The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportFeb 19, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
The Domestic Terrorist Threat:
Background and Issues for Congress
-name redactedSpecialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
February 19, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42536
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
The emphasis of counterterrorism policy in the United States since Al Qaeda’s attacks of
September 11, 2001 (9/11) has been on jihadist terrorism. However, in the last decade, domestic
terrorists—people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based
extremist ideologies and movements—have killed American citizens and damaged property across
the country. Not all of these criminals have been prosecuted under terrorism statutes. This latter
point is not meant to imply that domestic terrorists should be taken any less seriously than
other terrorists.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) do not officially
list domestic terrorist organizations, but they have openly delineated domestic terrorist “threats.”
These include individuals who commit crimes in the name of ideologies supporting animal rights,
environmental rights, anarchism, white supremacy, anti-government ideals, black separatism, and
anti-abortion beliefs.
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and domestic terrorist activity
has received public attention. This boundary is especially highlighted by a number of criminal
cases involving supporters of animal rights—one area in which specific legislation related to
domestic terrorism has been crafted. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374) expands
the federal government’s legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in
criminal activity. Signed into law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise
Protection Act (P.L. 102-346).
Five discussion topics in this report may help explain domestic terrorism’s significance for policy
makers:
•
Level of Activity. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for orchestrating
more than two-dozen incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in antigovernment extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last
several years.
•
Use of Nontraditional Tactics. A large number of domestic terrorists do not
necessarily use tactics such as suicide bombings or airplane hijackings. They
have been known to engage in activities such as vandalism, trespassing, and tax
fraud, for example.
•
Exploitation of the Internet. Domestic terrorists—much like their jihadist
analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for their
operations.
•
Decentralized Nature of the Threat. Many domestic terrorists rely on the
concept of leaderless resistance. This involves two levels of activity. On an
operational level, militant, underground, ideologically motivated cells or
individuals engage in illegal activity without any participation in or direction
from an organization that maintains traditional leadership positions and
membership rosters. On another level, the above-ground public face (the
“political wing”) of a domestic terrorist movement may focus on propaganda and
the dissemination of ideology—engaging in protected speech.
Congressional Research Service
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
•
Prison Radicalization. Prison has been highlighted as an arena in which terrorist
radicalization can occur. Some prison gangs delve into radical or extremist
ideologies that motivate domestic terrorists, and in a number of instances, these
ideologies are integral to fashioning cohesive group identities within prison
walls. It must be reiterated, however, that even for gangs that exhibit these
ideological dimensions, criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking—not radical
beliefs—largely drive their activities.
Congress may choose to consider issues in three areas regarding the federal role in combating
domestic terrorism. First is the issue of definitions. It is difficult to assess the scope of domestic
terrorism because federal agencies use varying terms to describe it. Even more basically, there is
no clear sense of how many domestic terrorist attacks have occurred or how many plots the
government has foiled in recent years. Second, Congress may review the adequacy of domestic
terrorism intelligence collection efforts. For intelligence gathering and program prioritization
purposes, there is no standard set of intelligence collection priorities across federal agencies that
can be applied to domestic terrorism cases. Also, there likely is no established standard for the
collection of intelligence from state and local investigators—aside from suspicious activity
reporting. Finally, it may be of value to explore how domestic terrorism fits into the Obama
Administration’s community outreach-driven strategy to quell terrorism-related radicalization in
the United States. Congress may query the Administration on which brand of domestic terrorists
it plans to focus on under the strategy and which local community groups it intends to engage
regarding domestic terrorism issues.
Congressional Research Service
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Domestic Terrorism Defined............................................................................................................ 2
What Is Domestic Terrorism? .................................................................................................... 3
Toward a Narrower Definition ............................................................................................ 4
Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies” ................................................. 5
Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic Terrorism Threat ............................... 5
Counting Terrorism Cases ................................................................................................... 5
Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity ..................................................... 6
Extremism vs. Terrorism ..................................................................................................... 7
The Lack of an Official Public List ..................................................................................... 9
Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups .................................................................. 9
Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists ................................................ 11
Anarchist Extremists ......................................................................................................... 13
White Supremacist Extremists .......................................................................................... 16
Anti-Government Extremists ............................................................................................ 22
Black Separatist Extremists ............................................................................................... 30
Anti-Abortion Extremists .................................................................................................. 31
Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of the ALF.................................. 33
A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?” .............................................................. 33
Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance ............................................................................... 37
Counting Incidents................................................................................................................... 38
Growth in Hate Groups and Anti-Government Extremism ............................................... 40
“Non-Violent” Strategies ......................................................................................................... 41
Direct Action ..................................................................................................................... 41
The ALF: “Live Liberations” and “Economic Sabotage” ................................................. 42
The ELF: “Monkeywrenching” ......................................................................................... 42
“Paper Terrorism”: Liens, Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes .................................... 46
The Internet and Domestic Terrorists ...................................................................................... 48
A Decentralized Threat ............................................................................................................ 50
Leaderless Resistance........................................................................................................ 51
Lone Wolves ...................................................................................................................... 53
Prison Radicalization ............................................................................................................... 57
Policy Considerations for Congress ............................................................................................... 59
Scoping the Threat ................................................................................................................... 59
Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 59
Designating Domestic Terrorist Groups ............................................................................ 59
A Public Accounting of Plots and Incidents ...................................................................... 61
Intelligence .............................................................................................................................. 61
How Does Domestic Terrorism Fit into the U.S. Countering Violent Extremism
Strategy? ............................................................................................................................... 62
Figures
Figure 1. Hate Groups and Militia Groups, 2000-2012 ................................................................. 40
Congressional Research Service
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 2. ALF and ELF Guidelines ............................................................................................... 45
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 63
Congressional Research Service
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists—people who commit
crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and
movements1—have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their foreign
counterparts inspired by Al Qaeda. This was not necessarily always the case. The FBI reported in
1999 that “[d]uring the past 30 years, the vast majority—but not all—of the deadly terrorist
attacks occurring in the United States have been perpetrated by domestic extremists.”2
The U.S. government reacted to 9/11 by greatly enhancing its counterterrorism efforts. This report
discusses how domestic terrorists broadly fit into this new counterterrorism landscape, a terrain
that in the last 10 years has been largely shaped in response to terrorists inspired by foreign
ideologies. This report focuses especially on how domestic terrorism is conceptualized by the
federal government and issues involved in assessing this threat’s significance. Today (perhaps in
part because of the government’s focus on international terrorist ideologies), it is difficult to
evaluate the scope of domestic terrorist activity. For example, federal agencies employ varying
terminology and definitions to describe it. Also, domestic terrorism-related intelligence collection
efforts have not necessarily received the same attention as similar efforts to counter foreign
threats. Beyond these issues, the Obama Administration’s community outreach-driven strategy to
quell terrorism-related radicalization in the United States focuses on individuals inspired by Al
Qaeda. How domestic terrorism fits into this strategy is unclear. Congress may opt to examine
these and other issues related to domestic terrorism.
Domestic terrorists may not be the top federal counterterrorism priority, but they feature
prominently among the concerns of some law enforcement officers. For example, in 2011, Los
Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P. Downing included “black separatists, white
supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists” among his chief
counterterrorism concerns.3 Also possibly contributing to domestic terrorism’s secondary status as
a threat, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use traditional
terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. Additionally, many domestic terrorists
do not intend to physically harm people but rather rely on alternative tactics such as theft,
trespassing, destruction of property, and burdening U.S. courts with retaliatory legal filings.
1
This conceptualization of the term “domestic terrorism” is derived from a number of U.S. government sources
detailed in this report. They are further discussed below. This report will not focus on homegrown violent jihadists.
However, when referring to such actors, for this report, “homegrown” describes terrorist activity or plots perpetrated
within the United States or abroad by American citizens, permanent legal residents, or visitors radicalized largely
within the United States. “Jihadist” describes radicalized Muslims using Islam as an ideological and/or religious
justification for belief in the establishment of a global caliphate—a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and
religious leader known as a caliph—via violent means. Jihadists largely adhere to a variant of Salafi Islam—the
fundamentalist belief that society should be governed by Islamic law based on the Quran and follow the model of the
immediate followers and companions of the Prophet Muhammad.
2
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism in the United States: 30 Years of Terrorism—A Special Retrospective
Edition, (2000) p. 16.
3
Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011. See also Joshua D.
Freilich, Steven M. Chermak & Joseph Simone Jr. “Surveying American State Police Agencies About Terrorism
Threats, Terrorism Sources, and Terrorism Definitions,” Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 21, no. 3 (2009) pp.
450-475. Freilich, Chermak, and Simone found that domestic terrorist groups featured prominently among the concerns
of U.S. state police officials.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
While plots and attacks by foreign-inspired homegrown violent jihadists have certainly earned
more media attention, domestic terrorists have been busy as well. It is worth noting that in terms
of casualties on U.S. soil, an act of domestic terrorism is second only to the events of 9/11.
Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives and injured more than 500 others. Some estimates suggest that
domestic terrorists are responsible for carrying out dozens of incidents since 9/11, and there
appears to be growth in anti-government extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in
the last several years. Much like their jihadist counterparts, domestic terrorists are often Internet
savvy and use the medium as a resource for their operations. Prison has been highlighted as an
arena that can foster terrorist radicalization, and white supremacy—a set of beliefs held by white
supremacist extremists—has long played a role in the activities of several U.S. prison gangs.
Sovereign citizen anti-government ideas (that have inspired some domestic terrorists) have also
circulated in U.S. prisons.
Terrorists are typically driven by particular ideologies. In this respect, domestic terrorists are a
widely divergent lot, drawing from a broad array of philosophies and worldviews. These
individuals can be motivated to commit crimes in the name of ideas such as animal rights, white
supremacy, and opposition to abortion, for example. However, the expression of these
worldviews (minus the commission of crimes) involves constitutionally protected activity.
Aware of the lines between constitutionally protected speech and criminality, domestic terrorists
often rope themselves off from ideological (above-ground) elements that openly and often legally
espouse similar beliefs. In essence, the practitioners who commit violent acts are distinct from the
propagandists who theorize and craft worldviews that could be interpreted to support these acts.
Thus, terrorist lone actors (lone wolves) or isolated small groups (cells) generally operate
autonomously and in secret, all the while drawing ideological sustenance—not direction—from
propagandists operating in the free market of ideas.
This report provides background regarding domestic terrorists—detailing what constitutes the
domestic terrorism threat as suggested by publicly available U.S. government sources.4 It
illustrates some of the key factors involved in assessing this threat and concludes by examining
potential issues for Congress. This report does not discuss in detail either violent jihadist-inspired
terrorism or the federal government’s role in counterterrorism investigations. It is meant to be
read in conjunction with CRS Report R41780, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism
Investigations; CRS Report R42553, Countering Violent Extremism in the United States; and CRS
Report R41416, American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, which provide
greater context in these areas.
Domestic Terrorism Defined
Two basic questions are key to understanding domestic terrorism. First, what exactly constitutes
“domestic terrorism?” Answering this question is more complicated than it may appear. Some
consider all terrorist plots occurring within the homeland as acts of domestic terrorism. According
to this perspective, a bombing plot involving U.S. citizens motivated by a foreign terrorist group
such as Al Qaeda constitutes domestic terrorism. While this conceptualization may be true at
some level, a practical definition of domestic terrorism distilled from federal sources is much
4
This report does not presume the guilt of indicted individuals in pending criminal cases.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
narrower. It suggests that domestic terrorists are Americans who commit ideologically driven
crimes in the United States but lack foreign direction or influence—whether tactical or
philosophical. This conceptualization excludes homegrown individuals directed or motivated by
groups such as Al Qaeda. Second, what particular groups are considered domestic terrorist
organizations? The U.S. government does not provide a precise, comprehensive, and public
answer to this question. Rather, in broad terms, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has identified a
number of general threats that embody this issue.
What Is Domestic Terrorism?
In the most general statutory terms, a domestic terrorist engages in terrorist activity that occurs in
the homeland. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the Bureau) has lead responsibility for
terrorism investigations at the federal level.5
The FBI generally relies on two fundamental sources to define domestic terrorism. First, the Code
of Federal Regulations characterizes “terrorism” as including “the unlawful use of force and
violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population,
or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”6 Second, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2331(5) more narrowly defines “domestic terrorism” and differentiates it from
international terrorism and other criminal activity.7 This definition comes from Section 802 of the
USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56). According to 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), domestic terrorism
occurs primarily within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, and domestic terrorism involves
(A) ... 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....8
5
28 C.F.R. §0.85.
Ibid.
7
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Responses of John E. Lewis [then Deputy
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation] to Additional Questions from Senator Obama,” Eco-Terrorism
Specifically Examining the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18,
2005, S. Hrg. 109-947 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 41. Hereinafter: Responses of John E. Lewis.
8
18 U.S.C. §2331(5).
6
Congressional Research Service
3
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Enforcement—Joint Terrorism Task Forces
Aside from the FBI, other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) play a role in enforcement efforts to counter domestic terrorism. These
agencies—as well as state and local law enforcement representatives—typically cooperate within the framework of
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), multi-agency investigative units led by DOJ and the FBI across the country.9
JTTFs are teams of police officers, federal agents, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists who
investigate terrorism and terrorism-related crimes. Seventy-one of the more than 100 JTTFs operated by DOJ and
the FBI were created since 9/11. Over 4,400 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and agents—more than
four times the pre-9/11 total—work in them. These officers and agents come from more than 600 state and local
agencies and 50 federal agencies.10
The FBI considers JTTFs “the nation’s front line on terrorism.”11 They “investigate acts of terrorism that affect the
U.S., its interests, property and citizens, including those employed by the U.S. and military personnel overseas.”12 As
this suggests, their operations are highly tactical and can involve developing human sources (informants) as well as
gathering intelligence to thwart terrorist plots. JTTFs also offer an important conduit for the sharing of intelligence
developed from FBI-led counterterrorism investigations with outside agencies and state and local law enforcement.13
Additionally, there is a National JTTF, which was established in July 2002 to serve as a coordinating mechanism with
the FBI’s partners. Some 40 agencies are now represented in the National JTTF, which has become a focal point for
information sharing and the management of large-scale projects that involve multiple partners.14
Toward a Narrower Definition
The definitions cited above are too broad to capture what the FBI specifically investigates as
“domestic terrorism.” Besides the statutory definitions regarding the crime of domestic terrorism,
the FBI has historically emphasized particular qualities inherent to the actors who engage in
domestic terrorism. According to the Bureau, domestic terrorists do not simply operate in the
homeland, but they also lack foreign direction.15 In fact, the Bureau’s practical, shorthand
definition of domestic terrorism is “Americans attacking Americans based on U.S.-based
extremist ideologies.”16 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) follows this construction.17
9
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America from Terrorist Attack: Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces.”
Ibid.
11
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America against Terrorist Attack: A Closer Look at Our Joint Terrorism
Task Forces,” May 2009.
12
Brig Barker and Steve Fowler, “The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Officer,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
vol. 77, no. 11 (November 2008), p. 13.
