet. In short, just because Dear may not have been all there doesn’t preclude him from being charged with domestic terrorism.

The DOJ is still looking into Dear’s actions and it looks likely that the agency will designate it as domestic terrorism. But the state of Colorado will be trying Dear first, and there’s no indication right now that it’s going to charge him with domestic terrorism. That’s a shame, and it’s wrong.

Now, some have called Dear a domestic terrorist, including presidential hopeful Governor Mike Huckabee. He stated:

What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there’s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this.

That’s a good first step, and recognizes that disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and condemning Dear’s actions for what they were aren’t mutually exclusive. Hopefully more presidential hopefuls will join Huckabee in correctly pinning Dear’s crime as domestic terrorism.

So, why is it so important that Dear’s crime be labeled as domestic terrorism? There’s a lot of reasons, including the double standard that happens in our society when we attribute terrorism almost exclusively to those of Middle Eastern descent, yet often focus on the “mental illnesses” of white perpetrators of terror. Additionally, as Huckabee implies, it’s possible to view Dear’s attack as domestic terrorism, while still disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and abortion. But if nothing else, this needs to be labeled as domestic terrorism, because Dear deserves to be indicted and tried for the crimes he committed, and absolutely nothing less.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Call the Planned Parenthood Attack What it Was: Domestic Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.

A bomb went off at a Colorado chapter of the NAACP yesterday. The office is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and although there were no injuries or deaths reported, there was minor damage to the offices, as well as to a hair salon located in the same building. The FBI has announced that it believes that the bomb was “deliberate.”

What exactly that means, however, no one is completely sure. The FBI has said that it could have been some sort of domestic terrorism, but they’re not able to be sure yet. Amy Sanders, media coordinator for the Denver office said:

Certainly domestic terrorism is one possibility, among many others. We are investigating all potential motives at this time.

Members of the NAACP have hinted that it could it have been a hate crime. Sandra Yong, President of the Denver Chapter of the NAACP said:

This certainly raises questions of a potential hate crime. But at this point we’re still gathering information. It’s a very sad situation, but we’re happy our people in Colorado Springs are safe.

She also stated that her branch:

Stands tall with the community of Colorado Springs in rejecting an attempt to create fear, intimidation and racial divisiveness. Although this is an active investigation, one thing is clear: This is an act of domestic terrorism.

However, the President of the Colorado Springs NAACP chapter, Henry Allen Jr., said on Tuesday after the incident that he wasn’t ready to call it a hate crime.

So, what exactly happened? What we know is that witnesses heard a booming sound around 10:45am and then saw smoke. In addition, the side of the building where the NAACP office is located appeared to be burnt. The bomb has been called by many news sources “makeshift” or “homemade.” It was placed next to a gas can, but luckily did not cause the gas can to ignite or explode.

There is a person of interest in the investigation. He has been described as a white man in his forties who drove a dirty white pickup truck and had a license plate that was covered or obstructed in some way. One witness said that he looked on the heavier side, and that he was wearing a Carhartt type jacket.

While no one’s certain that it was the NAACP that was targeted, it seems like the most likely target for the bomb. Most onlookers have pointed out that the nearby hair salon probably wasn’t the target.

The bigger story that has seemed to come out of the incident was the media coverage, or more accurately, the lack thereof. While this happened yesterday, it didn’t really get covered on last night’s news lineup. According to ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress search of television databases suggests CNN gave one cursory report on the incident at 6:34 a.m., while MSNBC and Fox News appear to have not mentioned the incident on air since it happened. Other networks, including Headline News, (HDLN) mentioned the incident in the morning news.

There were obviously other big news stories happening at the same time–the start of open-season on Congress, for example–but it still seems like a possible domestic terrorist attack should have gotten more than a “cursory report.” The hashtag #NAACPBombing is trending on Twitter, where many are coming forth to say that the social media tag is the first time that they’ve heard about the bombing.

Seriously, we should all be questioning WHY it took a trending hashtag for us to learn about the #NAACPBombing. We know the answer though…

— Derrick Clifton (@DerrickClifton) January 7, 2015

Here’s all the best media coverage of the #NAACPBombing that I’ve seen so far –> pic.twitter.com/6AtGymj8Jk

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) January 7, 2015

Despite the fact that the manhunt is still underway in Paris for the men who committed a terrorist attack there this morning, it is a bit weird that there’s been little coverage of the NAACP incident.

Given that the suspect is still at large, one of the best ways to keep people on alert and on the lookout is to spread the news. While the proliferation through Twitter has been great, and an amazing look at the way in which the internet has made it so much easier to communicate, it’s not quite enough.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NAACP in Colorado Bombed: No Injuries But Also No Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Extremist groups twisting religious ideologies to justify their violent acts are still active in the United States today. This infographic provides a glimpse into the basic facts about the most prominent religious extremist groups currently operating in the United States.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [McBeth via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infographic: Religious Extremism in the United States Today appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.