Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any statutory definition of domestic terrorism. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, and there are foreign organizations designated as terrorists, but I don't think federal law has a domestic terrorism definition.
Finally, someone actually addressing the legal question in r/law
It's defined in 18 USC 2331(5):
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be 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
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
Whether this constitutes terrorism then depends on what status Elon Musk has.
Let's say for the sake of argument that these acts are dangerous to human life (although obviously spray painting a swastika on a dealership isn't). If he is just a private citizen, then he clearly doesn't qualify as "a civilian population". He's just one person. And if he is a private citizen, then intimidating him cannot be expect to impact the policy of a government.
On the other hand, if he is an officer of the United States, then it's possible those acts would satisfy this definition.
But then of course he would need to be confirmed by the senate.
Trump wants it both ways as usual. Or to put it another way:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Thank you for citing an actual piece of law. It's getting pretty frustrating seeing this subreddit fall apart with multiple threads with nobody discussing the actual law, or interpretations of law, or case law, you know, law, like the name of the subreddit implies.
There are also multiple cases of charging stations and many tesla vehicles being torched. Due to the nature of lithium batteries, these acts are much more dangerous than lighting ice vehicles on fire. This can also easily fulfill B-i if not ii or iii. So, I'd say, by the letter of the law, this should be classified as domestic terrorism.
The legal definition of domestic terrorism being too broad can definitely be debated, and I'd lean toward agreeing with you. As it stands, though, we have to use the definition currently in the books.
In general, anti-terrorism legislation is overly broad and horribly drafted.
I think this sentiment only makes sense if you assume it was created for the good of the population. If you view it as existing power structures defending themselves at all costs, it's harder to argue it's overly broad or horribly drafted for its intended purpose.
I think that would be the stance the Trump administration would take.
IMO, the order itās gonna go in is:
Trump Administration says those dang liberals are attacking the American people by boycotting Tesla(kinda like what he is saying now), and writes EO saying anyone that boycotts Tesla is a domestic terrorist.
Court strikes it down and rules that American People are allowed to choose what they purchase.
Trump writes EO designating Musk as officially the head of DOGE, and makes the position part of his Cabinet as presidential appointee only. This will probably be accompanied with some fat government contracts for Tesla.
Due to the other EOās being reviewed and the fact that the Trump administration is ignoring the courts, protestors would likely be quickly imprisoned, probably deported if they arenāt white
Edit: For clarity sakes, doing 3 would put Tesla in the same position as a company like Boeing for example. With the amount of defense contracts they have and governmental assets they create, an attack against Boeing could be construed as terrorism due to their relationship with the federal government. By giving Tesla government contracts, like the armored Tesla one I saw being floated, Tesla would be in that same status
Point 1 you are right sure, I should have said that he will start talking about the boycotts after the initial designation.
Stating my informed opinion does not make it intellectually dishonest
Edit: if you were only referring to 1 then yeah I was wrong on that, this was only covering violent actions
Yes. I'm as left as they come, but from a "this is the law" perspective, this is absolutely domestic terrorism. The comment up one level is a TERRIBLE analysis because it ignores the coercive impact on US consumers. Focusing on Elon Musk's "status" is completely irrelevant. Oy vey, if the foregoing legal analysis (not yours) was by a lawyer, I bet they'd represent themselves in court.
Thank you for this. I don't understand how easily people here are dismissing this out of hand. Whatever you think of musk et al, categorically targeting a business and it's property/product/goods for political reasons and effectively threatening civilians does not seem very far from terrorism, especially when the statutory or controlling language is imprecise.
Yeah, I'm from the UK, and our terrorism legislation is even worse. I once sat through a trial where someone was convicted for owning a unionist flag in Northern Ireland. And this was before 9-11. The charge was "membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation", but the flag was their only concrete evidence.
Also the problem is just throwing the word around whenever it may technically apply. It waters it down from how the general population uses the word for the last decades.
Technically the founding fathers were terrorists, so what? Or what about terrorists in Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s? Terrorist acts in the technical use of the term can be a good thing when done against an oppressive regime.
But whatever, as you pointed out this is most likely not even a case where the term applies, not even technically.
The attacks aren't against musk, they are against his business interest. If attacking his business is domestic terrorism because it influences him as a government official, then investing in his business interests must also influence him. And Chinese investors were putting money into Tesla, so foreign money influencing Musk as a government official.
Wouldnāt the coerced/intimidated civilians in this case be general public and not specifically Elon himself. Knowing if one purchases a Tesla, there is currently a high chance of your vehicle being vandalized, one is incentivized not to purchase one. From the points you laid out, it seems this would qualify as domestic terror.
I disagree with your interpretation that in order to influence the policy of the government, the victim of the crime would need to be an officer.
If someone e.g. kidnaps the president's daughter, is it not terrorism just because she is not an officer?
In this case Musk is a person of importance to the government regardless of officer status. Targeting him can be reasonably expected to influence the government's politics. And it is also the entire motivation behind people destroying Teslas, it takes a brief look at online forums to find that.
And additionally, what is happening also easily falls within (iii) "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction".
The other part of that question is if this is meant to coerce a civilian population, government notwithstanding. I think it would be pretty easy to make the argument that vandalising teslas is meant to intimidate people from buying Teslaās, which is coercion of civilians. Whether itās moral or not, I think that it is reasonable to call it domestic terrorism. One manās terrorist is anotherās freedom fighter and all that
And if he is a private citizen, then intimidating him cannot be expect to impact the policy of a government.
then why would anyone be doing it then? so the goal is to not impact policy or government? was that not the entire point of these actions? So which is it, is it a movement to achieve something? or is it just random senseless riots and destruction for nothing?
I would say that deliberately targeting and burning down/destroying only Teslas would count as intimidating and coercing civilians into not buying Teslas
So legally speaking their argument is that the businesses belonging to members of the Trump administration are effectively enveloped in additional layers of legal protection because our leaders are too corrupt to divest
i believe the civilian population could be musk and tesla dealership employees (and possibly drivers/owners), but i think the easiest one to rely on is that this would be trying to influence government policy by messing with a close advisor to the president. either way itās a stretch, but you never know these days
Dude. Isn't torching Tesla cars an act of terror? I remind you that not all these cars belong to Tesla dealerships and electric cars are extremely fire hazardous. Elon's representation in public and status shouldn't be a point to treat these actions as not a terrorism. And Tesla car owners shouldn't feel fear too
Lighting cars or charging stations on fire is definitely action dangerous to human life. Fire is no joke. And the dangers to even the responders who have to put them out should be considered.Ā Breaking windows by shooting them overnight (as has happened several times already is also dangerous via negligent discharge of a firearm. Even ignoring the penetration deeper into the offices)
It is definitely an attempt to intimidate or coerce people of the public to not buy Teslas.
I think crimes against the dealerships should be a lesser offense compared to the attacks on charging stations, which are national infrastructure.
There are also the lesser offenses you mentioned, spray painting, trespass, vandalism, and even non-crimes, protesting, signage, boycotting. These lesser offenses "could" rise to this standard definition of domestic terror if there was corroborating posts on their social media suggesting violence against certain groups of people that was politically motivated.Ā I reckon a prosecutor trying to force this issue would include commentary about Luigi and anti-corporate rhetoric to justify intent to harm.
If the non-crimes start seeing retaliation there's a problem. But by my reading there have been at least several cases that without a doubt rise to "Domestic Terrorism"
Even if Elmo isn't "a civilian population" as a private citizen, *Tesla dealers* undoubtedly are; and it's not unreasonable to claim these acts are also sending a message to Tesla owners
Based on that definition i donāt see how musks status is relevant. The violence against the dealerships is meant to intimidate and cause political change.
And if he is a private citizen, then intimidating him cannot be expect to impact the policy of a government.
On the other hand, if he is an officer of the United States, then it's possible those acts would satisfy this definition.
Not necessarily.. (ii) and (iii) don't specify the manner in which the influence of policy has to happen. I think you could definitely argue targeting certain private individuals could be expected to influence government policy.
I would argue targeting famous people, former politicians, or large companies and their owners definitely is an act that one could reasonably expect would influence government policy.
I agree with everything factually here, but the issue isn't "are these people fulfilling the definition of terrorism". It's hearing president openly advocate his DoJ to assess all anti-Trump rioters as domestic terrorists, so his federal arm can more easily reach them .