13
Kevin Johnson, “FBI Issues More Top Secret Clearance for Terrorism Cases,” USA Today, August 12, 2010;
STRATFOR, A Decade of Evolution in U.S. Counterterrorism Operations, Special Report, December 2009; CRS
Report RL33033, Intelligence Reform Implementation at the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Options for
Congress.
14
DOJ, “Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
15
James F. Jarboe, [then Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division] Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Testimony Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
February 12, 2002. Hereinafter: Jarboe, Testimony.
16
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism in the Post-9/11 Era,” September 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Federal
Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.”
17
See Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon,”
November 10, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.”
10
Congressional Research Service
4
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Ambiguity Regarding “U.S.-Based Extremist Ideologies”
On the surface, the FBI’s shorthand definition for domestic terrorism appears straightforward.
However, there is inherent ambiguity to it. Namely, some of the “U.S.-based extremist
ideologies” driving what the Bureau views as domestic terrorism have international roots and
active followings abroad. The ideologies supporting eco-extremism and animal rights extremism
(discussed below) readily come to mind, and people have long committed crimes in their names
outside the United States.18 At least in part, their origins lay in the United Kingdom. Nazism—
with its German origins and foreign believers—is an element within domestic white supremacist
extremism. Anarchism, the philosophy followed by anarchist extremists, also has long-standing
European roots. The racist skinhead movement traces its origins abroad—to the United
Kingdom—as well. It is unclear exactly what the FBI means when it emphasizes U.S.-based
ideologies in its framing of domestic terrorism.
Factors Complicating the Descriptions of the Domestic
Terrorism Threat
A few more issues make it hard to grasp the breadth of domestic terrorist activity in the United
States. First, counting the number of terrorist prosecutions in general has been difficult in the
post-9/11 period. Second, there may be some ambiguity in the investigative process regarding
exactly when criminal activity becomes domestic terrorism. Third, the federal government
appears to use the terms “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably when referring to domestic
terrorism. It is unclear why this is the case. Finally, and most importantly, which specific groups
are and should be considered domestic terrorist organizations? The U.S. government does not
provide a public answer to this question. Rather, the federal government defines the issue in terms
of “threats,” not groups.
Counting Terrorism Cases
While statutory and practical federal definitions exist for “domestic terrorism,” there is little clear
sense of the scope of the domestic terrorist threat based on publicly available U.S. government
information. Most broadly, it has been said that in much of the post-9/11 period, the federal courts
and DOJ may have applied different parameters when sorting, counting, and categorizing all
types of terrorist prosecutions—let alone domestic terrorism cases.19 A 2009 study (critiqued by
DOJ) found that the U.S. Federal District Courts, DOJ’s National Security Division, and federal
prosecutors rely on different criteria to determine whether or not specific cases involve terrorism
at all.20
18
See Gary A. Ackerman, “Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front,” Terrorism and
Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (2003), pp. 155-156. Hereinafter: Ackerman, “Beyond Arson?”
19
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Who Is a Terrorist? Government Failure to Define Terrorism
Undermines Enforcement, Puts Civil Liberties at Risk, September 8, 2009, http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/215/.
DOJ issued a press release that broadly challenged these findings and suggested that TRAC may have omitted certain
statistics in its study. TRAC refuted these claims. For the interchange between DOJ and TRAC, see http://trac.syr.edu/
tracreports/terrorism/219/.
20
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
A bit more narrowly, in many instances, individuals considered to be domestic terrorists by
federal law enforcement may be charged under non-terrorism statutes, making it difficult to grasp
from the public record exactly how extensive this threat is. Regarding the prosecution of domestic
terrorism cases, DOJ has noted that, “[a]lthough we do have at least one specialized [federal]
statute aimed at animal enterprise terrorism,21 domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms,
arson or explosive offenses; crimes relating to fraud; and threats and hoaxes.”22 In some
instances, the crimes committed by people the FBI describes as domestic terrorism suspects do
not violate federal law. When this occurs, the Bureau, “support[s] [its local] partners any way [it]
can—sharing intelligence, offering forensic assistance, conducting behavioral analysis, etc.”23
Thus, individuals considered domestic terrorists by federal law enforcement may not necessarily
be federally charged as terrorists.
Sifting Domestic Terrorism from Other Illegal Activity
It may not be possible for investigators to describe the criminal activity involved early in an
investigation as domestic terrorism. In these instances, investigators can work toward clarifying
the motives of the suspects involved.24 Domestic terrorism cases differ from ordinary criminal
activity in key ways. Most importantly, unlike ordinary criminals—who are often driven by selfcentered motives such as profit and tend to opportunistically seek easy prey—domestic terrorists
are driven by a cause or ideology.25 If the motives involved eventually align with the definition
laid out in 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5), presumably the case becomes a domestic terrorist
investigation. In some instances, ideologically motivated actors can also collaborate with profitdriven individuals to commit crimes.
To further cloud matters, another category of criminal activity, hate crime, may appear to involve
ideological issues.26 However, as described by one federal official, a “hate crime” “generally
involve[s] acts of personal malice directed at individuals” and is missing the broader motivations
driving acts of domestic terrorism.27 For investigators, distinguishing between “personal malice”
and ideologically motivated actions may be difficult in specific cases. This suggests that sorting
domestic terrorism from hate crimes depends on the degree of a suspect’s intent. Did the suspect
articulate an ideology, belong to a domestic terrorist group, or follow an extremist movement?
The grey area between domestic terrorism and hate crime hints that in some instances, suspects
with links to domestic terrorist movements or ideologies supporting domestic terrorism may be
charged with hate crimes.28 It is unclear to what extent this influences how the government
21
This likely refers to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act from 1992. In late 2006 shortly after the white paper’s
publication, this act was amended by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
22
Department of Justice, Counterterrorism White Paper, June 22, 2006, p. 59. Hereinafter: Department of Justice,
White Paper.
23
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.”
24
Responses of John E. Lewis, pp. 41, 42.
25
In some instances such as those involving white-supremacist prison gangs who espouse extremist beliefs, the profit
motive may be paramount in their criminal activity. See Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak, and David Caspi,
“Critical Events in the Life Trajectories of Domestic Extremist White Supremacist Groups,” Criminology and Public
Policy, vol. 8, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 508. Hereinafter: Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events. See also David
Holthouse, “Smashing the Shamrock,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Issue 119, (Fall 2005);
Camille Jackson, “Nazi Low Riders,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, Issue 114, (Summer 2004).
26
For more on hate crimes legislation, see CRS Report RL33403, Hate Crime Legislation, by (name redacted).
27
Responses of John E. Lewis, p. 41.
28
While this discussion focuses on intent, domestic terrorists can exhibit additional traits that distinguish them from
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
understands the threat posed by extremist movements that hold racist beliefs. If some individuals
of this ilk commit crimes against police or judges, for example, is the government more apt to
label this activity as terrorism while individuals sharing these same racist motivations but
targeting ordinary citizens based on race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation
are charged with hate crimes?
The FBI’s public description of the case of confessed would-be bomber Kevin Harpham
exemplifies how difficult it may be to characterize acts as domestic terrorism. Initially the FBI
viewed the case as domestic terrorism. In 2011, Harpham, allegedly motivated by white
supremacist ideology, left a bomb—which never detonated—along the route of a parade in
Spokane, WA, honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The FBI’s Northwest Joint Terrorism Task
Force led the investigation.29 In prepared public remarks framing the “current state of the
terrorism threat” from April 2011, the FBI’s Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division
noted that Harpham’s case was one of “several recent domestic terrorism incidents [that]
demonstrate the scope of the threat.”30 Harpham eventually pled guilty to committing a federal
hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.31 Thereafter, the Bureau
described the case as the successful prevention of a “horrific hate crime.”32
Extremism vs. Terrorism
Another concept that muddies discussion of domestic terrorism is “extremism.” The latter term is
commonly applied to homegrown actors, whether they be domestic terrorists or adherents of
ideologies forwarded by foreign groups such as Al Qaeda. National security expert Jonathan
Masters has suggested that many law enforcement officials likely view “extremism” as largely
synonymous with “terrorism.”33 Masters has also found that there is a “lack of uniformity in the
way domestic terrorist activities are prosecuted” in the United States.34 Presumably, using the
term “extremist” allows prosecutors, policy makers, and investigators the flexibility to discuss
terrorist-like activity without actually labeling it as “terrorism” and then having to prosecute it as
such. This flexibility is certainly an asset to prosecutors. They can charge subjects of FBI
domestic terrorism investigations under a wider array of statutes and, as a result, not describe the
subjects publicly as terrorists. However, for policy makers this flexibility makes it hard to
(...continued)
other offenders. For example, as part of their involvement in ideological movements, domestic terrorists often are
exposed to more tactical training—in weapons, explosives, arson, reconnaissance, paramilitary discipline—than many
more ordinary criminals. See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook on Extremism for Law Enforcement, (2007), p. 9.
Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook.
29
Department of Justice, press release, “Attempted Bomber Arrested,” March 9, 2011, http://seattle.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/
pressrel11/se030911.htm.
30
Mark F. Giuliano, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared remarks
delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence,
Washington, DC, April 14, 2011.
31
Department of Justice, press release, “Attempted Bomber Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime and Weapons
Charge,” September 7, 2011.
32
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “MLK Parade Bomber,” January 13, 2012; Department of Justice, press release,
“Colville, Wash., Man Indicted for Federal Hate Crime in Attempted Bombing of the MLK Unity March,” April 21,
2011.
33
Jonathan Masters, Militant Extremists in the United States, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February
7, 2011.
34
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
determine the scope of the domestic terrorist threat. One cannot get a clear sense of scope if some
individuals are charged and publicly described as terrorists, others are discussed as extremists,
and still others enter the public record only as criminals implicated in crimes not necessarily
associated with terrorism, such as trespassing, arson, and tax fraud.
What Is Extremism?
The FBI’s public formulation of “extremism” suggests two components. First, extremism
involves hewing to particular ideologies. Second, it also includes criminal activity to advance
these ideologies.35 Thus, according to this construction, an anarchist believes in a particular
ideology—anarchism. An “anarchist extremist” is an anarchist who adopts criminal tactics.36
One scholar has indicated a similar bifurcation: First, extremism refers to an ideology outside a
society’s key values, and for liberal democracies, such ideologies “support racial or religious
supremacy and/or oppose the core principles of democracy and human rights.” Second,
extremism can refer to the use of tactics that ignore the rights of others to achieve an
ideological goal.37
“Homegrown Violent Extremists” Are Not Domestic Terrorists
The FBI and DHS have recently popularized the phrase “homegrown violent extremist” (HVE). It
separates domestic terrorists from U.S.-based terrorists motivated by the ideologies of foreign
terrorist organizations. (HVEs include some of the actors this report considers as “homegrown
violent jihadists.”) According to DHS and the FBI, a HVE is “a person of any citizenship who has
lived and/or operated primarily in the United States or its territories who advocates, is engaged in,
or is preparing to engage in ideologically-motivated terrorist activities (including providing
support to terrorism) in furtherance of political or social objectives promoted by a foreign terrorist
organization, but is acting independently of direction by a foreign terrorist organization.”38
35
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Anarchist Extremism, A Primer,” December 16, 2010. The
focus of this piece, as the title suggests, is anarchist extremism, not necessarily defining the term “extremism.”
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.” This type of formulation—extremism consists of
adherence to ideologies and criminal activity committed in the name of these ideologies—is replicated in the
definitions provided within Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.”
36
Making things more complex, the broader concept of “violent extremism” has been used by the Obama
Administration. According to the administration, “violent extremists” are “individuals who support or commit
ideologically-motivated violence to further political goals.” See Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent
Extremism in the United States, August 2011, p. 1.
37
Peter R. Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism: Radicalisation and De-Radicalisation in 15 Countries, International
Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, London, 2010, p. 12. In its Guidebook on Extremism for
Law Enforcement, Hereinafter: Neumann, Prisons and Terrorism. The Anti-Defamation League has defined extremists
as: “people who subscribe to extreme ideologies.” The group goes on to say, “extreme ideologies are those that promote
world views so radical that most other people will not agree with them.” See Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p.
3.
38
This definition appears to differ from the conceptualization of “homegrown jihadists” used in this report by (1) only
including individuals not directed by a foreign organization and by (2) including all sorts of terrorists motivated by
foreign ideologies, not just violent jihadists. See Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Joint Intelligence Bulletin, “Use of Small Arms: Examining Lone Shooters and Small-Unit Tactics,”
August 16, 2011, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
According to the FBI and DHS, an HVE is not a domestic terrorist—they are two distinct
categories of terrorist actors.39
The Lack of an Official Public List
The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist
organizations or individuals.40 The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties
concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a group’s exercise of free
speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or
processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess
domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. An unnamed DHS
official cited in a news report stated that “unlike international terrorism, there are no designated
domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified extremist group
leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on by DHS.”41
Constitutionality aside, the lack of a list may also contribute to a certain vagueness in the public
realm about which groups the federal government considers domestic terrorist organizations.
While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic terrorist
organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in its
Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the “Terrorist Watchlist.”42
The government is much less vague regarding foreign terrorist organizations. They are officially
designated as such according to a well-established legally and procedurally proscribed regimen.
According to the Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, as of December 2013, the
Secretary of State had designated 54 foreign terrorist organizations according to Section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.43
Toward a Practical Definition: Threats Not Groups
As discussed above, DOJ and the FBI do not list domestic terrorist organizations publicly and
officially. This may complicate the understanding that federal policy makers have of what exactly
the government considers “domestic terrorism.” While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the
FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism
threats to include criminal activity by “animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, anti-
39
Ibid.
See (name redacted)avita, “Does the U.S. Have Any Domestic Terrorist Groups?” Homeland Security Watch, June
29, 2010. Hereinafter: Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.” See also R. Jeffrey Smith, “Homeland Security
Department Curtails Home-Grown Terror Analysis,” Washington Post, June 7, 2011. Hereinafter: Smith, “Homeland
Security.” David E. Heller, “Designating Domestic Terrorist Individuals or Groups,” (Master’s Thesis, Naval
Postgraduate School, 2010). Hereinafter: Heller, “Designating Domestic.”
41
Smith, “Homeland Security.”
42
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorist Screening Center, “Frequently Asked Questions.” See also Timothy J.
Healy, Director, Terrorist Screening Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statement before the House Judiciary
Committee, Washington, DC, March 24, 2010; Bellavita, “Domestic Terrorist Groups.”
43
For the legal criteria used to designate a foreign terrorist organization, the legal ramifications of designation, and
ancillary effects of designation see Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” September 28, 2012.
Hereinafter: Department of State, “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”
40
Congressional Research Service
9
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
government extremists such as ‘sovereign citizens’ and unauthorized militias, [b]lack separatists,
[w]hite supremacists, and anti-abortion extremists.”44
The actors who constitute each of the domestic terrorist “threats” outlined by DOJ draw upon
ideologies whose expression largely involves constitutionally protected activity. The FBI
safeguards against cases focused solely on constitutionally protected activities. All FBI
investigations have to be conducted for an authorized national security, criminal, or foreign
intelligence collection purpose.45 The purpose of an investigation may not be to solely monitor
First Amendment rights.46
However, it is unclear how DOJ or the FBI arrive at their list of domestic terrorism threats. This
poses at least two fundamental questions:
•
How does a particular brand of dissent become ripe for description by DOJ and
the FBI as driving a “domestic terrorism” threat?
