Domestic terrorism refers to illegal violence, threat, or harmful operations that negatively affect human life or possibly destroy key resources or critical infrastructure. The primary objective of domestic terrorism is to effect political, social, or other change primarily by individuals or groups of people living and operating within the U.S. and its territories. According to the Constitution’s rules, domestic terrorism offenses are justly punishable (Cornell, 2017). A person who threatens the lives of citizens in a nation is considered a terrorist in a social context. The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 defined terrorism as threatening or planning to use force against any individual legally protected within a country (Cornell, 2017). Many individuals and groups identified as domestic terrorists are increasingly becoming transnational in activities and outlooks. Recently, there has been an alarming increase in attacks by persons inspired by a wide range of domestic terrorist ideas, including ethnically and racially-motivated inspired extremism, such as anti-authority and anti-government violent extremism, white supremacist extremism, and other conceptual strains that prompt terrorist violence. This paper provides a detailed discussion regarding methods of radicalization of individuals and appropriate and constitutional steps to combat this radicalization of U.S. persons and domestic terrorist activities.
Methods of Radicalization of Persons
Terrorism in the United States has significantly escalated since the 1950s. Despite several federal government initiatives to stop radicalization, there have been more terrorist incidents every decade. The Boston Marathon bombing, for example, provides a compelling argument to support the assertions that domestic terrorism is on the rise (Ray, 2022). Individuals can get radicalized via several different techniques. Research indicates that unemployment is a significant factor in the radicalization and emergence of most violent extremists. According to Jensen et al. (2020), there is a higher chance of radicalization and terrorism among most unemployed people. In the study’s evaluation of the social and economic backgrounds of the violent extremists, it was discovered that more than 60% were unemployed, which led them to get radicalized to despise the populace and the government for their circumstances (Jensen et al., 2020). Motivating people to become radicalized is another method. These groups may influence people’s behavior through their religious convictions. For example, someone may change to a more conservative interpretation of Islam and develop a different perspective on those who do not come within their tent. According to FBI studies, mosques, gatherings, and places of employment serve as the entry points for radicalization (Ranstorp, 1996). Due to the impact of religion, people become identified as believers, along with all the associated doctrines. The role of religion in radicalizing jihadist militants has been the subject of discussion. Most research concludes that it has a significant impact on the procedure. Most nations where Islam is the predominant religion have counter-radicalization policies in place. The jihadist is thought of as a crazy individual who misinterprets the Koran. For instance, Judge Hamoud Hitar of Yemen ruled that violent jihadists should be jailed because they misled people (Jensen et al., 2020).
The religion of Islam has also been cited as the primary factor in the radicalization of Americans. For instance, the 9/11 tragedy sparked intense discussion about Muslims in the United States because it was alleged that they were responsible. The majority of Americans contended that it should be permissible to search for terrorists in Muslim communities since it is the goal of Islam to support terrorism (Ranstorp, 1996). As seen by recent demonstrations in Manhattan against mosque buildings, the idea that Islam serves as a prelude to terrorism seems to have taken root in the American mentality. The First Amendment argued that it was unreliable to attribute a terrorist attack to a particular religion (Cordesman, 2002). However, most persons who engage in this activity do not consistently practice their religion, according to British M15 surveys. According to Cornell (2017), a terrorist is a gang of criminals who disguise themselves as followers of a religion. As a result, it is incorrect to assume that a particular faith is more likely to support terrorism.
The internet is a different radicalization resulting in internal and international terrorism. About twenty years ago, terrorist organizations were radicalized and recruited online. Internet radicalization is defined as the process through which people are exposed to ideologies, belief systems, and communications that induce a shift from conventional beliefs to extremist views of a particular country’s government (Grover & Mark, 2019). Online radicalization uses Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, among other social networks. The opposite perspectives justify, encourage, and incite violence and have the most incredible variety of adherents due to radical interpretations of traditional religious or political ideas. Individuals become radicalized gradually due to their continued commitment to terrorist ideologies; it does not start after viewing only one article or video. Online, radical recruiters with a reputation for persuasion can be found. The recruiting team focuses on a specific group with unique issues. The recruiters may make derogatory statements about their adversaries to demonstrate how they oppose them, stir up trouble, and incite violence (Grover & Mark, 2019). Individuals who have reservations about the intended audience may join the radical group.