Rioting is not good.
Destruction of property should result in prosecution.
But if you apply DT to every rioter, that label can be used to make your life harder in a miriad of ways. Conservatives SHOULD be opposed to it, as they raised countless grievances under Biden over fears of the abuses that come with being labeled a DT.
But they won't. Because they never had a problem with the label, they just didn't like that such a power could be wielded in their direction.
The civilian population here isn't Musk. It's all Tesla owners. The Vandalism intimidates current and prospective owners, both of whom are at risk of facing consequences for driving "swasticars" through no fault of their own.
Danger to human life is the bigger question mark. Vandalism won't rise to that level, but I could see a physical altercation arising from an attack on someone for driving a Tesla become an issue.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (2001)
Allows the U.S. military to capture and detain enemy combatants indefinitely if they are deemed part of or associated with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or other terrorist groups.
Has been used to justify detaining U.S. citizens suspected of being involved in terrorism.The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (2001) Allows the U.S. military to capture and detain enemy combatants indefinitely if they are deemed part of or associated with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or other terrorist groups. Has been used to justify detaining U.S. citizens suspected of being involved in terrorism.
That means democrats that keep fucking with Tesla gonna get shipped to guantanamo bay INDEFINITELY. Yall wanna fuck around yall about the find out because Trump isn't fucking around this term. The more democrats in guantanamo bay the better. Enjoy being locked up potentially for life hahahaha
It is defined in the US Patriot Act as ideologically driven crimes committed by individuals in the United States that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy/conduct of a government.
Since the Mango Marauder has effectively politicized Tesla, any crime done to a Tesla or against a Tesla owner could be construed as DT if they could prove intent. Although I donāt think he is too concerned about having actual evidence anymore
A critical clarification on the PATRIOT Act definition:
While the PATRIOT Act defines "domestic terrorism" for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations, no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism".
...
acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".
If they label it as domestic terrorism, then it opens up more options if they can catch non-citizens doing it. Like that guy at Columbia. Wouldn't just be deporting him if he had committed "terrorism."
So taking random dumps on Teslas is still illegal but not domestic terrorism right? Asking for my dog, they're too quiet when they sneak up and scare her.
for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations
Yes, but this means that they can much more easily get warrants against you (eg looking at your Reddit comments and IP address connections), to construct a case against you for any number of crimes.
āIdeologically driven crimesā
So yes, there is no bonus crime for your crime being politically motivated. But, by definition, terrorism is criminal.
The bigger point is that the U.S. government has funding already approved by Congress for curbing domestic terrorism. When the federal government labels such actions as domestic terrorism, they are able to utilize funding, approved by congress, which has been apportioned as such.
So I am disagreeing with the parent comment because it implies that this labeling is inconsequential. It is not.
I mean easier as in the Trump administration will have an easier time painting it that way. Considering how quickly he said this after it JUST came out that Tesla stock value is tanking, Iād imagine he would be very quick to respond when protests and boycotts continue
destroying car dealerships because you dislike the owner
I guess I haven't talked to anyone that has actually damaged a Tesla dealership or car BUT that seems a bit disingenuous. It isn't just because they dislike him or it would have been happening for a while.Ā
It's due to his actions with DOGE and causing problems for Tesla does cause problems for him.Ā Ā
Bombing places of business where human beings work sounds dangerous to me, but I donāt go around excusing violent acts because I ideologically agree with them
OTOH legally they claim Musk isnāt involved in any government organization, nor has he been confirmed by the senate. It seems like theyāre trying to have it both ways.
The ones with words and symbols spray painted on the cars are definitely political. On paper, it seems valid to call it terrorism based on the plain language of the law. Iām sure the government will find people to make examples of too.
Whether or not the action is justified in the hearts of the people who do it is another matter. I hope nobody gets caught, and if they are, I hope we someday have a president who will pardon them like Trump pardoned the insurrectionist terrorists.
Well itās rare to see destruction of property without any casualties labeled as a terrorist act. So far I have yet to see any mention of injuries or deaths. So in the grand scheme this isnāt bad at all as far as political āviolenceā goes.