What criteria are involved in such a process?
How many crimes or plots attributed to a specific ideology have to occur to stimulate
the identification of a new extremist threat? Is the severity of the crimes linked to an
ideology taken into consideration?
•
At what point do ideologically driven domestic terrorism threats cease to exist?
Should there be a means for public petitioning of the government to eliminate various
threats as investigative priorities?
The below discussion of domestic terrorism threats does not necessarily presume the priority of
one over the other.47 It is also important to note that instances of animal rights extremism and
eco-terrorism within the last dozen years are more readily available in the public record than
cases involving other types of domestic terrorism. The extensive use of such examples in this
report does not imply the prominence of animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism over other
domestic terrorist threats.
44
Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 59. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism.” The
FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations likely cover these categories as well as lone wolves (lone offenders): extremists
who commit crimes without the support of a formal organization or network. Some lone wolves are motivated by the
ideologies behind the threats outlined by DOJ, but they can fashion their own ideologies as well. In the past, in the area
of domestic terrorism, the FBI has distinguished between “special interest terrorism” and “traditional right-wing and
left-wing terrorism: “Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that
extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special
interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the
general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme
fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements.” It is unclear whether the FBI still
uses the categories of “special interest,” “left-wing,” and “right-wing” terrorism. See Jarboe, Testimony.
45
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, redacted, October 15, 2011, p. 4-1
through p. 4-2.
46
Ibid.
47
The discussion lists the threats in the same order as found in Department of Justice, White Paper.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Animal Rights Extremists and Environmental Extremists
The term “animal rights extremism” covers criminal acts committed in the name of animal
rights.48 Environmental extremism—most often referred to as “Eco-terrorism”—includes criminal
acts committed in the name of the environment.49 These terms are not applied to groups or
individuals involved with environmental movements or animal welfare protection/rights activism
within the “confines of civil society and the rule of law.”50
Many of the crimes committed by both animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are perpetrated
by independent small cells or individuals who harass and intimidate their victims.51 These cells or
lone actors engage in crimes such as vandalism, theft, the destruction of property, and arson. Most
animal rights and eco-extremists also eschew physical violence directly targeting people or
animals. Regardless, crimes committed by eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists have caused
millions of dollars in property damage, and some have involved the intimidation and harassment
of victims.52 These two types of extremism are often discussed together, because the two broader
radical movements from which they draw their philosophical underpinnings have similar beliefs
and overlapping membership.
The two movements—the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)—
have the greatest reach among animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists. The ALF and the ELF
are too diffuse to be called groups. Neither the ALF nor the ELF maintains formal rosters or
leadership structures, for example.53 However, each communicates a sense of shared identity and
attracts people who commit crimes in its name. They achieve this via “above-ground” wings.
Largely using websites, ALF and ELF supporters publish literature highlighting movement
philosophies, tactics, and accounts (press releases) of recent movement-related criminal activity.
Much of this involves protected speech and occurs in the public realm. Press releases allow
“underground” extremists to publicly claim responsibility for criminal activity in the name of
either movement while maintaining secrecy regarding the details of their operations. The ALF
and the ELF do not work alone. Members of other entities such as Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty (SHAC) have committed crimes in the name of animal rights, for example.
Additional factors tangle our understanding of the ALF and the ELF. People can simultaneously
participate in both. This may partly be true because the movements are so amorphous. The two
movements also share similar agendas, and in 1993 they declared solidarity.54 All of this can play
48
Department of Homeland Security, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown.”
For the purposes of this report, “eco-terrorists,” “eco-extremists,” and “environmental extremists” are synonymous.
These terms and “animal rights extremism” describe individuals engaged in criminal activity in the name of radical
environmental ideologies or animal rights. It is unclear why environmental extremists are frequently dubbed “ecoterrorists” while animal rights extremists do not have a similar commonplace usage applied to them.
50
See Kevin R. Grubbs, “Saving Lives or Spreading Fear: The Terroristic Nature of Eco-Extremism,” Animal Law, vol.
16, no. 2 (2010), p. 353-57. Hereinafter: Grubbs, “Saving Lives.”
51
See Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Putting Intel to Work against ELF and ALF Terrorists,” June 30, 2008.
Hereinafter: FBI, “Putting Intel.”
52
Ibid.
53
Both the ALF and the ELF focus on criminal activity as central tenets of their philosophies or operational guidelines,
and the FBI emphasizes that criminal activity is a key element in the identities of these movements. See FBI, “Putting
Intel.”
54
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Statement of Carson Carroll, Deputy
Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining the
(continued...)
49
Congressional Research Service
11
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
out confusingly in the real world. For example, an individual can commit a crime and claim
responsibility for it online in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. One case especially
highlights intersections between the ALF and the ELF.
In late 2005 and early 2006, the FBI dismantled a network that, according to DOJ, committed
violent acts in the name of both the ALF and the ELF. The group included about 20 individuals
and called itself “the Family.” It was reportedly responsible for at least 25 criminal incidents
totaling approximately $48 million in damages in the late 1990s and early 2000s and disbanded at
some point in 2001, due to law enforcement pressure on the group. The Family was responsible
for an arson attack in 1998 at the Vail Ski Resort. Eight simultaneous fires damaged radio towers,
ski lift towers, restaurants, and the ski patrol office at the Colorado site and totaled over $24
million in losses.55
Philosophical Underpinnings
Both the ALF and the ELF rely on and borrow from a number of philosophical underpinnings to
rationalize their beliefs and actions. These help forge a common identity among individuals in
each movement. These ideas are also key principles professed by more mainstream animal rights
or environmental activists engaged in legal protest.
The ALF: Animal Rights and Speciesism. The ALF’s moral code includes the belief that
animals possess basic inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this
suggests that animals cannot be owned. According to the ALF, the U.S. legal system—which
describes animals as property—is corrupt, and there exists a “higher law than that created by and
for the corporate-state complex, a moral law that transcends the corrupt and biased statutes of the
US political system.”56 Simply put, the rights of one species do not trump the rights of others. To
suggest otherwise is to be prejudiced, according to animal rights adherents.
For the ALF and other animal rights supporters, the favoring of one species, particularly humans,
over others has a name: speciesism. For the ALF, speciesism is a “discriminatory belief system as
ethically flawed and philosophically unfounded as sexism or racism, but far more murderous and
consequential in its implications.”57 Thus, the movement couches the theft or illegal release of
animals used in research or for economic gain as “liberation.” The ALF views the destruction of
(...continued)
Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, 109th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-947
(Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 43. Hereinafter: Statement of Carson Carroll.
55
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Operation Backfire: Help Find Four Eco-Terrorists,” November 19, 2008;
Department of Justice, press release, “Eleven Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges,” January 20, 2006.
Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Eleven Defendants.” See also United States v. Joseph Dibee et al, Sentencing
Memorandum, CR 06-60069-AA, CR 06-60070-AA, CR 06-60071-AA, CR 06-60078-AA, CR 06-60079-AA, CR 0660080-AA, CR 06-60120-AA, CR-06-60122-AA, CR-06-60123-AA, CR-06-60124-AA, CR-06-60125-AA, CR60126-AA, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, May 4, 2007, pp. 6, 8, 19, 20-21. Hereinafter: U.S. v. Dibee et al.
56
North American Animal Liberation Press Office, “History of the Animal Liberation Movement.” Hereinafter:
NAALPO, “History.”
57
Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front,” in Terrorists
or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, ed. Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II (New York:
Lantern Books, 2004), p. 24. Hereinafter: Best and Nocella, “Behind the Mask.” Best reportedly advises NAALPO, see
http://naalpo.posterous.com/our-task-new-essay-by-press-office-advisor-st. P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, The
Animal Research War (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. xix. Hereinafter: Conn and Parker, The Animal. See
also NAALPO, “History” which excerpts Best and Nocella’s work.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
laboratory infrastructure or tools as the elimination of items used to enslave species who have the
same rights as humans. Intimidation of scientists and employees of businesses tied to animal
research or testing is rationalized as confrontation with “oppressors” or those who, in the eyes of
movement adherents, abuse and murder animals.58
The ELF: An Ideological Mélange. Eco-terrorists are motivated by a mélange of environmental
philosophies. There is no single formula for what constitutes the ideological makeup of an ELF
follower, but several concepts likely play key roles in the movement. These are biocentrism, deep
ecology, social ecology, and green anarchism. Biocentrism argues for the equality of all
organisms.59 Deep ecology suggests that all species are part of “the larger super-organism that is
nature.”60 It criticizes industrialization and views modern human impact on the earth as negative
and hearkens back to small communities centered on subsistence agriculture.61 Social ecology
suggests that hierarchical human society leads to social inequalities and environmental harm.
Green anarchism ascribes environmental harm to civilization and domestication and embraces the
notion of “rewilding,” or rejecting civilization and returning to a hunter-gatherer state to preserve
one’s natural surroundings.62
Anarchist Extremists
According to the FBI, anarchist extremists commit crimes in the name of anarchist ideals.63 These
ideals include belief that
individual autonomy and collective equality are fundamental and necessary for a functional,
civilized society. [Anarchism] resists the existing hierarchical structure of society that gives
some people authority and control over others. [According to anarchists] authority imbues
power, and power always is used in illegitimate and self-serving ways by those who have
it.64
Anarchist extremists as well as anarchists engaging in constitutionally protected activity can
oppose government, business, or social interests that they view as dangerous. As this suggests,
anarchists advocate some form of revolution that realigns authority and power in the societies
they desire to transform. However, adherents cannot agree to a single means for attaining
revolutionary change.65
As one may assume, anarchist activity is decentralized. In fact, a basic, temporary organizational
structure—the affinity group—likely plays a larger role in shaping the work of U.S. anarchists
58
NAALPO, “History.”
Stefan H. Leader and Peter Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front and Environmental Terrorism,” Terrorism and
Political Violence, vol. 15, no. 4 (Spring/Summer 2005), pp. 39-40. Hereinafter: Leader and Probst, “The Earth
Liberation Front.”
60
Conn and Parker, The Animal, xx.
61
Leader and Probst, “The Earth Liberation Front,” pp. 39-40.
62
Sean Parson, “Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front,” Green Theory and Praxis: The Journal of
Ecopedagogy, vol. 4, no. 2 (2008), pp. 54-58.
63
Ibid.
64
Randy Borum and Chuck Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement,” Studies in Conflict
and Terrorism, vol. 28, no. 3, (2005), p. 202. Hereinafter: Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action.”
65
Ibid., p. 203.
59
Congressional Research Service
13
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
than any formal long-lasting entities or networks.66 Affinity groups are “autonomous militant
unit[s] generally made up of between five-to-twenty individuals who share a sense of the causes
worth defending and the types of actions they prefer to engage in. The decision-making process is
anarchist, that is to say, egalitarian, participatory, deliberative, and consensual.”67 An affinity
group often consists of a circle of friends. The friends coalesce around a specific objective and
break apart when they achieve their desired ends. Individual groups can band together in
“clusters” and clusters can coordinate their efforts, if need be.68 The ends can be legal or illegal,
violent or non-violent, covert or open. These structures have a long history among anarchists, but
other movements use them as well.69 Also, anarchists can engage in what they call “black bloc”
tactics. These involve secretive planning for public—often criminal—activity in which
participants, typically dressed in black, act en-masse.70 Adding to the sprawling nature of the
anarchist movement, some adherents also participate in the ALF and the ELF. These three
movements share general philosophical tenets such as opposition to globalization and
capitalism.71
The FBI has described anarchist extremists as typically being “event driven,” meaning
they show up at political conventions, economic and financial summits, environmental
meetings, and the like. They usually target symbols of Western civilization that they perceive
to be the root causes of all societal ills—i.e., financial corporations, government institutions,
multinational companies, and law enforcement agencies. They damage and vandalize
property, riot, set fires, and perpetrate small-scale bombings. Law enforcement is also
concerned about anarchist extremists who may be willing to use improvised explosives
devices or improvised incendiary devices.72
Anarchist extremists in the United States have been involved in illegal activity during mass
protests surrounding events such as the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in
Seattle, WA.
Anarchist extremists reportedly committed crimes during the 2008 Republican National
Convention in St. Paul, MN.73 To coordinate their protests during the convention, some anarchists
formed what they called the “RNC Welcoming Committee” (RNCWC).74 In September 2007, the
66
Ibid., p. 207.
Francis Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism and the Politics of Affinity Groups,” Anarchist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1 (2010),
p. 41. Hereinafter: Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism.”
68
CrimethInc. Workers’ Collective, Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook, (Olympia, WA: CrimethInc.
Workers’ Collective, 2004), pp. 28-34. Hereinafter: Anarchist Cookbook.
69
Dupuis-Déri, “Anarchism,” p. 43.
70
Anarchist Cookbook, pp. 127-130.
71
Borum and Tilby, “Anarchist Direct Action,” p. 208.
72
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Anarchist Extremism.”
73
Ibid. For information on reported anarchist criminal activity related to the 2008 Republican National Convention, see
Department of Justice, press release, “Michigan Man Sentenced for Possessing Molotov Cocktails,” March 10, 2009;
Department of Justice, press release, “Texas Man Sentenced on Firearms Charges Connected to the Republican
National Convention,” May 21, 2009; Department of Justice, press release, “Austin, Texas Man Sentenced for
Possessing Molotov Cocktails During the Republican National Convention,” May 14, 2009. For information on a
matter possibly related to the anarchist criminal activity at the 2008 convention, see James C. McKinley, Jr., “Anarchist
Ties Seen in ‘08 Bombing of Texas Governor’s Mansion,” New York Times, February 22, 2011.
74
For an archived version of the group’s website see http://web.archive.org/web/20080907081250/http://
www.nornc.org./.
67
Congressional Research Service
14
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
RNCWC developed a plan to broadly organize the activities of affinity groups intending to
disrupt the convention. Law enforcement infiltrated and undermined these efforts, arresting 800
people, including eight involved with the RNCWC.75 Initially, in Minnesota state court, the eight
“had been charged with felonies: first-degree damage to property and second-degree conspiracy
to riot. Prosecutors added a more serious charge of conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism,
which was later dismissed.”76 Five of the eight pled guilty to gross misdemeanor charges in 2010.
The others had all of the charges they faced dismissed.77
On April 30, 2012, five men who reputedly had anarchist sympathies were arrested for
purportedly scheming to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, OH.78 The plot was apparently timed
to coincide with peaceful protest activity arranged by Occupy Cleveland, an offshoot of the
Occupy Wall Street movement. Occupy Cleveland representatives have stated that the alleged
would-be bombers “were in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.”79 An
FBI sting operation led to the quintet’s arrest.80 Purportedly, the group relied on an undercover
FBI employee to supply them with two inert bombs that the conspirators believed
were functional.81
Criminal acts involving anarchist extremists do not have to be event-driven. For example, DHS
has noted that anarchist extremists had set fires at urban development project sites in Vancouver,
Canada, and Seattle, WA, in 2013. Anarchist extremists are also suspected in a similar incident
that occurred in Grand Rapids, MI in 2011.82 These attacks followed instances of what DHS
characterized as “lower-level criminal activity or mischief involving anarchist or ‘antigentrification statements.’”83 In another case that was not “event-driven,” Joseph Konopka, the
self-dubbed “Dr. Chaos,” allegedly led a group of boys he called “The Realm of Chaos” in a
series of crimes involving vandalism to radio and cell phone towers in the late 1990s and early
2000s. In 2002, he was arrested in Chicago for storing more than a pound of deadly cyanide
powder in a passageway in a Chicago Transit Authority subway tunnel.84 He had obtained the
75
Pat Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas Close Book on ‘08 Convention Protests,” Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, October 19,
2010. Hereinafter: Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.” See also Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “The Lessons of St. Paul,”
STRATFOR, September 10, 2008.
