Seems easy to do if you see Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, as 'foreign' no matter how long they/their families have been in the country.but DOJ has managed to define, in secret, domestic terrorism espoused by Muslims in the U.S. as international terrorism.
I'd sure say so. That said, I don't think the following is unreasonable. Whether we call something terrorism and whether or not we can clearly charge someone as a terrorist are two somewhat different things. It sounds like they're charging him with hate crime because it's an easy charge to get to stick in this case. Terrorism might be a bit harder. In the end, if the sentence is the same it doesn't make much of a difference. I'd say that culturally, though, we should probably consider this an example of terrorism. Even if that's not the legal strategy they're taking to prosecuting this little shit.But, Lynch suggested several times, hate crimes charges are just as good. ”As you know, there is no specific domestic terrorism statute. However, hate crimes, as I have stated before, are the original domestic terrorism.” She insisted that DOJ and FBI take domestic crimes seriously. ”People may feel because we have such a strong emphasis on terrorism matters since 9/11 that when we talk about matters and do not use that terminology that we do not consider these crimes as serious.” But that’s not correct, Lynch insisted. ”This should in no way signify that this particular murder or any federal crime is of any lesser significance.”
AIUI (IANAL etc), there is an amazing problem at play here. As I see it, domestic terrorism is perfectly well defined but the wording of the penalties seems to be rather explicitly lacking (see "outside the United States" wording) provision for prosecuting domestic terrorism as terrorism. Roof intended his slaughter to intimidate and coerce (the reintroduction of segregation policies). It was clearly domestic terrorism by the above wording. Bombing medical clinics that provide reproductive care isn't typically prosecuted as terrorism either, even though they are dangerous acts where the intent is to intimidate and coerce (the abandonment of roe v wade). It likewise is clearly domestic terrorism. I suspect that it's not that these things wouldn't hold up in court, but that the powers that be believe there is no gain by prosecuting it as domestic terrorism. I'm not sure if that's what Lynch wanted to say, but in context it is essentially what she said. I expect that making domestic terrorism a prosecutable definition (or whatever the terminology is) would involve admitting there is a domestic terrorism problem, and one on multiple fronts. What easier way to pretend there isn't a domestic terrorism problem than call domestic terrorism by another name.