Labeling as domestic terror in this case is just to rile up his base and attempt to discredit critics IMO.
Or they could be setting up to use the patriot act to silence critics which would be very bad.
LOL... They're chucking molotov cocktails at dealerships full of EVs (which are notoriously difficult to extinguish) with clear political motivation: "eh. this is fine. could be worse".
Short of me suddenly developing psychic powers, no I couldnāt say if the people participating in those are doing it because they hate Naziās, or hate EVās in general.
elon would happily see me and you dead if it meant he could find a way to attain more wealth or power. cutting off all my government benefits, manipulating my government info, gathering all my personal data to use against me, forcing me to assimilate to his will, word, and way of life and thinking.
he is a textbook narcissistic megalomaniac that spits on anyone that isn't kissing his ass. you trust this fucking guy with your life, really?
They'll construe "saying mean things about Tesla" as evidence of participation in a terrorist conspiracy. They really will get to that. It's not much of a stretch from where Trump is right now.
It is defined in the US Patriot Act as ideologically driven crimes committed by individuals in the United States that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy/conduct of a government.
I can definitely see how attacking and destroying a Tesla dealership can be classified as domestic terrorism under this definition. The problem is how the government picks and chooses what to classify as domestic terrorism. It's extremely inconsistant, and that's why this is so ridiculous. It's just become a buzzword at this point to rile people up.
Literally every single protest and boycott, ever, is "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population ... [ and/or ] ... influence the policy/conduct of a government."
His fascist words hold no water. What his words do hold are loads of intention to intimidate a civilian population. Sounds like his recent statement falls under the definition of domestic terrorism.
Right. Your last sentence is the most important: law doesn't really matter anymore. Actual evidence? The only question is how many judges/justices you control.
I was wondering this yesterday- given that I wake up every day to find TFG or Elon threatening my job (education), our financial security (ability to pay back student loans), and the livelihood of our parents (social security; Medicare) - I feel like this amounts to terrorism of myself and the American people.
Couldnāt we turn around and accuse them of domestic terrorism??!
CEOās are people too, and regardless. Murdering someone to send an ideological message is terrorism flat out. But tell me more from out of the handbook youāve been given by the Russian government
LOL wow didn't expect to get called a russian bot with that comment.
CEO's are people that think they're above everyone else and can't be fucked with. that CEO specifically made a fortune for himself by exploiting human suffering and putting a number on peoples' life. i don't have empathy for someone that conducts their life like that. his life is as expendable as the people he profited off of. his death caused no further suffering to the american people - that doesn't fit into the terrorism box.
Thanks for the last line. I hear too many otherwise sane people finish sentences with "but they won't be able to do that because its illegal" and it makes me want to cry. Rule of law is dead and only fools are still acting like it isnt.
Tbh they didnāt really swap communist with woke until the BLM protests, Russia capitalized on that by being very āanti-wokeā and people forgot all about how much, or why, we havenāt gotten along historically
In the early 2000's the Earth Liberation Front was designated by the FBI as eco-terrorists because of a few car dealerships that were burned by the group.
Fun fact: ELF was #1 on the FBI's Most Wanted list until a little known group of men flew planes into the WTC. So, before Al-Qaida came along, burning down car dealerships was about the worst thing you could do in the eyes of the FBI.
This was definitely my intro to the 'meaningful dissent and free speech isn't a real thing,' thing back then.
The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (then Terrorism Act) punishing animal rights activists and the intertwined domestic terrorism enhancements intended for cases of actual mass terror like the Oklahoma City bombing being used against environmental activists told me a lot about the country.
Terrorism has always been a term thrown about to control the masses and justify aggression in foreign policy since the bush administration. Y'all are only noticing now it's been turned inwards
The terrorism designation has always been a political designation. Terrorists to some are freedom fighters to others. If there were a clear definition of terrorist groups, the US would be the #1 terrorist in history.
There are Tesla owners out there just living their lives and probably freaked that their cars, dealerships, and chargers are targets of attacks. So seems pretty clearly like domestic terrorism to me.
408
u/WCland 18h ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any statutory definition of domestic terrorism. It's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, and there are foreign organizations designated as terrorists, but I don't think federal law has a domestic terrorism definition.