76
Pheifer, “Guilty Pleas.”
77
Ibid.
78
Department of Justice, press release, “Five Men Arrested in Plot to Bomb Ohio Bridge,” May 1, 2012. Hereinafter:
Department of Justice, “Five Men.” David Ariosto, “5 Arrested in Alleged Plot to Blow Up Cleveland-Area Bridge,”
CNN, May 1, 2012.
79
Henry J. Gomez, “Bridge Bomb Plot: Suspects Were Active in Occupy Cleveland, Even As Movement Slowed to a
Crawl,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 2, 2012.
80
Department of Justice, “Five Men.”
81
Ibid. Four of the conspirators pled guilty “to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of
weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate
commerce.” See Department of Justice, press release, “Three Men Sentenced to Prison for Roles in Plot to Bomb Ohio
Bridge,” November 20, 2012. A fifth was “convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and other
charges.” See Kim Palmer, “‘Anarchist’ Convicted in Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot,” Reuters, June 13, 2013.
82
Department of Homeland Security, “Self-Identified Anarchist Extremists Target Urban ‘Gentrification’ Sites with
Arson,” July 23, 2013.
83
Ibid.
84
Juliet Williams, Federal appeals Court Overturns Dr. Chaos Conviction,” Associated Press, May 31, 2005; Mike
Robinson, “Federal Prosecutors Want ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Remain Locked Up,” Associated Press, March 13, 2002; Meg
Jones and Jesse Garza, “‘Anarchist’ Charged Over Cache of Cyanide,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 12, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
material (potassium cyanide and sodium cyanide) from an abandoned warehouse.85 In 2002,
Konopka pled guilty in federal court to possessing chemical weapons, and in 2005 he pled guilty
to 11 felonies, including conspiracy, arson, creating counterfeit software, and interfering with
computers in Wisconsin.86
White Supremacist Extremists
The term “white supremacist extremism” (WSE) describes people or groups who commit
criminal acts in the name of white supremacist ideology. At its core, white supremacist ideology
purports that the white race ranks above all others. WSE draws on the constitutionally protected
activities of a broad swath of racist hate-oriented groups active in the United States ranging from
the Ku Klux Klan to racist skinheads. Some of these groups have elaborate organizational
structures, dues-paying memberships, and media wings. Additionally, many individuals espouse
extremist beliefs without having formal membership in any specific organization.
A large proportion of white supremacists dualistically divide the world between whites and all
other peoples who are seen as enemies.87 Particular animus is directed toward Jews and African
Americans. In fact, a common racist and revisionist historical refrain is that the civil rights
movement succeeded only because Jews orchestrated it behind the scenes.88
Scholars indicate that white supremacists believe in racial separation and that society
discriminates against them. To them, whites have lost “ground to other groups and ... extreme
measures are required to reverse the trend.”89 All of this has been encapsulated in a slogan known
as the “Fourteen Words”: “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white
children.” This was coined by David Lane, a member of a violent terrorist group active in the
1980s. The Fourteen Words have been described as “the most popular white supremacist slogan
in the world.”90
Neo-Nazism and its obsession with Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany is also a prominent
component of white supremacist extremism in the United States.91 The father of American neoNazism, George Lincoln Rockwell, became publicly active in the late 1950s. According to one
scholar, Rockwell laid down three concepts that have shaped neo-Nazism ever since. For his
followers, he reconfigured the racial notion of “white,” broadening it beyond “Aryan” to include
people of Southern and Eastern European descent. Additionally, Rockwell denied the Holocaust.
85
“Man Pleads Guilty to Storing Cyanide,” Associated Press, November 21, 2002.
“Judge Sentences ‘Dr. Chaos’ to Prison for Damage to Wisconsin Power Systems, Associated Press, November 30,
2005.
87
Chip Berlet and Stanislav Vysotsky, “Overview of U.S. White Supremacist Groups,” Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1 (Summer 2006), p. 13. Hereinafter: Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview.”
88
Leonard Zeskind, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the
Mainstream (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009), p. 40. Hereinafter: Zeskind, Blood and Politics.
89
Rory McVeigh, “Structured Ignorance and Organized Racism in the United States,” Social Forces, vol. 82, no. 3
(March 2004), pp. 898-899.
90
Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 16. Lane died in 2007 while serving 190 years in prison for his involvement
with a terrorist group named the Order. See “Founder of Terrorist Group Dies in Prison,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star,
May 29, 2007, http://tribstar.com/local/x1155692948/Founder-of-terrorist-group-dies-in-prison. Among other writings,
Lane also drafted an influential racist ideological tract titled The 88 Precepts.
91
Anti-Defamation League, Guidebook, p. 15.
86
Congressional Research Service
16
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
He also encouraged tying neo-Nazism to religion, and some of his followers took up the obscure
creed of Christian Identity.92
Conflict and Conspiracy
Aside from racial superiority, a dualistic view of the world, and neo-Nazism, at least two other
broad concepts shape white supremacy in the United States. They are the inevitability of violent
conflict, and a belief that conspiracies hostile to white supremacy shape the existing world.93 It
can be said that WSE broadly shares these concepts with the militia movement (discussed below).
The FBI has stated that white supremacists “commonly anticipate” waging war against their
opponents.94 For example, the inevitability of RAHOWA—an acronym for “racial holy war”—is
a central tenet of the neo-Nazi Creativity Movement, which has its roots in the Church of the
Creator, a racist group founded by Ben Klassen in 1973.95 Klassen, who committed suicide in
1993, argued that whites had no choice but to wage war against non-whites.96 Likewise, some
white supremacists use racism to interpret apocalyptic imagery from Norse mythology embodied
in Odinism.97 Most Odinists are not racists, however.98
Conspiracism has been defined as “the idea that most major historic events have been shaped by
vast, long-term, secret conspiracies that benefit elite groups and individuals.”99 Conspiracy
theories are not the province of a particular movement or group. Regardless, conspiracy theories
can particularly shape the outlooks and actions of white supremacist extremists. Media sources
have stated that Richard Poplawski—convicted of shooting and killing three Pittsburgh police
92
Fredrick J. Simonelli, “The Neo-Nazi Movement,” Southern Poverty Law Center. See also Charles S. Clark, “An
American Nazi’s Rise and Fall,” American History, vol. 40, no. 6 (February 2006), pp. 60-66; Simonelli, “The
American Nazi Party,” Historian, vol. 57, no. 3 (Spring 1995), pp. 553-566. A follower assassinated Rockwell in 1967.
For information on Christian Identity, see Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, Terrorism in America (Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett, 2009), pp. 47-72; Martin Durham, “Christian Identity and the Politics of Religion,” Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions, vol. 9, no. 1 (March 2008), pp. 79-91; Tanya Telfair Sharpe, “The Identity
Christian Movement: Ideology of Domestic Terrorism,” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 30, no. 4 (March 2000), pp. 604623; Anti-Defamation League, “Christian Identity.”
93
Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” pp. 12-13 highlights dualism, conspiracism, and apocalypticism as key themes.
94
The Bureau has noted that “warfare” is reflected in beliefs drawn from Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement,
neo-Nazism, and Odinism. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel
since 9/11, July 7, 2008, p. 4. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist.
95
After Klassen’s 1993 death, the Church of the Creator was revived in an altered form by Matt Hale. For more
information see Southern Poverty Law Center, “Church of the Creator.” See also Dobratz, “The Role,” p. 290; and
Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4.
96
Ben Klassen, “RAHOWA: The Fighting Slogan of the White Race,” Racial Loyalty, no. 32 (February 1986).
97
Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist, p. 4. Odinism has been defined as either a combination of old
Norse religion and Christianity or a belief system that draws exclusively on Nordic mythology. See Jonathan White,
“Political Eschatology: A Theology of Antigovernment Extremism,” The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 6,
(February 2001), p. 939.
98
Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 30.
99
Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 12. For more on conspiracy theories and terrorism see Jamie Bartlett and Carl
Miller, The Power of Unreason: Conspiracy Theories, Extremism, and Counter-Terrorism, Demos, London, August
29, 2010. Barlett and Miller (p. 24.) suggest that conspiracy theories “are one of a number of factors that can lead to
extremism, and can turn extremism to violence.”
Congressional Research Service
17
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
officers in April 2009—believed that a Zionist conspiracy controlled government and major
corporations in the United States.100
As in Poplawski’s example, anti-Semitism plays a prominent role in the racist conspiracies of
many white supremacists.101 These people—as well as anti-government extremists—believe in
something they call the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG).102 ZOG refers to the federal
government, which adherents contend is “controlled or manipulated by international Jewish
interests.”103 On its website, one WSE group has sold versions of a video game titled “ZOG’s
Nightmare.” Gameplay involves shooting nonwhites while being chased by a police agency
controlled by Jews.104 Racists explain all sorts of personal or social grievances by invoking
ZOG.105 One scholar has described ZOG as
an omnipresent and omnipotent cabal involving at its heart varying constellations of Jews,
Illuminati, Freemasons, plutocrats, and multinational corporations. It operates through many
social ‘front’ institutions, from the United Nations to Parent-Teacher Associations.... ZOG
can be used to explain not only the existence of affirmative action, environmental pollution,
and pornography but also why a certain individual made poor grades in school, lost his job,
or seems unable to find a partner.106
According to adherents, ZOG is said to control the media, arts, religion, science, and education.107
Loss of Prominent Leaders
In the 1980s and 1990s, a small number of figures dominated white supremacist circles. They
were intimately linked to their own relatively cohesive organizations. By the early 2000s, these
groups fragmented as they lost their leaders. This fragmented situation likely persists. In fact, one
study from 2006 has described “a recent crisis of leadership in the hate movement.”108
Two particularly well-known white supremacist figures died in the last decade. William Pierce,
head of the National Alliance, died in 2002. Richard Butler, leader of Aryan Nations, died in
2004. Both Pierce and Butler articulated clear ideologies that attracted followers and drew upon
resources such as rural headquarters/compounds to sustain their organizations.109 By the early
2000s, the National Alliance even had a substantial revenue stream estimated at $1 million
100
Timothy McNulty, Paula Reed Ward and Sadie Gurman, “Jury Decides Poplawski Should Die for Killing 3
Officers,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 28, 2011. Hereinafter: McNulty et al., “Jury Decides.” See also AntiDefamation League, “Richard Poplawski: The Making of a Lone Wolf,” April 8, 2009. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation
League, “Richard Poplawski.” Sean D. Hamill, “Man Accused in Pittsburgh Killings Voiced Racist Views Online,”
New York Times, April 7, 2009. Hereinafter: Hamill, “Man Accused.”
101
Berlet and Vysotsky, “Overview,” p. 13.
102
Also seen as “Zionist Occupation Government.”
103
Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism, p. 93; Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The
Pagan Revival and White Separatism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003), pp. 11, 54, 68-69. Hereinafter:
Gardell, Gods.
104
Anti-Defamation League, The National Socialist Movement.
105
Gardell, Gods, p. 68.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Jack Levin, Domestic Terrorism (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006), pp. 48-49.
109
Freilich, Chermak, and Caspi, “Critical Events,” 511.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
annually generated from a publishing company and record labels it owned as well as dues.110 The
deaths of Butler and Pierce exacerbated the downfall of both organizations. The decline of these
groups also resulted from a number of other forces, such as infighting among members and
pressure from law enforcement and watchdog groups.111
Two prominent white supremacist movements are discussed below.
National Socialist Movement (NSM)
One white supremacist organization active in the United States is the National Socialist
Movement (NSM). It has benefitted from the decline of these other groups as well as new
leadership in the form of Jeff Schoep.112 The NSM also capitalized on the expansion of the
Internet in the early 2000s. The group, which emerged in 1974, is a descendant of the American
Nazi Party, and until the 1990s and early 2000s “it operated only on the fringes of the neo-Nazi
movement.”113 As of 2008, the group had around 500 members and close associates throughout
the United States.114 The NSM is flexible about membership, allowing its members to also
participate in other white supremacist organizations.115
Individuals allegedly tied to the NSM at some point in their lives have run afoul of the law.
•
In Minnesota in April 2012, Joseph Benjamin Thomas was indicted on drugrelated charges, and Samuel James Johnson was indicted on weapons-related
charges. Purportedly the two were tied to NSM—at one point Johnson had served
as its leader in Minnesota. The duo had reportedly formed their own white
supremacist group, gathering weapons and ammunition and planning to attack
the government and other targets.116 In June 2012, Johnson pled guilty to “one
count of being a felon in possession of firearms.”117 In July 2012, Thomas pled
guilty to “possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of high-purity
methamphetamine.”118
•
William White, a onetime member of the NSM and founder of his own white
supremacist organization, has faced charges in several criminal cases. In
December 2013, DOJ announced an indictment of White that included “five
counts of making threats in aid of extortion over the Internet and one count of the
unlawful use of identification information in furtherance of those offenses.”119 He
110
Ibid., pp. 512, 513.
Ibid., p. 516.
112
Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers: Inside the National Socialist Movement, (2008), p. 3.
Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, American Stormtroopers.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid.
115
Southern Poverty Law Center, “National Socialist Movement.”
116
Department of Justice, press release, “Mendota Heights Man Indicted for Distributing Methamphetamine,” April 27,
2012; Department of Justice, press release, “Austin Felon Indicted for Possessing Firearms,” April 27, 2012; Amy
Forliti, “Affidavit: 2 Men With Supremacist Ties Had Weapons,” Associated Press, April 27, 2012.
117
Department of Justice, press release, “Austin Felon Pleads Guilty to Possessing an Assault Rifle,” June 6, 2012.
118
Department of Justice, press release, “Mendota Heights Man Pleads Guilty to Possessing Methamphetamine,” July
11, 2012.
119
Department of Justice, press release, “White Supremacist Charged with Sending Online Threatening
(continued...)
111
Congressional Research Service
19
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
allegedly threatened a Florida judge, a state attorney, and an FBI agent, with
kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder. DOJ claims that White included the
families of these individuals in his threats. The officials that White threatened
had been involved in prosecuting suspects tied to the American Front, a white
supremacist organization in Florida. White apparently hoped that his threats
would somehow secure the release of the American Front suspects.120 In January
2011, White was convicted121 of soliciting violence online against the jury
foreman in U.S. v. Matthew Hale.122 In April 2011, a federal judge reversed
White’s conviction. Upon appeal, the conviction was reinstated.123 In an
unrelated case, in December 2009, White was convicted of four counts of
communicating threats in interstate commerce and one count of witness
intimidation. One of the convictions for communicating threats in interstate
commerce was later reversed.124 The witness intimidation charges involved White
reportedly attempting to “delay or prevent the testimony” of African Americans
in a discrimination case.125 According to publicly available information, in 2005
and 2006 White was involved with NSM, for a time serving as its national
spokesman.126 His activity with NSM ceased after he had a falling out with
Schoep.127
(...continued)
Communications to a Florida Judge, State Attorney, and Task Force Agent,” December 11, 2013.
