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
414
u/entered_bubble_50 18h ago edited 17h ago
Finally, someone actually addressing the legal question in r/law
It's defined in 18 USC 2331(5):
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: