Following the racially motivated shooting in Buffalo this weekend, House Democrats are trying to revive a bill aimed at combatting domestic terrorism and to do so they are seeking the support of Rep. Ilhan Omar, who once called the legislation “horrible.”
Saturday’s mass shooting, which resulted in shooting of 13 people and the deaths of 10, has put pressure on Omar and other progressives who were concerned about the anti-terrorism’s bill reach. Ten of the people who were shot in a Buffalo grocery store by 18-year-old Payton Gendron, who is white, were Black, and authorities say his rampage was fueled by racial animus.
With Speaker Nancy Pelosi determined to win House approval of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act this week, talks began Monday with recalcitrant Democrats like Omar, who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District.
“Negotiations are ongoing,” said Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin. “The congresswoman had concerns about an earlier iteration of the bill, but is working to improve the legislation in the hopes her concerns can be resolved.”
Pelosi told reporters the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is “in play.”
The anti-terrorism bill once had bipartisan support in the House, but Republicans have turned against it, saying efforts to crack down on domestic terrorists could be misused to initiate investigations into conservatives who practice free speech. Many Republicans also say white supremacy and domestic terrorism are not the largest threats to the nation, even as the FBI reports rises in hate crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Craig Lassig[/image_credit][image_caption]Rep. Ilhan Omar[/image_caption]
Opposition from Omar and other progressives stripped the bill of the support it needed to pass the House.
“It’s a horrible bill,” Omar told Punchbowl in April after it had been approved on a partisan vote in the Judiciary Committee.
After Saturday’s shooting, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., urged quick action on his legislation.
“The rise of racially motivated violent extremism is a serious threat to Americans across the country,” Schneider said. “Congress hasn’t been able to ban the sale of assault weapons. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is what Congress can do this week to try to prevent future Buffalo shootings – to prevent future California shootings, future El Paso shootings, future Charleston shootings, future Pittsburgh shootings, future Wisconsin shootings.”
The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would create permanent offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and FBI “to monitor, investigate and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism.” It would also require these law-enforcement agencies to issue biannual reports on the state of domestic terrorism threats and focus resources on fighting those threats.
Everybody’s concerned that a terrorism law would target THEM. Bulletin: there are bad Muslims! There are bad white people! There are bad “conservatives” and “Christians”! So: target everyone, from anti-black armed Trumpers to armed anti-Taiwanese China sympathizers. The gun-play is coming from everyone. The calls are coming from inside the house. That’s just how much in love with various guns and various hatreds this country has been for hundreds of years. Get over yourselves and make the damn law. For all the good it’ll do.
Yes, there are bad folks across the political/ideological spectrum. But in this country, the vast majority of violent attacks are from groups on the right. According to the anti-defamation league, right wing extremists account for 75% of attacks. By comparison, leftists account for about 4%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.html
Most people wouldn’t attribute the billions in damages from the George Floyd rioters or the violent takeover of Seattle for example, as coming from right wing groups.
They would, however, attribute the violent attempt to stop certification of the electoral vote as coming from right-wing sources. Ditto shootings such as the one in Buffalo (which, before you go there, was not a false flag operation).
Historically, anti-terrorism laws in this country have not been applied to everyone equally though. Especially in the last 20 years, laws the the PATRIOT Act have been used as excuses to conduct mass surveillance of minority groups. That’s just a fact.
Thank you Representative Omar for watching out for our civil liberties. Strategic opposition will hopefully lead to a better safer domestic terrorism law.
Yes, thank you Mike. I appreciate Omar’s focus on civil rights and effective law enforcement as well.
I think she’s right to oppose this. This bill seems vague in what it allows and I doubt that it will be effective in limiting domestic terrorism and instead be used to target innocent people.
and yet one more reason to support Don Samuels in the DFL Primary
I guess you can vote for Samules in the hope that he will be less concerned about civil liberties if you want…
Odd that Omar is the lede, when, according to the article, “Republicans … say white supremacy and domestic terrorism are not the largest threats to the nation, even as the FBI reports rises in hate crimes against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.”
Speaking of the Republicans, I see that Milbank, of the WaPost, has a piece reporting that over 20% of Republican state representatives are affiliated with far-right extremists. But, yes, let’s focus on Rep Omar.