120
Ibid.
121
Department of Justice, press release, “Self-Proclaimed White Supremacist William White Convicted of Soliciting
Violence Against Hale Jury Foreman,” January 5, 2011.
122
Matthew Hale was convicted of soliciting the murder of U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. In the mid
1990s, Hale revived the Church of the Creator fortunes. He changed the organization’s name to the World Church of
the Creator, and according to a watchdog group, by 2002 it had more chapters in the United States than any other neoNazi organization. Judge Lefkow had originally ruled in favor of Hale in a trademark infringement case involving the
name “World Church of the Creator.” Her ruling was reversed on appeal, and as a result, she had to enforce the higher
court’s reversal. Via email and during a conversation, Hale discussed with his security chief the idea of killing Lefkow.
Hale did not know that his security chief was an FBI informant. In 2003, Hale was arrested for soliciting the murder of
Judge Lefkow, and this, as well as his subsequent conviction on charges related to the case, hastened a downturn in
fortune for his World Church of the Creator. Hale is serving a 40-year prison term. After another name change, the
group—currently known simply as the Creativity Movement—shows signs of revival under new leadership. See
Michael, Theology of Hate, pp. 120-133, 173-188; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Creativity”; Chris Dettro, “FollowUp File: White Supremacist Finds Quiet Life in Prison,” The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Il, October 25, 2010;
Larry Keller, “From the Ashes,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 140 (winter 2010), pp. 12-14;
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “A Different Breed of Terrorist,” June 6, 2004.
123
Department of Justice, press release, “White Supremacist William White Sentenced to 42 Months in Prison for
Soliciting Violence Against Hale Jury Foreman,” February 20, 2013; Laurence Hammack, “Judge Tosses William A.
White Verdict,” The Roanoke Times, April 20, 2011.
124
Department of Justice, press release, “Roanoke, Virginia Neo-Nazi Sentenced for Threats, Witness Intimidation,”
April 14, 2010.
125
Ibid. See also Laurence Hammack, “Former Neo-Nazi Leader Gets 3 More Months in Prison,” October 23, 2012.
126
Laurence Hammack, “White’s Life on Fringe Puts Him at Center of Storm,” The Roanoke Times, July 26, 2009.
127
Ibid; Southern Poverty Law Center, “Bill White,” 2011. For other cases involving individuals allegedly tied to
NSM, see Department of Justice, press release, “Valley Man Enters Guilty Plea for Possession and Transport of an
Improvised Explosive Device,” September 27, 2011; Department of Justice, press release, “Valley Man Indicted for
Possessing and Transporting Improvised Explosive Devices,” January 26, 2011, http://phoenix.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/
pressrel11/px012611.htm; Rudabeh Shahbazi, “Documents Show Apache Junction Man Planned To Take IEDs to the
Border,” ABC 15; Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Tip Leads to Sting, Prison for Plotter,”
November 29, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Racist Skinheads
In the United States, racist skinheads have a legacy stretching back to the early 1980s.128
However, skinhead culture originated in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s and today has a
global reach.129 Since the early 2000s, the movement in the United States has been characterized
by a proliferation of regional groups or crews rather than a united core organization.130 In law
enforcement circles, racist skinheads have a reputation for violence. This is “reinforced by hatefilled white power music and literature.” “[T]hey foster [their reputed toughness] through their
appearance (shaved heads or close-cropped hair, white power tattoos) and dress (bomber jackets,
‘braces’ (suspenders), steel-toed boots.)”131
Skinheads emerged as a non-racist movement among British working-class youth in the late
1960s. These early skinheads rejected the hippie lifestyle and embraced elements of Jamaican
culture, particularly reggae and ska music. As immigration from South Asia to the UK grew, some
white British skinheads embraced racism and neo-Nazism. This racist skinhead variant of the
subculture materialized in the U.S. Midwest and in Texas in the early 1980s.132
In the mid-1990s, many U.S.-based racist skinhead groups allied with one another to form the
Hammerskin Nation (HSN). HSN eventually developed chapters throughout the United States
and in Europe. It had its own annual meeting/concert called Hammerfest, ran a record label, and
had a publishing company. In the early 2000s, other groups such as the Outlaw Hammerskins,
Hoosier State Hammerskins, and Ohio State Skinheads challenged HSN for preeminence. These
groups saw HSN as “elitist.”133 In 2011, by one measure, 133 skinhead groups were active in the
United States.134
In January 2010, the FBI released a bulletin that, among other things, emphasized that some racist
skinheads formed the most violent segment of WSE adherents.135 This supported the findings in a
2008 FBI assessment.136 Between 2007 and 2009, skinheads were involved in 36 of the 53 violent
incidents the FBI identified in the United States as being tied to WSE proponents.137 The Bureau
has stated that “violence is an integral part of the racist skinhead subculture.”138 Elements within
128
Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads in America: Racists on the Rampage, p. 3. Hereinafter: Southern Poverty
Law Center, Skinheads.
129
Ibid.
130
Ibid., p. 13; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 8.
131
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, pp. 5-6.
132
Michael R. Ronczkowski, Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and
Investigations, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2007), pp. 40-41. Hereinafter:
Ronczkowski, Terrorism. Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 3-4.
133
Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, p. 5.
134
See Mark Potok, “The Year in Hate and Extremism,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 145
(Spring 2012), p. 46. Hereinafter: Potok, “The Year.” Potok notes that this count of skinhead groups “understates their
numbers” because “skinheads are migratory and often not affiliated with groups.”
135
Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence Possibly Decreases But Racist Skinheads
Remain the Most Violent, January 28, 2010. Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist
Violence.
136
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism: Skinhead Violence on the Far Right, December 10, 2008.
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism.
137
Federal Bureau of Investigation, White Supremacist Extremist Violence, p. 4.
138
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
21
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
the fractious movement even target one another.139 These criminal acts are typically unrehearsed
and opportunistic, targeting nonwhites and “other religious and social minorities.”140
An apparent recent exception involved greater levels of planning. One man was convicted and
two others pled guilty in a Connecticut case that involved the illegal sale of firearms and
homemade grenades. The scheme included multiple meetings between late 2008 and early 2010
to negotiate the transactions, prepare the firearms, and assemble the grenades. The trio was tied to
a skinhead group known as Battalion 14 (originally called the Connecticut White Wolves). They
sold the weapons to a convicted felon working as an FBI cooperating witness. The informant
posed as a member of the Imperial Klans of America, a Ku Klux Klan organization. Two others in
the case, including the leader of Battalion 14 and a man not tied to the group, were acquitted
of charges.141
Anti-Government Extremists
As mentioned above, DOJ considers both unauthorized militias and sovereign citizens as antigovernment extremists. Neither militia membership nor advocacy of sovereign citizen tenets
makes one a terrorist or a criminal. However, in some instances both militia members and
sovereign citizens have committed crimes driven in part by their ideologies.
Militia Extremists
The militia movement emerged in the 1990s as a collection of armed, paramilitary groups formed
to stave off what they perceived as intrusions of an invasive government.142 Central to this is a
fear of firearm confiscation by a federal government thought to be out of control. Some adherents
also believe in anti-Semitic and racist ideologies.143 Regardless, most militia members engage in
constitutionally protected activity.
Militia groups typically coalesce around a specific leader. Groups can run training compounds
where they rehearse paramilitary tactics, practice their survival skills, and receive weapons
instruction and lessons in movement ideology. Some militia groups also maintain websites for
recruitment and fundraising.144 Extremists within the movement who run afoul of law
enforcement “tend to stockpile illegal weapons and ammunition, trying illegally to get their hands
139
Southern Poverty Law Center, Skinheads, pp. 5, 16.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rage and Racism, p. 5.
141
Department of Justice, press release, “Milford Man Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Making Grenades and
Selling Guns Intended for White Supremacist Group,” May 5, 2011, http://newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/
nh050511.htm; Michael P. Mayko, “Two Acquitted in White Wolves Conspiracy Case,” Connecticut Post, December
2, 2010; Michael P. Mayko, “White Wolves Called ‘Home Grown Terrorists,’” Connecticut Post, November 16, 2010;
Anti-Defamation League, “Connecticut White Supremacists Indicted on Firearms and Explosives Charges,” March 24,
2010. For another case allegedly involving racist skinheads, see Amy Pavuk and Henry Pierson Curtis, “Details
Emerge in Osceola Skinhead Race-War Case,” Orlando Sentinel, May 8, 2012.
142
Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts,
Version 1.0, (Tallahassee, Florida: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2005), p. 49; Hereinafter: Institute for
Intergovernmental Research, Investigating Terrorism.
143
Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center, “Sovereign Citizens and Militia Information,” August 19, 2008,
p. 1.
144
Lane Crothers, “The Cultural Foundations of the Modern Militia Movement,” New Political Science, vol. 24, no. 2
(2002), p. 231. Hereinafter: Crothers, “The Cultural.”
140
Congressional Research Service
22
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
on fully automatic firearms or attempting to convert weapons to fully automatic. They also try to
buy or manufacture improvised explosive devices.”145
Segments of the militia movement believe that the U.S. government is either run by some hidden
conspiracy or is an overreaching sham. Some see a “New World Order” controlling U.S.
institutions such as the media and the federal government. They contend that this is partly
fostered by international organizations such as the United Nations. From this perspective, these
organizations sap American sovereignty. Some militia supporters believe that agents of an unauthentic “Shadow Government” are interested in seizing lawfully owned firearms as part of a
plan to undermine democracy.146 Importantly, others in the militia movement hold that the federal
government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.147 One scholar has noted that some militia
members assert that they have “the right to organize, purchase and use firearms, and enforce the
law against agents of the government who behave unconstitutionally.”148
A small minority of Americans who held anti-government fears formed militias largely in
response to two incidents in the early 1990s. These were confrontations between federal law
enforcement and private citizens at Ruby Ridge, ID, and at a site near Waco, TX.149 Both involved
warrants related to firearms violations.
•
In August 1992, Randy Weaver and his family were engaged in an 11-day
standoff with federal law enforcement agents. Randy Weaver had failed to appear
in court on firearms-related charges in 1991. Subsequently, an unsuccessful
operation to arrest Weaver led to the death of his 14-year-old son and a U.S.
Marshal. It also precipitated the standoff. During the standoff, Weaver and a
friend were shot and wounded. An FBI sniper also shot and killed Weaver’s wife,
Vicki.150 Weaver was eventually found guilty of failing to appear in court on the
gun charges that played a role in the standoff. In October 1993, he was sentenced
to 18 months in jail and a $10,000 fine. In 1995, Weaver received a $3.1 million
settlement in a wrongful death suit filed against the U.S. government.151 The
events at Ruby Ridge helped precipitate the militia movement, whose members
tend to view Randy Weaver as a hero and demonize the federal government.152
•
The militia movement also emerged because of the 51-day standoff between
federal law enforcement and a religious sect named the Branch Davidians near
145
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: Focus on Militia Extremism,” September 22, 2011.
Lane Crothers, Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Security
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), p. 57. Hereinafter: Crothers, Rage on the Right.
147
Crothers, “The Cultural,” pp. 226-228.
148
Ibid., p. 228.
149
Ibid., pp. 230-231. See also Michael Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs: The Branch Davidians and the Radical Right,”
Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 19, no. 1 (2007), p. 120. Hereinafter: Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs.” See also
Steven M. Chermak, Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement, (Boston: Northeastern
University Press, 2002).
150
Stuart A. Wright, Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007), pp. 142-148. Hereinafter: Wright, Patriots. Weaver has been described as a survivalist who believed in the
Christian Identity religion. See Barkun “Appropriated Martyrs,” p. 118. He has also been described as holding white
supremacist beliefs and was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 78-79.
151
Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 90.
152
Wright, Patriots, pp. 149-152; Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp. 92-97; Barkun, “Appropriated Martyrs,” pp. 120121.
146
Congressional Research Service
23
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Waco.153 On February 28, 1993, an unsuccessful attempt by ATF agents to arrest
the sect’s leader, David Koresh, initiated the events near Waco. He was wanted
on suspicion of federal firearms and explosives violations.154 Four ATF agents
and six Branch Davidians died in a gunfight during the operation.155 Protracted
discussions followed between federal negotiators and Koresh. These failed. On
April 19, federal agents assaulted the Davidian compound, which caught on fire.
At least 75 Branch Davidians perished in the assault.156
If the incidents involving the Weavers and the Branch Davidians helped form the militia
movement, Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City on April 19, 1995, helped usher in a temporary decline.157 In the bombing’s aftermath, militia
groups received greater law enforcement scrutiny.158 The bombing claimed 168 lives, and until
9/11 was the largest single act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The militia movement included 441
groups in 1995. By 2000, this number was reportedly down to 72.159 Although McVeigh’s
bombing cannot fully account for a dip in militia activity, it impacted the movement by causing
some groups to temper their rhetoric while others grew more extreme, and militias became more
marginalized.160
The militia movement has experienced a recent resurgence. One watchdog group has attributed
this partly to a rise in anti-government anger since 2008.161 According to another organization, the
number of militias in the United States jumped from 42 in 2008 to a recent high of 334 in 2011
(see Figure 1). This resurgence may exhibit a key difference from its precursor. Social
networking websites have encouraged looser organization of smaller, largely web-based cells.162
Several examples highlight how some militia adherents have allegedly engaged in criminal
activity since 9/11.
•
In November 2011, the FBI arrested four retirees, Samuel J. Crump, Ray H.
Adams, Dan Roberts, and Frederick W. Thomas, who allegedly formed a fringe
militia group and planned violent attacks on government officials. The group,
based in northern Georgia, purportedly had ties to an unnamed militia
organization. According to DOJ, the quartet “discussed multiple criminal
activities, ranging from murder; theft; manufacturing and using toxic agents; and
assassinations in an effort to undermine federal and state government and to
153
Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 104.
Department of Justice, Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas, October 8, 1993. The
Branch Davidian sect emerged from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and was formed in 1929. The two severed
official ties with one another in 1934. David Koresh was not a militia member. See Crothers, Rage on the Right, pp.
100-101.
155
Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 105.
156
Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 110.
157
McVeigh was not a militia member, but he interacted with others who were.
158
Devlin Barett and Eileen Sullivan, “FBI Sees Little Chance of Copycat Militia Plots,” Associated Press, March 31,
2010.
159
Potok, “The Year,” p. 42.
160
Crothers, Rage on the Right, p. 138, 147.
161
Anti-Defamation League, Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies, the Resurgence of the Militia
Movement, November 16, 2009.
162
Ibid.
