IOPList.Org

The obsessive pursuit of woke domestic-terror laws
isn’t making us safer


By James A. Gagliano
January 25, 2022




The alleged paramilitary members who plotted to kidnap
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have already been
prosecuted to the fullest.
Kent County Sheriff via AP File




A federal investigation targeting 14 cosplaying members of armed Michigan
militia groups, including the Wolverine Watchmen, appears to be on life support.

The paramilitary extremists got busted plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer as revenge for her COVID-19 lockdown mandates.
The fanatics’ mistake? Conspiring with undercover FBI agents and informants.

Five members of the group go on trial March 8 in Grand Rapids federal court
for their roles in the abduction scheme. One is cooperating with authorities.
Eight others face state charges related to providing material support for terrorism.

This case would be tough enough for the feds to win on its merits, as undercover
operations are always a tricky minefield of built-in defense arguments of entrapment.
Add prosecutors’ shocking announcement they would not call three FBI agents
with sizable roles in the investigation to testify due to charges of misconduct.
These charges are egregious and absolutely imperil the government’s case.

But is this effort another recent instance of “egregious [government] overreach” —
which defendants’ attorneys charge in court filings?

Maybe, maybe not. But it definitely speaks to the misguided fervor with which
Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice is desperate to prove that right-wing
extremists are the gravest threat to the republic in 2022. It’s utter woke nonsense.

I feel zero sympathy for the right-wing extremist yahoos at the center of the
kidnapping plot. But this case highlights yet another less-than-subtle example
of the moralizing pursuit to amend our domestic-terror laws.

Much of what has been offered by those pushing this is useless. As former federal
prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg and retired FBI agent Tom O’Connor suggest, these
efforts would “close a moral equivalency gap in the law” while putting “all terrorists,
foreign and domestic, on the same footing.” In other words, these proposed
changes are nothing more than window dressing.




Members of the militia group accused of plotting to kidnap
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer claim they were tricked by the FBI.
AP Photo/Paul Sancya



This orthodoxy’s adherents — former federal prosecutors and FBI agents — heroically
attempt to make the misguided case that America’s criminal-justice system continues
to treat terrorists and criminals differently, depending on their ideologies or skin color.
Hogwash. Yes, our criminal-justice system is imperfect. Show me one that isn’t.
Perfectionism is illusory in fallible human constructs.

But we have an array of investigatory tools at our disposal in the international-terror
realm that aren’t available when investigating US citizens. There’s a reason for this.

The Wolverine Watchmen plot is a perfect example of domestic-terror conspiracy.
But we cannot employ “left of boom” surveillance techniques
(like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) on citizens because of the Constitution:
in particular, that pesky Fourth Amendment. Foreign terrorists are not entitled to
“Each man’s home is his castle” protections. While proponents of new domestic-terror
laws sheepishly acknowledge that punishment for domestic-terrorism acts are no
different than what could be gained by establishing new laws, for them,
it’s about progressive orthodoxy.




Attorney General Merrick Garland has transformed the
Department of Justice into a woke force targeting
non-existent threats.
EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS



To be clear, the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide highlights the
caution investigators must exercise when balancing law-enforcement powers and
our constitutional liberties in its chapter four, “Privacy and Civil Liberties and
Least Intrusive Methods.” An unclassified version of the DIOG is available online
and worth perusing as it highlights how circumspect we need to be when balancing
security with cherished civil liberties.

Want to know how kooky this foolhardy pursuit has gotten? Ben Weingarten recently
pointed out the lunacy in Newsweek, noting that Biden’s DOJ just announced it’s
“building a new domestic terror unit, despite the fact that it has never clearly
demonstrated a commensurate threat. To put the purported peril in perspective,
an FBI official noted there were four domestic violent extremist attacks in 2021,
resulting in 13 deaths. By comparison, last year there were more than 800 murders
in a single city, Chicago.”

Woke policy strikes again.




The Department of Justice should focus more on legitimate
extremist groups such as the Taliban.
AFP via Getty Images



Certainly the Biden DOJ understands that of the 18,814 terror deaths across the
globe in 2017, just four far-left groups (ISIS, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Boko Haram)
were responsible for 10,632 — nearly 57%. We are simply crafting feel-good policy
to satisfy political goals.

We have enough laws on the books to combat terrorism. We do not need any more.
Building up bogeymen to satisfy moral-equivalency goals also doesn’t make us safer.
Let the FBI and other law enforcement agencies determine where finite resources
need be positioned and — here’s a novel idea — prosecute all violations of the laws
currently on the books. This is something the political left’s progressive prosecutor
movement seeks to avoid at all costs.

The paramilitary clowns in Michigan will face justice. No additional laws can add to
the stiff penalties they are facing. No new DOJ “domestic-terror unit” will make
investigating terrorists more effective. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?




James A. Gagliano is a retired FBI supervisory special agent and
doctoral candidate in homeland security at St. John’s University.
He serves on the board of directors for the
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.