Anyone who carefully targets and murders complete strangers who belong to a hated group is a terrorist. Nothing justifies this and no God approved of this.
Objective one – stop the plot before it is carried out. Objective two – limit the number of casualties. Objective three – deter potential copycats by the most severe punishment possible. Objective four – prevent those who inspired this terrorism from inciting anyone else. Those who incite terrorists are terrorists. Yes, Tucker Carlson, I am talking about you.
I assume this new law will increase surveillance? Of whom:
https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022
Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland
“1. Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:
“The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:
For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.”
So to question an election, or to question mandates about an experimental vaccine, is the number one factor leading to domestic terrorism?
If, after all of the “questions” have been investigated and debunked many times over, then yes, continued questioning totally falls under the umbrella of “The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” and should absolutely be investigated as aid to terrorists.
Ballot recounts, for example, have found miniscule fraud, and the fraud that does exist has been shown to be coming from the conservative side of the aisle.
The farce of the Arizona “audit” actually increased Biden’s lead.
How many times must sane people rebut the insanity of “stolen” elections?
Illegitimi non carborundum!
The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act attempts to make certain political views illegal. Be careful what you wish for. The Left will not always be in power in this country. Oath Keepers, for example is an organization of veterans and active duty military as well as first responders who have promised to keep their oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They’re no more “extremist” than BLM. Are you going to ban BLM?
Should BLM attempt insurrection like your precious “patriots”, sure. Currently the legal system is giving “Oath Keepers exactly what they deserve, prison time.
The Oath Keepers are not quite as idealistic as you claim. They are part of the anti-government militia movement. While yes, they claim to support the constitution, they were prominently involved in the Jan 6th insurrection that tried to overturn the legal election of Joe Biden. This is a coup, which is not actually allowed by the constitution.
Probably the only issue which I will ever agree with Rep. Omar on. Looking back on the abuses FBI and other government agencies during the “red scare ” in the 1950’s should give one pause. This law would give the green light for domestic spying on citizens and other abuses of civil liberties.
Doug,
You don’t have to go all the way back to the “red scare”. Look at AIM and the Black Panthers, and all the time and resources wasted more recently keeping track of Anarchists and ANTIFA while white supremacists set fires all over the country. Remember being told that piles of construction material were ANTIFA weapons caches during the riots? A bucket of urine was a chemical weapon before the RNC Convention in St. Paul. And I almost forgot… don’t get me started on the FBI fiascos surrounding Earth First! Remember the alleged chemical “attack” at the Uptown McDonalds connected to anti bio-research protestors that turned out to be nothing? Yeah, Omar has plenty of excellent reasons for questioning this kind of legislation. But let’s not write an article about THAT.
COINTELPRO. Don’t forget J Edgar Hoover.
He thought MLK was a public enemy and a danger to democracy.
The history of the FBI and the Civil Rights movement is ugly.
Is it Ilhan Omar’s position that Muslims are terrorists? If they are not terrorists, why would an anti-terrorism bill be a threat to them?
I did not vote for an extreme right Republican. My district is ultra-liberal. Why does Ilhan Omar’s position align so frequently with extreme right Republicans?!
Am I not woke enough to understand how the spectrum can meet at opposite ends? That’s crazy Trump talk!
This woman needs to go.
“Is it Ilhan Omar’s position that Muslims are terrorists? If they are not terrorists, why would an anti-terrorism bill be a threat to them?”
No, this kind of facile circular reasoning needs to go. Obviously Omar (nor most of the rest of us) doesn’t think Muslims are terrorists, yet they have ALREADY been characterized and targeted as terrorists so the “threat” here is obvious and documented. And it’s not just about Muslims, we have a law enforcement regime that routinely targets a variety of people of color and minorities while virtually deputizing white vigilantes. The recent focus on imaginary ANTIFA terrorism proves that we cannot simply trust the State will focus on REAL terrorism threats.
It’s really priceless. What scant coverage we get of a domestic terrorist attack by a white bigot radicalized by “mainstream!” conservative propaganda is a hit piece on Ilhan Omar. Stay classy Minnpost.
Proof that the bigot was radicalized by anyone might be hard to prove. Meanwhile, the same number of Blacks are killed in Chicago (and often Mpls.) in a weekend. By whom?