154
Congressional Research Service
24
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
advance their interests.”163 Between June and November 2011, Roberts and
Thomas met with an FBI undercover agent to negotiate the purchase of matériel
for the plot: “a silencer for a rifle and conversion parts to make a fully automatic
rifle, as well as explosives.”164 In October, plotters reportedly discussed making
ricin, a deadly poison derived from castor beans.165 In April 2012, Roberts and
Thomas pled guilty to conspiring to obtain an unregistered explosive device and
silencer.166 Crump and Adams were found guilty of “conspiring to make ricin to
be used as a weapon in January 2014. Also, they were found guilty of one count
each of possessing a biological toxin for use as a weapon.” Adams was acquitted
of “attempting to develop, produce and possess a biological toxin.”167
•
In June 2012, three individuals were found guilty in Anchorage, AK of
conspiracy and firearms charges related to a scheme purportedly led by Francis
“Schaeffer” Cox.168 He and his followers allegedly plotted “a potential retaliatory
response to any attempt by law enforcement to arrest Cox, who had an
outstanding bench warrant for not attending a trial over a misdemeanor weapons
charge.”169 They were members of the Alaska Peacemaker’s Militia based in
Fairbanks, AK, and also held sovereign citizen beliefs. The plotters supposedly
codenamed their plan “241 (two for one),” because they reputedly intended to
kill two government officials for every militia member killed in the operation.170
The above alleged activities are not necessarily indicative of trends toward violence in the larger
militia movement, and in one prominent case, DOJ failed to convince the presiding judge of
serious charges revolving around a purported violent plot. In March 2012, a federal judge
acquitted members of a Michigan Militia group known as the Hutaree on charges of seditious
conspiracy or rebellion against the United States and conspiring to use weapons of mass
163
Department of Justice, press release, “North Georgia Men Arrested, Charged in Plots to Purchase Explosives,
Silencer and to Manufacture a Biological Toxin,” November 1, 2011.
164
Ibid.
165
Craig Schneider, “Documents: Men with Castor Beans, Guns Worried about Getting Caught,” Atlanta JournalConstitution, November 6, 2011.
166
Department of Justice, press release, “North Georgia Men Plead Guilty to Plot to Purchase Explosives and a
Silencer,” April 10, 2012.
167
Kate Brumback, “Jury Finds 2 Georgia Men Guilty in Ricin Plot,” Associated Press, January 17, 2014.
168
Department of Justice, press release, “Guilty Verdicts in USA v. Cox, Barney, and Vernon,” June 19, 2012.
169
Department of Justice, press release, “Superseding Indictment Returned by Federal Grand Jury Against FairbanksArea Men for Conspiracy to Kill Federal Officers,” January 23, 2012; Sam Friedman, “Details Emerge in Alleged Plot
to Kill Alaska State Troopers, Judge,” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 3, 2011. Cox has also been described as a
sovereign citizen (discussed below). See Sam Friedman, “The Schaeffer Cox File: The Trail of a Young Man,”
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, April 10, 2011. For a related case see Department of Justice, press release, “Salcha
Couple Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Murder Federal Officials,” August 27, 2012; Department of Justice, press
release, “Couple Charged with Conspiracy to Murder Judge and Federal Firearms Crimes, Two Others Indicted for
Conspiracy to Possess Destructive Devices and Illegal Weapons,” March 17, 2011.
170
For examples of other militia adherents involved in crime, see Meghann M. Cuniff, “Health Problems Reduce
Militia Leader’s Sentence,” The Spokesman-Review, August 11, 2011; Bill Morlin, “Idaho Militia Leader Sentenced for
Weapons, Bombs,” Hatewatch, Southern Poverty Law Center, August 9, 2011; David Cole, “Militia Member
Sentenced on Federal Firearms and Explosives Charges,” Coeur d'Alene Press, August 9, 2011; Federal Bureau of
Investigation, “Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil: The Case of the Wrong Package Falling into the Right
Hands,” April 9, 2004; Scott Gold, Case Yields Chilling Signs of Domestic Terror Plot,” Los Angeles Times, January 7,
2004.
Congressional Research Service
25
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
destruction. The judge also cleared the accused Hutaree members of weapons crimes related to
the conspiracies.171
The case garnered headlines in March 2010, when nine Hutaree members were indicted for
allegedly preparing to violently confront U.S. law enforcement.172 Their supposed plotting
included the murder of a local law enforcement officer and an attack on fellow officers who
gathered in Michigan for the funeral procession. According to DOJ, the Hutaree discussed the use
of explosives against the funeral procession.173 Audio recordings by an undercover FBI agent of
reputed Hutaree leader David Brian Stone capture him discussing the New World Order and how,
“it’s time to strike and take our nation back so we will be free of tyranny.... The war will come
whether we are ready or not.”174 According to DOJ, the group had a hit list that included federal
judges, among others.175 However, during the trial an Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that
the Hutaree had not formed a “specific plan” to attack government targets.176 U.S. District Judge
Victoria Roberts stated that, “The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be
sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level.”177 Three
Hutaree members pled guilty to firearms charges.178
Sovereign Citizen Movement
The FBI defines the sovereign citizen movement as “anti-government extremists who believe that
even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the
United States. As a result, they do not accept any government authority, including courts, taxing
entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.”179 However, simply holding these views
171
Ed White, “Michigan Militia Members Cleared of Conspiracy,” Associated Press, March 27, 2012,
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/critical-charges-dropped-michigan-militia-16013255?singlePage=
true#.T3MB5kd_lLc. Hereinafter: White, “Michigan Militia.”
172
Department of Justice, press release, “Nine Members of a Militia Group Charged with Seditious Conspiracy and
Related Charges,” March 29, 2010.
173
Ibid.
174
Corey Williams and Jeff Karoub, “Prosecutor: Undercover FBI Agent Infiltrated Militia,” Associated Press, March
31, 2010.
175
Dan Harris, Emily Friedman, and Tahman Bradley, “Undercover Agent Key Witness Against Hutaree Militia
Members,” ABC News, April 1, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/undercover-agent-credited-hutaree-militia-bust/
story?id=10257584.
176
Robert Snell and Christine Ferretti, “Key Charges Dropped Against Hutaree Militia,” Detroit News, March 28,
2011.
177
White, “Michigan Militia.”
178
See Department of Justice, Press Release, “Members of the Hutaree Militia Plead Guilty to Weapons Charges,”
March 29, 2012; Matthew Dolan, “Defendant in Michigan Militia Case Changes Plea to Guilty,” December 6, 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577080630555077796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. When
the Hutaree suspects were arrested in the case, some militia members in Michigan did not support the group’s alleged
scheming. For example, a member of another militia group in Michigan provided information to authorities regarding
the whereabouts of a fugitive Hutaree militia member. See Kirk Johnson, “Militia Draws Distinctions Between
Groups,” New York Times, March 31, 2010. Also, a militia leader from Michigan has said that the Hutaree case,
“caused a rift in the militia movement about whether this is the sort of group we want to rally behind or if what they
were doing was outside the scope of what’s acceptable.” See Robert Snell, “Militias Split over Defending Hutaree,”
Detroit News, March 31, 2011.
179
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement,” April 13, 2010.
Hereinafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign Citizen.”
Congressional Research Service
26
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
is not a criminal act, and numerous movement adherents solely exercise their beliefs via
constitutionally protected activities.
The ideas behind the movement originated during the 1970s with a group known as the Posse
Comitatus and enjoyed some popularity in extremist circles during the 1980s and 1990s.180 Early
on, the movement featured white supremacist elements, but this has not kept some African
Americans from subscribing to its ideals in recent years.181 In the 1990s, the movement attracted
250,000 followers and was marked by the FBI’s standoff with a group known as the Montana
Freemen that lasted 81 days.182 Current estimates suggest a membership of 300,000.183
For the most part, the sovereign citizen movement is diffuse and includes few organized
groups.184 The FBI suggests that sovereigns “operate as individuals without established leadership
and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork
[critical to some of their schemes], or socialize and talk about their ideology.”185 The movement
involves leaders described as “gurus” who proselytize online, in print publications, or via inperson seminars. These gurus rouse followers into believing a conspiracy theory in which the
legitimate federal government has been replaced by a government designed to take away the
rights of ordinary citizens.186 This shares the same broad interplay between concepts of legitimate
and illegitimate rule seen in the New World Order and WSE theories about ZOG. Gurus can also
promote illegal techniques that individuals can use to supposedly cut their ties to the federal
government or avoid its reach, particularly when it comes to taxation.187
Sovereign citizens reject the legitimacy of much of the U.S. legal system.188 Many believe that
the 14th Amendment “shifted the nation from its original common-law roots with states’ rights to
180
Anti-Defamation League, “Sovereign Citizen Movement;” Casey Sanchez, “Return of the Sovereigns,” Intelligence
Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 133 (spring 2009).
181
Sarah Netter, “Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens Taking Foreclosed Homes Using Phony Deeds, Authorities
Say,” ABC News, August 23, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-battling-sovereign-citizens-squattingforeclosed-homes/story?id=11445382. See Leah Nelson, “Sovereigns in Black,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty
Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011).
182
Patrik Jonsson, “‘Sovereign citizens’: Is Jared Loughner a sign of revived extremist threat?” Christian Science
Monitor, March 9, 2011.
183
Ibid.
184
One sovereign citizens group is the “Republic for the united States of America” (RuSA) which is based in Alabama.
RuSA is a successor to a group known as the Guardians of the Free Republics (GFR), which in 2010 mailed letters to
the governors of all 50 U.S. states urging them to leave office. See Southern Poverty Law Center, “Sovereign
President,” Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center, no. 143 (Fall 2011). In March 2013, the group’s selfproclaimed president was convicted of “conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious
financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009
federal income tax return, and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding.” See Department of Justice,
Press Release, “Self-Proclaimed President of Sovereign Citizen Nation Convicted in Alabama of Federal Tax Crimes,”
March 25, 2013.
185
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic
Threat to Law Enforcement,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (September 2011). Hereinafter: FBI Counterterrorism
Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens.”
186
Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless Ones: The Resurgence of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, August 9, 2010,
pp. 2-6. Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless.
187
Ibid., p. 6.
188
However, this reportedly does not keep some sovereign citizen extremists from cashing government paychecks. See
J.J. McNabb, “Working for the Man: Anti-Government Extremists Who Cash Government Paychecks,” Forbes, March
5, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
27
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
a federal corporation that legally enslaved everyone.”189 According to movement members, the
amendment ushered in an illegitimate federal government by supposedly abrogating individual
rights and replacing them with a system that “grant[ed] privileges through contracts such as
marriage and driver’s licenses, gun permits, and property codes.”190
By ignoring all sorts of laws, avoiding taxes, disregarding permit requirements, and destroying
government-issued identification documents, some sovereign citizens have tried to cut formal ties
with what they perceive as an illegitimate regime.191 Sovereigns have filed court documents
stating that they are not U.S. citizens.192 They have also created bogus financial documents to
harass or defraud their enemies. (For more information, see the ““Paper Terrorism”: Liens,
Frivolous Lawsuits, and Tax Schemes” section in this report).
Sovereign citizens have in some instances created fictitious entities and used fake currency,
passports, license plates, and driver licenses. In 2009, a federal jury found three men guilty of
conspiring to use and sell fraudulent diplomatic credentials and license plates that they believed
allowed “their customers [to] enjoy diplomatic immunity and [to] no longer ... pay taxes or be
subject to being stopped, detained, or arrested by law enforcement personnel.”193 In 2003, Ronald
K. Delorme developed the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America194 into a sovereign
citizen group.195 It is a sham Native American tribe that anyone can join to try and avoid taxes
and government-imposed costs, such as auto registration fees. For example, news reports indicate
that in June 2010, a sheriff’s deputy in Florida pulled over John McCombs when the law
enforcement official noticed a Pembina Nation Little Shell license plate on the motorcycle
McCombs was driving. According to publicly available sources, McCombs presented a fraudulent
letter of diplomatic immunity and an invalid Pembina Nation Little Shell vehicle registration.196
Some sovereign citizen fraud appears to be motivated by economic opportunism rather than
ideology.197 This includes “pyramid schemes, other investment schemes, bogus trust scams, real
estate fraud, and various types of tax frauds [as well as] more esoteric scams ... ranging from
immigration fraud to malpractice insurance fraud.”198 In November 2011, husband and wife
Monty and Patricia Ervin were convicted in federal court of conspiring to defraud the United
States as well as three counts of tax evasion. In addition, the federal jury convicted Patricia of
structuring transactions to avoid bank reporting requirements.199 The couple allegedly had not
189
Tom Morton, “Sovereign Citizens Renounce First Sentence of 14th Amendment,” Casper Star-Tribune, April 17,
2011, http://trib.com/news/local/casper/article_a5d0f966-7ed0-549f-a066-b1b2c91f9489.html.
190
Ibid.
191
Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, pp. 4-5.
192
Lance Griffin, “‘Sovereigns’ Gain Attention of Law Enforcement,” Dothan Eagle, May 21, 2011.
193
Department of Justice, press release, “Jury Convicts Three Men of Conspiracy To Use Fake Diplomatic
Identification,” August 31, 2009.
194
The group is not a federally recognized tribe.
195
Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless; Chris Gerbasi, “Tribal Claims Causing Charlotte Controversy,” Sarasota
Herald Tribune, July 25, 2010; “Punta Gorda Man Arrested for Driving with Pembina Nation Plate,” WINK News, June
1, 2010.
196
Ibid.
197
For a discussion of redemption as a scam, see Federal Bureau of Investigation, Common Fraud Schemes,
http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud.
198
Anti-Defamation League, The Lawless, p. 24.
199
Department of Justice, press release, “Self-Proclaimed ‘Governor’ of Alabama and Wife Convicted of Tax Fraud,”
November 4, 2011. Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed.”
Congressional Research Service
28
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
filed federal income tax returns between 2000 and 2008, denied their U.S. citizenship, and
dubbed themselves “sovereign” when the IRS investigated.200 The Ervins earned more than $9
million from investment properties they owned.201 A group of self-proclaimed sovereign citizens
in North Georgia was indicted in March 2011 for using sovereign schemes to allegedly steal
millions of dollars worth of real estate.202
In a few recent cases, avowed sovereign citizens have been involved in violent altercations with
law enforcement officers. According to a September 2011 FBI publication, since 2000 “loneoffender sovereign-citizen extremists have killed six law enforcement officers,” and the Bureau
sees sovereign citizens as a growing threat to U.S. law enforcement.203
•
Perhaps the most publicized example of alleged sovereign violence directed at
police occurred in 2010. In May of that year, two self-professed sovereign
citizens were involved in a violent confrontation with West Memphis, TN, police
officers. During a traffic stop, Joe Kane fired an AK-47 assault rifle and killed
two officers. Kane and his father Jerry fled the scene. Law enforcement sighted
their vehicle in a nearby parking lot 90 minutes later. The duo died in the ensuing
shootout, which also wounded two more officers.204 The FBI had investigated
Jerry Kane five years before the murders because he was allegedly traversing the
United States peddling what the FBI termed a “debt elimination scheme.”205
In June 2012, the FBI issued a bulletin suggesting that some sovereign extremists may be moving
away from more spontaneous violence simply in reaction to encounters with police and are
potentially preparing for conflict in advance, “making more specific plans to interfere with state
and local law enforcement officers during traffic stops and, in some cases, intentionally initiating
contact with law enforcement.”206 In August 2013, authorities in Las Vegas, NV, arrested two
reputed Sovereigns, David Allen Brutsche and Devon Campbell Newman, after a local
investigation uncovered the duo’s purported schemes to kidnap and kill police officers.