Extremists disseminate videos with construction instructions for explosives and weapons, asserting that everyone has a right to know and that they must discover why such material is kept secret from the general public. People like to express their approval when terrorists use social media sites like Facebook to discuss in code how they will carry out assaults. Additionally, they might communicate with their supporters and disseminate their radical ideals through dating and chat sites. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2022), Chesser, an 18-year-old teenager, reportedly radicalized himself online in 2008 after converting to Islam. A change in the boy’s behavior led to him posting terrorism-related views, being recruited, and joining the extremists. After discovering his missing passport, Chesser tried to move to Somalia but was unsuccessful. Chesser attempted to give financial assistance to a foreign terrorist organization before being apprehended in 2010 and entering a guilty plea to express threats (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022). Chesser received a 25-year sentence. Another factor that fuels radicalization is the existence of active gangs in the United States. Young people want to gain a sense of belonging, and due to peer pressure, most of them are influenced to join active gang groups. The formation of such groups serves as an excellent environment or setting to inspire radicalization and engagement in illegal operations and activities for the attainment of certain political or social goals.
Appropriate and Constitutional Steps to Combat This Radicalization of U.S. Persons and Domestic Terrorist Activities
Following the advice of the First and Fourth Amendments, the American government has worked nonstop to combat radicalization and domestic terrorism. According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a judge must approve the issuance of a search warrant before a domestic terrorist is arrested (Hellman, 2020). The Amendment also punishes offenders with severe fines and excessively high bond amounts. The Constitution forbids using bail and other money to secure the release of suspects in domestic terrorism before trial. Every court that pursues defendants in criminal cases follows the law. In this instance, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment applies explicitly to domestic terrorism. Civil rights and liberty organizations claim that radicals and domestic terrorists are exposed to harsh and unreasonable court standards. Nonetheless, the First and Fourth Amendments forbid using thumbscrews and gibbets (Hellman, 2020). The amendments, which restrict how severely criminal justice courts can punish offenders, were incorporated into the Bill of Rights. The court’s ability to prosecute and convict people who commit offenses that fall under specific categories is constrained by three clauses: bail, fines, and punishments. The revisions likewise cover sentences for domestic terrorism.
The government has made significant steps to counteract internet-related radicalization and domestic terrorism, but more must be done. Community policing should be used by law enforcement authorities to combat online radicalization. There is no way to measure the incidences of radicalization that result in online radicals. Law enforcement must understand that publishing extremist content online and becoming radicalized does not automatically make someone a criminal. According to the First Amendment, individuals enjoy the right to freedom of expression, of the press, and of religion (Spencer, 2017). However, the Amendment also specifies several circumstances where the privileges mentioned may be revoked. For instance, if someone uses the internet to plan, enable, or participate in violent acts or criminal activity. In addition, law enforcement organizations can open social media profiles to engage with the public in many ways. Media defendants are protected from punishment for publishing illegal communications under the First Amendment if there is a public discussion about the issue and the respondent did not obtain the information illegally (Spencer, 2017). Thus, it is essential for law enforcement. According to the Fourth Amendment, probable cause must exist before an individual can be arrested.
The use of the First and Second Amendments in dealing with convicts is demonstrated by examining domestic terror attack cases, such as the Boston Marathon bombing (Ray, 2022). Initially, the Patriot Act’s analysis of domestic terrorism would have been used. The Patriotic Act’s Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as crimes that endanger human life, are conducted on American soil, and impact governmental policies. Section 810 of the same Act states that those committing such violations should be subject to the most severe penalties (Ray, 2022). The Department of Justice states that domestic terrorists may receive a life sentence. In addition, a domestic terror conviction might result in a fine of up to $250,000 imposed by the court. However, the penalties vary depending on the offense. The maximum and lowest acceptable amounts for each offense are established by the statute governing that particular crime. Second, Section 810 allows the criminal court to decide how much time in jail and other sanctions to impose. Prison time for life-threatening arson, 10–20 years for having a weapon and explosives, destroying gas infrastructure, and aiding terrorists are among the punishments (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022). For destroying property worth more than $100,000 or sabotaging a nuclear facility, one may receive a 10–20-year sentence in prison. When death comes from the offenses above, death punishment and life imprisonment are applicable.
The Patriot Act provides direction about fines and penalties for domestic terrorism violations. Secondly, a maximum 60-month prison sentence can be imposed on someone who conspires to commit domestic terrorism. However, few punishments, fees, and bonds are on par with what convicted criminals would face for violating federal law. Section 811 also contains the same laws for conspirators. Other laws that affect the Fourth Amendment are those that track terrorists after their release and classify it as racketeering. Domestic terrorists who have served over a year in prison are subject to a maximum of 60 months of supervised release (Maldonado, 2020). In the event of predictable radicalization and terrorist acts, a released prisoner may be under lifetime supervision. The Boston Marathon bombing raises awareness of domestic terrorism penalties (Ray, 2022). The Federal Department imposed a death sentence on Tsarnaev. Before the principal criminal received the death penalty, a survey of Boston residents indicated that 61% preferred life in prison to the death penalty. The court upheld its position in the case, notwithstanding the resident’s and the witnesses’ vehement objections to the death penalty. The first debate on using the death penalty for domestic terrorists arose during Tsarnaev’s trial (Ray, 2022). Since the attacks of September 11, only one criminal has faced the guillotine. These data demonstrate that domestic terrorists are treated fairly.
