“For the first time ever,” FBI Director Kash Patel announced on Oct. 16, “the FBI has arrested anarchist violent extremists and charged these Antifa-aligned individuals with material support to terrorism.”
Is this a big deal?
No and yes. The arrests were months-old, the new terrorism charge is based on no new facts, and the description “Antifa-aligned” is mere branding. But the indictment may augur worse to come in the administration’s efforts to pursue its ideological enemies.
…
There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
NPSM-7
…
Of course, an indictment need not specify everything that prosecutors know, and it’s possible that they have identified some links between the defendants and a broader left-wing movement. But the notion of Antifa as an “enterprise” does not comport with experts’ understanding of the movement.
The new terrorism charge seems equally stapled-on. It relies on no new facts. To the extent the defendants are guilty of aiding and abetting the attempted murder of a federal official per 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 2, they are a fortiori guilty of 2339A, whose scope includes anyone who “provides material support or resources … knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of … 1114[.]” The 2339A charge here is redundant—and possibly inspired by the inclusion of 2339A in NSPM-7. But it gives the administration a nice headline.
I’ve mentioned this before, if you declare them a terrorist org, then you can go after their imaginary funders. In this case, George Soros.
From the article:
“As noted above, the administration is looking for ways to pursue liberal groups that fund its opponents. A Sept. 22 memorandum to several U.S. attorney’s offices from a top Justice Department official reportedly instructed prosecutors to pursue investigations against George Soros’s Open Society Foundations—and mentioned, as a possible charge, material support for terrorism. To do so under 2339A, as discussed above, would require proof that, at a minimum, the defendant knew the support would be used for criminal acts. By contrast, to do so under 2339B would require no such proof: only that the defendant knew the aid was going to a foreign terrorist organization.”
Removed by mod
Yes, if people shot at federal officers they should be prosecuted hard.
That depends on material facts and surrounding circumstances, at the least.