Reportedly, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ran an undercover investigation to nab
the two after they encountered Brutsche in what has been characterized as a series of vehicle
stops during which “Brutsche would espouse his Sovereign Citizen beliefs that he wasn't bound
by the law Metro officers were enforcing.”207 Brutsche pled guilty to felony kidnapping
conspiracy in February 2014 after “prosecutors abandoned the two most serious charges—
conspiracy to murder and attempted armed kidnapping.”208
200
Ibid; United States v. Patricia Ervin and Monty Ervin, Superseding Indictment, 1:11-CR-07-MHT, District Court,
Middle District of Alabama, February 17, 2011.
201
Department of Justice, “Self-Proclaimed.”
202
Megan Matteucci, “12 ‘sovereign citizens’ indicted,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 15, 2011.
203
FBI Counterterrorism Analysis Section, “Sovereign Citizens.”
204
Cindy Wolff, “West Memphis Police Sued by Widow of Man Killed in Shootout,” The Commercial Appeal, April
21, 2011; Kristina Goetz, Cindy Wolff, “Grieving West Memphis Chief Raises National Curtain on Sovereign
Citizens,” The Commercial Appeal, April 17, 2011.
205
Scott Knoll, “The Warning That Never Came: What the FBI Knew About Jerry Kane,” WREG, March 2, 2011.
206
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Recent Sovereign Citizen Extremist Targeting of Law Enforcement Highlights
Potential for Violence during Traffic Stops, June 1, 2012.
207
Jackie Valley, “Metro Infiltrates Sovereign Citizens Movement, Uncovers Plots to ‘Snatch,’ Execute Officers,” Las
Vegas Sun, August 22, 2013.
208
Ken Ritter, “Man Takes Plea Deal in Las Vegas ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Case,” Associated Press, February 7, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
29
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
Other cases have garnered attention. For example, in July 2011 James M. Tesi allegedly shot at a
local police officer trying to arrest him near Fort Worth, TX. Tesi was reportedly wounded in the
altercation. Outstanding “arrest warrants for speeding, driving without a license in possession,
and failure to appear” prompted the attempted apprehension.209 Court documents described in
news reporting noted that Tesi linked himself to a sovereign citizen group.210 In February 2012,
Tesi was found “guilty of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon.”211 In
June 2011, a police officer in Page, AZ, shot and killed William Foust while responding to a
domestic violence 911 call. The shooting reportedly occurred during a physical struggle in which
Foust attempted to “gain control of” the police officer’s Taser.212 According to a press account,
Foust had declared his sovereign citizen status in court proceedings in Kanab, UT (about 75 miles
from Page), related to a speeding ticket.213
Black Separatist Extremists
DOJ includes black separatism in its list of movements that potentially spawn domestic
terrorists.214 However, most black separatists solely engage in constitutionally protected behavior.
Since 9/11, there has been little public discussion of federal investigations involving black
separatist extremists. One group exhibiting what can be described as black separatist views, the
New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP), received national scrutiny over voter
intimidation allegations involving members of its Philadelphia chapter during the 2008 federal
general election.
The NBPP emerged in the early 1990s, and it is not tied to the Black Panthers from the 1960s.215
Watchdog groups have described the NBPP as “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization
whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews, and law enforcement officers,”216
as well as “the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in America.”217 The
NBPP, which denies that it is a hate group, engages in “high-profile” rhetoric at rallies or
demonstrations intended to encourage confrontation with authorities. The group’s actions occur
“on behalf of the poor or disadvantaged, involving the ready display of firearms.”218 As an
example of the rhetoric the group uses, an NBPP representative characterized the March 2011
shooting death of a drug suspect in Jacksonville, FL, as “a violent act of terrorism” committed by
209
Domingo Ramirez Jr., “Man in ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Group is Wounded in Shootout,” July 22, 2011.
Ibid.
211
Steve Norder, “‘Sovereign Citizen’ Gets 35 Years for Assault on Officer,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 1,
2012, http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/31/3702338/sovereign-citizen-found-guilty.html.
212
Todd Glasenapp and Larry Hendricks, “Page Officer Kills Man in DV Incident,” Arizona Daily Sun, June 21, 2011,
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_61e27d9d-6d47-5655-8a71-d28b846d8e3e.html.
213
Ibid. For other violent plots with alleged sovereign ties, see Alyssa Newcomb, “Suspects in Louisiana Cop Killings
Linked to Sovereign Citizens Movement,” ABC News, August 19, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-louisianacop-shooters-linked-sovereign-citizen-movement/story?id=17038353#.UL4plddrq1g; J.J. MacNabb, “Sovereign
Extremist Injured in Texas Bomb Explosion,” Forbes, July 3, 2012.
214
Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 59.
215
D.J. Mulloy, “New Panthers, Old Panthers, and the Politics of Black Nationalism in the United States,” Patterns of
Prejudice, vol. 44, no. 3 (2010), pp. 217, 219, 229-236. Hereinafter: Mulloy: “New Panthers.”
216
Southern Poverty Law Center, “New Black Panther Party.”
217
Anti-Defamation League, “New Black Panther Party for Self Defense,” June 1, 2011.
218
Mulloy: “New Panthers,” p. 223, 233.
210
Congressional Research Service
30
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
police.219 Soon after the shooting, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said that the confrontation
involved undercover officers serving a search warrant at an apartment. Officers claimed that
inside the apartment, the victim—an alleged drug dealer with a criminal record—was holding a
firearm.220
In 2008, the Philadelphia, PA, chapter of the NBPP was involved in a case that generated public
controversy. A 2009 civil suit filed by DOJ claimed that two NBPP members wearing the group’s
paramilitary uniforms loitered around the entrance to a 2008 federal general election polling
station in Philadelphia. One of the NBPP members allegedly carried a nightstick. According to
DOJ, some poll watchers feared for their safety because of this activity. Philadelphia police
officers responding to claims of voter intimidation removed the nightstick-wielding NBPP
member and allowed the other to remain (the latter was a certified poll watcher). Police asked
people at the polling station whether they had been threatened by the two individuals. All those
questioned replied that they had not. However, at least one individual claimed that the presence of
the two NBPP members had been intimidating.221 The NBPP disavowed the actions of its two
members.222 In May 2009, DOJ voluntarily dismissed claims against defendants in the case, and a
July 2009 letter from 10 Members of Congress to DOJ’s Inspector General questioned the
decision to do so. DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated, and in March
2011, OPR issued a report which argued that DOJ officials did not act inappropriately regarding
the matter.223
Anti-Abortion Extremists
The vast majority of anti-abortion activists engage in constitutionally protected activity. However,
anti-abortion extremism involves crime committed in the name of the anti-abortion movement.
Sixty-six instances of “extreme violence” targeting abortion providers and clinics occurred in the
United States from 1997 through 2010, according to one group that supports abortion rights and
tracks criminal activity intended to limit access to abortion services.224 These cases involved
shootings, bombings, arson incidents, and acid attacks.225 Since 1993, eight clinic workers have
been murdered by anti-abortion extremists in the United States.226 Because of a wave of violence
focused on abortion providers in the 1980s and early 1990s, Congress passed and President
Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) (18 U.S.C.
§248) in 1994.227 As with other types of domestic terrorism investigations, it is unclear exactly
which incidents of violence perpetrated against abortion providers the FBI considers terrorist acts.
219
“Black Panthers Protest Police Shooting,” October 14, 2011; “Black Panthers Protest Police Shooting,” First Coast
News, March 19, 2011.
220
Ibid.
221
Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Report, Investigation of Dismissal of Defendants in
United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Inc. et al., March 17, 2011, pp. 6-8. Hereinafter: DOJ,
OPR, Investigation of Dismissal.
222
Mulloy: “New Panthers,” p. 217-218.
223
DOJ, OPR, Investigation of Dismissal, pp. 1-3.
224
National Abortion Federation, “Clinic Violence,” http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/
history_extreme.asp. See also “NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics,” http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/
publications/downloads/about_abortion/stats_table2010.pdf.
225
Ibid.
226
NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, press release, “Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation.”
227
This is not a terrorism-related statute. In fact, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, prosecutes both criminal and civil cases
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
The 2009 murder of George Tiller, an abortion provider, received sizeable public attention. On
January 29, 2010, Scott Roeder was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of
aggravated assault for killing Tiller. Roeder shot Tiller while the latter was at church on May 31,
2009. Roeder was sentenced to “life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years.”228
A number of other unrelated schemes targeting abortion clinics have been uncovered since
Roeder’s arrest. These incidents appear to involve individuals largely operating alone.
•
In January 2012, Bobby Joe Rogers was charged in the firebombing of a
Pensacola, FL, abortion clinic on New Year’s Day 2012. The bombing destroyed
the clinic, which had been targeted in the past.229 In February 2012, a federal
grand jury indicted him on two counts—arson and damaging a reproductive
health facility.230 He pled guilty to the charges in July 2012.231
•
In May 2011, Ralph Lang was arrested after allegedly accidently firing his
handgun through the door of the hotel room in Madison, WI. He was reportedly
planning to kill abortion providers in the area.232
One underground network that supports attacks on abortion clinics is the Army of God (AOG).233
The loosely structured organization openly promotes anti-abortion violence.234 However, its
members deny that they are terrorists. They also deny that attacks against clinics and abortion
(...continued)
involving the FACE Act. See http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/overview.php; http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/
face.php. The FACE Act (18 U.S.C. §248), “protects the exercise of free choice in obtaining reproductive health
services, and the exercise of First Amendment religious freedoms. Section 248 makes it unlawful for a person to use
force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure or intimidate a person because he/she is or has been
obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Section 248 also makes it unlawful for a person to use force, threat
of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure or intimidate a person because he/she is lawfully exercising the
right of religious freedom at a place of worship. Finally, Section 248 makes it unlawful for a person to intentionally
damage or destroy the property of a facility because it provides reproductive health services, or because it is a place of
worship. Section 248 also prohibits anyone from attempting to commit any of the above.”
228
Ron Sylvester, “Scott Roeder Gets Hard 50 in Murder of Abortion Provider George Tiller,” Wichita Eagle, April 1,
2010. Hereinafter: Sylvester, “Scott Roeder.” Roeder reportedly also adhered to anti-government beliefs beginning in
the 1990s. See Ron Sylvester, Abortion Issue Front and Center in Roeder Murder Trial,” January 10, 2010, Wichita
Eagle.
229
“Man Indicted for Abortion Clinic Firebombing,” Associated Press, February 23, 2012.
230
Department of Justice, press release, “Arson Indictment Returned Regarding American Family Planning Clinic,”
February 23, 2012.
231
Department of Justice, press release, “Man Pleads Guilty to Arson of Reproductive Health Facility in Pensacola,”
July 19, 2012.
232
Kevin Murphy, Feds Mull Felony Charge for Suspect Ralph Lang of Marshfield in Abortion Clinic Shooting Plot,”
Marshfield News, May 28, 2011; Department of Justice, press release, “Wisconsin Man Charged with FACE Act
Violations,” May 26, 2011, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/May/11-crt-695.html. For other examples of
individuals involved in abortion-related violence, see Department of Justice, press release, “Man Pleads Guilty to Civil
Rights Violation in Connection with Arson at Planned Parenthood and Vandalism of Mosque in Madera, California,”
October 7, 2011. Mower also threw a brick at a mosque in Madera. Ryan Seals, “Update: Concord Man Charged in Plot
to Bomb Abortion Clinic,” Greensboro News and Record, September 9, 2010; “Man Guilty of Bombing Plot Gets 30
Months,” Salisbury Post, March 2, 2011.
233
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), “Terrorist Organization
Profile: Army of God.” Hereinafter: START, “Army of God.”
234
Mireille Jacobson and Heather Royer, “Aftershocks: The Impact of Clinic Violence on Abortion Services,” National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16603, (January 7, 2010), p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
32
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
providers constitute violent activity, because they see it as “Godly work.”235 AOG first made
headlines with the 1982 kidnapping of a doctor and his wife, both of whom ran an abortion clinic
in Illinois. Three individuals who claimed membership in AOG were responsible.236 The group
disseminates a manual that “is a ‘how to’ for abortion clinic violence. It details methods for
blockading entrances, attacking with butyric acid, arson, bomb making, and other illegal
activities. The manual contains anti-abortion language as well as anti-government and antigay/lesbian language. The manual begins with a declaration of war on the abortion industry.”237
Eric Rudolph, who in the late 1990s bombed an abortion clinic near Atlanta, GA, and one in
Birmingham, AL, “published his writings on the Army of God website.”238
Protected Activities vs. Terrorism—Divergent Perceptions of
the ALF
The boundary between constitutionally protected legitimate protest and terrorist activity has
received much attention in public discussions of domestic terrorism. As an example of this, the
next several sections of this report explore such considerations regarding the ALF.
A Serious Domestic Concern or “Green Scare?”
U.S. law enforcement, some business groups, and some scientists—among others—have stressed
that animal rights extremists (and eco-terrorists) are a security and law enforcement concern. In
2008, the FBI stated that animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists together posed a serious
domestic terrorism threat for several reasons, including the number of crimes attributed to animal
rights extremists and eco-terrorists (between 1,800 and 2,000 incidents accounting for more than
$110 million239 in damages from 1979 to early 2009), the broad pool of victims (such as large
pharmaceutical corporations, scientific laboratories, ski resorts, automobile dealerships,
individual researchers, and lumber companies), and the movement’s rhetoric and destructive
tactics.240 In March 2012, the FBI suggested that the threat from eco-terrorists may be declining
in recent years.241
235
Jennifer Jefferis, Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States (Santa Barbara,
CA: Praeger, 2011), p. xvi. Hereinafter: Jefferis, Armed for Life.
236
Ibid., p. 23. The victims were released unharmed after eight days of captivity. See; “Abortion Opposition Stressed in
Kidnapping Trial in Illinois,” New York Times, January 26, 1983.
237
START, “Army of God.”
238
Beau Seegmiller, “Radicalized Margins: Eric Rudolph and Religious Violence,” Terrorism and Political Violence,
vol. 19, no. 4 (October 2007), p. 524. The 1998 bombing in Birmingham killed a police officer and injured a nurse. On
May 31, 2003, Rudolph was arrested and charged with the clinic bombings, bombing the Centennial Olympic Park
during the 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta (claiming one life), and attacking a gay club—Atlanta’s Otherside
Lounge—in 1997. Rudolph admitted to the bombing spree in April 2005. He claimed that the 1996 attack at Centennial
Olympic Park was intended to shame the U.S. government for what Rudolph saw as its support of abortion rights. See
“Rudolph Pleads Guilty in Series of Bombings,” Associated Press at MSNBC, April 13, 2005; “Rudolph Agrees to Plea
Agreement,” CNN, April 12, 2005, http://articles.cnn.com/2005-04-08/justice/rudolph.plea_1_emily-lyons-eric-robertrudolph-atlanta-attacks?_s=PM:LAW.