The bombing at the Boston Marathon draws attention to the state of domestic terrorism prosecution methods. The Department of Justice imposed the death penalty on Tsarnaev. Before the principal criminal received the death penalty, a survey of Boston residents indicated that 61% preferred life in prison to the death penalty (Maldonado, 2020). The court maintained its stance on the issue despite the resident and witnesses’ passionate arguments regarding the death punishment. The first debate concerning the death sentence for domestic terrorists arose during Tsarnaev’s trial. Since the September 11 attacks, only one perpetrator has been executed. These figures demonstrate the equitable treatment of homegrown terrorists. Unusually, Timothy Mc Veigh is the only person to have been executed after being found responsible for crimes related to terrorism (Maldonado, 2020). Fourteen domestic terrorists have been sentenced to death by judges and prosecutors during the past 17 years. Compared to the number of instances involving death sentences, not many criminals have been charged with terrorism. After examining various cases, it appears that terrorist defendants resolved their cases through a plea agreement.
The USA Patriotic Act, passed by Congress in October 2001, provided the government the authority to broaden the definition of “homegrown terrorism” in terrorist legislation (Cordesman, 2002). The verdict appeared to follow the particular punishment clause in this instance. The Supreme Court determined in Furman v. Georgia in 1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional before it was implemented (Ranstorp, 1996). The death penalty was reinstated by the court, nonetheless, in 1977. In the case of Gregg v. Georgia, the court decided on the grounds of retaliation and deterrence (Cornell, 2017). The two arguments are explored about the decision’s fairness. According to the retribution strategy, the impact of terrorism on humanity mandates that the death sentence is a suitable punishment and an accurate representation of societal opinion. Comparatively, the deterrence strategy claims that the severity of the penalties associated with the death penalty deters terrorist attacks.
Conclusion
Terrorism in the U.S. has significantly rocketed since the 1950s. Despite several federal government initiatives to stop radicalization, there have been more terrorist incidents every decade. Key factors influencing radicalization include unemployment, religion, the internet, and the desire for belonging and approval. The First and Fourth Amendments provide a firm foundation for the American government to combat radicalization and domestic terrorism. Also, the government has made significant steps to counteract internet-related radicalization and domestic terrorism, such as community policing and the justice department. Other laws like the USA Patriotic Act provide the government the authority to broaden the definition of “homegrown terrorism” in terrorist legislation. The effective implementation of anti-domestic terrorism laws and measures can be a key approach to increasing the country’s security, hence guaranteeing all citizens’ safety.
References
Cordesman, A. H. (2002). Terrorism, asymmetric warfare, and weapons of mass destruction: Defending the U.S. homeland. Greenwood Publishing Group. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/lasting-challenge-strategy-counterterrorism-and-asymmetric-warfare
Cornell, J. (2017). Fighting Domestic Terrorism! (Doctoral dissertation, Washington University). https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=samfox_art_etds
Grover, T., & Mark, G. (2019, July). Detecting potential warning behaviors of ideological radicalization in an alt-right subreddit. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 13, pp. 193-204). https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/3221
Hellman, A. D. (2020). The Supreme Court’s Two Constitutions: A First Look at the” Reverse Polarity” Cases. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 82, 273. https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/320/
Jensen, M. A., Atwell Seate, A., & James, P. A. (2020). Radicalization to violence: A pathway approach to studying extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5), 1067-1090. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-55135-009
U.S. Department of Justice. (2022, March 28). Virginia man pleads guilty to providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and encouraging violent jihadists to kill U.s. Citizens. Department of Justice | United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/virginia-man-pleads-guilty-providing-material-support-foreign-terrorist-organization-and
Maldonado, L. (2020). Why There Should Be a Law Against U.S. Domestic Terrorism. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/810/
Ranstorp, M. (1996). Terrorism in the Name of Religion. Journal of international affairs, 41-62. https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutput/terrorism-in-the-name-of-religion(5e7db3b1-5614-45e8-949b-e0556f084c7b)/export.html
Spencer, S. B. (2017). Predictive surveillance and the threat to fourth amendment jurisprudence. ISJLP, 14, 109. https://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/fac_pubs/227/
Ray, M. (2022, March 4). Boston Marathon bombing of 2013. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Marathon-bombing-of-2013
write