I have to say I’m really disappointed with this example of Minnpost journalism. Instead of taking an opportunity to use this space with a discussion of legitimate concerns regarding potential and existing police oppression and violence; this article simple piles onto a wave of “law and order” hysteria that’s currently sweeping the nation.
Instead of exploring Omar’s legitimate concerns, she’s cast as an obstructionist who needs to change her vote. It’s not like Omar’s referencing any historical precedence with police confrontations right? It’s not like the Philadelphia police attack on MOVE, or the FBI assaults on AIM and the Black Panthers, or ATF’s assault on the Branch Dividians… might offer us any clues as to what could wrong with an idea like this eh? A new militarized law enforcement unit to attack domestic terror? What could go wrong?
All available evidence indicates that had such an agency existed a year or two ago they would have been focused on their imaginary ANTIFA threat while white supremacists set fire to the third precinct. And there’s absolutely no reason to assume such a unit would have detected or caught any mentally ill racists armed with assault rifles before they launched attacks. Even in theory a domestic terrorism law like this is extremely questionable. Again, the FBI and others needed no special powers or agencies to investigate AIM, or the Black Panthers when they were considered to be domestic terrorists so why all the sudden do we have weaponized yet another possible instrument of institutional racism? Nobody had any trouble interdicting those pesky Anarchists and their bucket of urine before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, so why do we think a new Homeland Security Division would work any better?
And of course fiscal responsibility demands an accounting here… where does the money for this new division come from? Are we raising taxes to pay for this or are we yanking funding from… oh I don’t know maybe the white crimes division to pay for this?
I mean, let’s not explore any serious questions about this legislation, let’s just talk about all the “pressure” on Omar.
And I hate to say it but I can’t ignore the possible racist undercurrents of this article itself. Why is the pressure here on Omar to change her vote rather than Pelosi to make changes that will get Omar’s support? Pelosi needs the legislation but the pressures on Omar? Meanwhile I have to wonder how this article looks if it’s about Klobuchar or Smith instead of Omar? If this were in the Senate I tend to think we’d have an article about the way Klobuchar is brilliantly deploying her newfound leverage to extract responsible concessions and protect our civil rights rather than being an obstructionist standing in the way of national security. What characteristics do Pelosi, Klobuchar, and Smith have in common that Omar lacks? At the very least we have some problematic optics here.
And then of course there’s a rather obvious context fail in this article. We’re told that Omar represents the 5th district, which is true but Omar also represents the epicenter of nationwide riots that were provoked by decades of racist police brutality and murder… let’s not assume that could have anything to do with her perspective on this. Who needs local context in a place called: “Minnpost” when the last name is “Omar” right?
This seems rather simple:
1. Rep. Omar is concerned about abuse of the authorities in the legislation to target Muslims, ethnic groups and other demographics without power. This is legitimate: enhanced surveillance and law enforcement tools always are wielded abusively by power against those who lack it.
2. Domestic terrorism overwhelmingly originates on the Right.
3. We need not be concerned about abuse of the legislation’s authorities to target activists on the Right, as those activists are aligned with power and will always have members & allies within federal and local law enforcement to protect them.
4. Therefore retrain the legislation explicitly to apply only to domestic terrorism from the Right. Addresses 90 percent of the problem with very little risk of abuse.
So now the bill passed in the house, with Omar’s vote, and it contains additional protections and tighter definitions that progressives like Omar demanded. Maybe the pressure was on Pelosi rather than Omar? Thanks Omar for helping to make this a better bill, now let’s see what kind pressure Kobuchar and Smith are under to get it passed in the senate? We await future Minnpost follow up coverage.
Here’s how the NYTs covered the story, no mention of Omar: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/18/us/politics/house-domestic-terrorism-vote.html
It would be nice to get some more details about what’s actually in the bill, but unfortunately if we’re expanding police powers it’s a fair assumption that those new powers will be disproportionately directed at BIPOC and Muslim communities.
This is pretty ridiculous framing in my opinion. Omar has legitimate concerns that increased surveillance powers would be used to target minority groups. This has decades of precedent, especially when looking at how the PATRIOT Act has been used. Plus, America’s national security apparatus is already extensive. We don’t need to give them more power to go after terrorists, we just need to focus on the actual sources of domestic terrorism (the far right) and not politically convenient targets (racial and religious minority groups).