239
ELF claims that it has caused over $150 million in damages, although the geographic range and timeframe for this
figure are unknown. Earth Liberation Front.org, “What Is the Earth Liberation Front?” Hereinafter: ELF, “What Is the
Earth?” See also http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/ELF/ELFPressOffice.htm.
240
There is some imprecision in the FBI’s public statements regarding the number of crimes committed by animal
rights extremists and eco-terrorists. In April 2009, the FBI estimated that “to date [animal rights and eco-] extremists
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
As articulated by some scientific researchers, the monetary toll on legitimate businesses and
laboratories in the United States exacted by animal rights and eco extremists is compounded by
less tangible issues. For example, animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists have impacted the
work of scientists. In some cases, special equipment and research materials have been destroyed
in attacks. The consequences of criminal activity in the name of movements such as the ALF can
also be more personal. Two advocates of animal research conducted strictly according to federal
regulations have noted that the actions of animal rights extremists have pushed some scientists to
quit lab work involving animals. Often, this work relates to products and procedures that some
maintain cannot feasibly be marketed without animal testing.242 In 2006, a UCLA professor of
behavioral neuroscience declared he was stopping his research on monkeys because of what he
described as harassment by animal rights groups.243 Additionally, animal rights extremists are said
to be driving out students from research programs.244
Critics of U.S. efforts to fight animal rights extremism and eco-terrorism have suggested that the
threat is overblown by law enforcement and that the government’s pursuit of purported extremists
perpetuates a “green scare,” chilling the exercise of protected speech by protesters.245 Some say
that the government conflates property crime with terrorism.246 Others add that people engaged in
what the government describes as animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism do not deserve the
terrorist label.
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374)
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (P.L. 109-374; AETA) expanded the federal government’s
legal authority to combat animal rights extremists who engage in criminal activity. Signed into
law in November 2006, it amended the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (P.L. 102-346;
AEPA). Namely, the AETA
Amends the federal criminal code to revise criminal prohibitions against damaging or
interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise to include intentional damage or loss
to any real or personal property and intentional threats of death or serious bodily injury
(...continued)
have been responsible for more than 1,800 criminal acts.” Ten months earlier, in June 2008, the FBI placed the number
of criminal acts at “over 2,000 since 1979.” See Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, press conference, April 21, 2009. Hereinafter: Heimbach, press conference. See also
FBI, “Putting Intel.” The $110 million figure remained the same in both publicly released documents.
241
Juliet Eilperin, “As Eco Terrorism Threat Wanes, Governments Keep Eyes on Activists,” Washington Post, March
11, 2012. Hereinafter: Eilperin, “As Eco Terrorism.”
242
Conn and Parker, The Animal, pp. xii, xvi. See also 21 C.F.R. §314.610 (regarding approval based on evidence of
effectiveness from studies in animals).
243
Samantha Henig, “UCLA Professor Halts Monkey Research,” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 53, no. 2
(September 1, 2006), p. 21.
244
Michael Conn and James Parker, “Winners and Losers in the Animal Research Wars,” American Scientist, vol. 96,
no. 3 (May-June 2008), p. 184.
245
See Will Potter, Green Is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege, (San Francisco:
City Lights Books, 2011), p. 61.
246
Coalition to Abolish the AETA, “AETA v. AEPA: A Side-by-Side Comparison,” October 16, 2008,
http://abolishtheaeta.org/web/aeta-v-aepa-a-side-by-side-comparison/; Center for Constitutional Rights, factsheet, “The
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),” http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-animal-enterpriseterrorism-act-(aeta).
Congressional Research Service
34
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
against individuals (or their family members, spouses, or intimate partners) who are involved
with animal enterprises.247
The AETA expanded the AEPA to include both successful and attempted conspiracies. It also
prohibits intentionally placing a person in “reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury
while damaging or interfering in the operations of an animal enterprise. The AETA revised and
increased monetary and criminal penalties. It also stipulates that it does not prohibit First
Amendment-protected activity.
DOJ successfully prosecuted individuals on charges relating to animal enterprise terrorism for the
first time under the AEPA in 2006 (the case had been built before the AETA had been signed into
law).248 Six individuals were convicted for what DOJ described as “their roles in a campaign to
terrorize officers, employees, and shareholders of HLS [Huntingdon Life Sciences, a research
corporation that performs animal research and has U.K. and U.S. facilities].”249 These individuals
belonged to an animal rights campaign named Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)250 and
the entity SHAC USA, Inc. SHAC involves both legal protests and criminal activity against HLS.
Reportedly, the six incited threats, harassment, and vandalism and on this basis were convicted of
violating the AEPA.251 DOJ has noted that SHAC’s stated mission was to work “outside the
confines of the legal system.”252 DOJ proved in court that the group managed websites that
encouraged others “to direct their intimidation, harassment, and violence against HLS and its
targeted employees, as well as secondary targets—companies and employees who did business
with HLS.”253
247
P.L. 109-374, CRS summary. Instead of damage and interference, the AEPA focused on the “physical disruption to
the functioning of an animal enterprise.” According to AETA, “animal enterprise” means: “(A) a commercial or
academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture,
education, research, or testing; (B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other
lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts or sciences.”
248
Department of Justice, press release, “Three Militant Animal Rights Activists Sentenced to Between Four and Six
Years in Prison,” September 21, 2006.
249
Ibid. See also “The SHAC 7,” http://www.shac7.com/case.htm.
250
An undercover British television report on the treatment of animals at a British company, Huntingdon Life Sciences
(HLS), sparked the creation of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) in the United Kingdom in 1999. Active in a
number of countries around the world, including the United States, the campaign has tried to compel business and
financial firms to cut ties to HLS. It has involved both legal protests and crime. John P. Martin, “Animal Rights and
Wrongs,” Newark Star-Ledger, November 28, 2004; Anti-Defamation League, Ecoterrorism. For more on SHAC from
a movement perspective, see “History of the Animal Liberation Front,” http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
ALFront/Premise_History/ALF_History.htm. The SHAC campaign made its way to the United States in 2000. See
Heimbach, press conference.
251
Four of the six were guilty of other charges related to the case as well. Department of Justice, “Militant Animal
Rights Group, Six Members Convicted in Campaign to Terrorize Company, Employees, and Others,” March 2, 2006.
Hereinafter: Department of Justice, “Militant Animal Rights.” Anti-Defamation League, “Animal Rights Group
Sentenced for Inciting Violence and Stalking.” Hereinafter: Anti-Defamation League, “Animal Rights Group.”
252
Department of Justice, White Paper, p. 60.
253
Ibid. The convictions in the case were upheld by a federal appeals court in 2009. See Lisa Coryell, “Convictions of
Animal Rights Activists Upheld,” Times of Trenton, October 14, 2009. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused
to review the case. See Center for Constitutional Rights, “U.S. v. SHAC 7,” http://ccrjustice.org/us-v-SHAC7; Will
Potter, “Supreme Court Will Not Hear SHAC 7 Case,” March 7, 2011, http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/shac-7supreme-court/4447/.
Congressional Research Service
35
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
DOJ has also successfully applied the AETA. For example, on February 14, 2011, Scott DeMuth
was sentenced to six months in prison on one count of misdemeanor conspiracy to commit animal
enterprise terrorism. He was involved in a raid that released about 200 ferrets at a Minnesota farm
in 2006. Activists had claimed the action in the name of the ALF.254 In another case, William
James Viehl and Alex Hall were sentenced to 24 months and 21 months in prison, respectively,
under AETA. The duo had released 650 minks, destroyed breeding records, and vandalized
structures at the McMullin Ranch in South Jordan, UT, in 2008.255
DOJ has experienced at least one setback in its application of the AETA. In February 2009, the
FBI announced the arrests of what it described as “four animal rights extremists.” The four (two
women, two men, all in their 20s) allegedly violated the AETA by using “force, violence, or
threats to interfere with the operation of the University of California.”256 The incidents leading to
the indictment included protests at the houses of researchers from the University of California,
Berkeley and University of California, Santa Cruz. According to the FBI’s press release, in one
instance, three of the indicted individuals tried to forcibly enter the home of a researcher, whose
husband was hit by an object while confronting the protesters.257 In July 2010, a federal judge
dismissed the indictment against the four. According to the ruling, the indictment failed to
specifically describe crimes allegedly committed by the defendants.258 Opponents of the
prosecution stress that the case involved over-broad application of AETA to First Amendmentprotected behaviors.259
Criticisms of federal government efforts to counter animal rights extremists have focused on the
AETA itself and First Amendment-related issues. Opponents of the AETA suggest that it
expanded the AEPA too much by making it easier to prosecute individuals who wage protest
campaigns against secondary or tertiary targets—companies or people (such as insurers)
indirectly tied to an animal enterprise.260 Opponents also take issue with the inclusion of
“reasonable fear” in the AETA, suggesting that protected speech or activities may possibly be
interpreted as provoking “reasonable fear” in some instances. Echoing critiques of the AETA, one
observer emphasizes that while activities linked to U.S.-based animal rights extremists have
caused significant property damage, none of these criminal acts has physically harmed people.
This critic suggests that describing vandalism or arson as terrorism and not ordinary crime
dampens constitutionally protected protest activity by people who support animal rights or radical
254
Ryan J. Foley, “Minn. Man Gets 6 Months for Raid on Ferret Farm,” Associated Press, February 14, 2011. Jennifer
Kotila, “Minneapolis Man to Be Sentenced for Releasing HL Ferrets He Thought Were Mink,” Delano Herald Journal,
(Minnesota) December 20, 2010.
255
Dennis Romboy, “Man Who Raided South Jordan Mink Farm Sentenced,” Deseret News, July 1, 2010; Department
of Justice, press release, “Viehl Pleads Guilty to Damaging, Interfering with Animal Enterprise in Connection with
McMullin Mink Farm Incident,” September 3, 2009.
256
Federal Bureau of Investigation, press release, “Four Extremists Arrested for Threats and Violence Against UC
Researchers,” February 20, 2009, http://sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/sf022009.htm.
257
Ibid.
258
“S.C. Animal Activists Won’t Face Charges,” The Monterey County Herald, July 14, 2010.
259
Will Potter, “Breaking: AETA 4 Case Dismissed, But Re-Indictment Possible,” GreenIstheNewRed.com, July 12,
2010, http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-case-thrown-out-dismissed/3015/; Bill Quigley and Rachel
Meeropol, “Victory for Animal Rights Dissent,” Huffington Post, July 16, 2010. Hereinafter: Quigley and Meeropol,
“Victory for Animal.”
260
The AETA makes it illegal to damage or interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise. Presumably this
covers tertiary targets.
Congressional Research Service
36
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
environmentalism but do not engage in criminal activity.261 In essence, this position argues that
the U.S. government is encouraging a “green scare” by labeling the activity of movements such
as the ALF and the ELF as terrorism or extremism.262 After serving 40 months in prison for her
involvement with SHAC USA, Lauren Gazzola argued that she was not a terrorist, claiming, “I
hadn’t hurt anyone or vandalized any property. In fact, the indictment didn’t allege that I’d
committed any independent crime at all, only that I’d ‘conspired’ to publish a website that
advocated and reported on protest activity against a notorious animal testing lab in New
Jersey.”263
The U.S. Code’s definition of “domestic terrorism” has been seen by some as potentially chilling
to legitimate animal rights and environmental protest activities.264 As mentioned, the current
delineation of domestic terrorism in the U.S. Code includes criminal acts “dangerous to human
life” that appear to intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence governmental
policy via intimidation or coercion. This line of reasoning suggests that the crimes committed by
animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists cannot be compared to clearly violent attacks by
groups such as Al Qaeda. An opposing commentary stresses that such discussion is irrelevant and
miss[es] the mark. The ALF ideology encourages members to instill fear in those who
engage in the activities that the ALF opposes: fear of harm to themselves and their families,
and fear of personal and professional economic loss. Additionally, these arguments assume
that “true terrorism” is fundamentally different from animal rights terrorism. While it is true
that animal rights terrorism, as a whole, does not engage in the same scale of violence as
other extremist groups, those working in academia, research, agriculture, and food service
industries are no less fearful when their homes and workplaces are firebombed; violent
tactics can instill fear even when they are used infrequently.265
Assessing Domestic Terrorism’s Significance
Domestic terrorist attacks have come nowhere near the devastation of 9/11. However, it is worth
noting that (as mentioned above) Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, claimed 168 lives and injured more than 500
others. It ranks as the second-deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, behind only the devastation
wrought by Al Qaeda on 9/11. Domestic terrorists feature prominently among the concerns of
some law enforcement officers. For example, Los Angeles Deputy Police Chief Michael P.
Downing recently described violent Islamists such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas as Los
Angeles’s main terrorist threats “along with three other terrorist categories: black separatists,
white supremacist/sovereign citizen extremists, and animal rights terrorists.”266 In one 2008 study,
261
Will Potter, “The Green Scare,” Vermont Law Review, vol. 33, no. 4 (June 2009), pp. 672-673.
Ibid; Quigley and Meeropol, “Victory for Animal.”
263
Lauren Gazzola, “Animal Rights Activists Like Me Aren’t Terrorists,” EGP News, January 12, 2012,
http://egpnews.com/?p=33714.
264
American Civil Liberties Union, “How the USA PATRIOT Act Redefines “Domestic Terrorism,” December 6,
2002. For an additional view suggesting that the activities of movements such as the ALF and the ELF should not be
treated as terrorism, see DeMond Shondell Miller, Jason David Rivera, and Joel C. Yelin, “Civil Liberties: The Line
Dividing Environmental Protest and Ecoterrorists,” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 2, no. 1 (2008), pp. 109123.
265
Grubbs, “Saving Lives,” pp. 364-365.
266
Bill Gertz, “L.A. Police Use Intel Networks Against Terror,” Washington Times, April 11, 2011.
262
Congressional Research Service
37
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
state police agencies “overwhelmingly reported” dangerous domestic extremist groups present in
their jurisdictions.267 Of course, as one expert reminds us, most followers of extremist viewpoints
pose no threat: “Most of them are not going to do anything but bore their relatives and friends
with ridiculous papers and treatises.”268
Five themes speak to the possible threat posed by domestic terrorists. First, domestic terrorists
likely have been responsible numerous incidents since 9/11, and there appears to be growth in
anti-government extremist activity as measured by watchdog groups in the last several years.
Second, a large number of those labeled as domestic terrorists do not necessarily use major
terrorist tactics such as bombings or airplane hijackings. Third, domestic terrorists—much like
their violent jihadist analogues—are often Internet savvy and use the medium as a resource for
their operations. Fourth, domestic terrorism can be seen as a somewhat decentralized threat often
involving lone wolves and movements operating under the model of leaderless resistance. Finally,
prison has been highlighted as an arena in which terrorist radicalization can occur, and WSE plays
a role in the activities of several U.S. prison gangs. Sovereign citizen theories have also taken
root in U.S. prisons.
Counting Incidents
There is no publicly-available list of domestic terrorist incidents (foiled plots or attacks) kept by
the U.S. government. This makes it especially challenging for anyone trying to develop a sense of
this particularly diverse threat.269 However, a September 2011 study by the New America
Foundation and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Policy found 114 individuals
involved in non-jihadist terrorist acts in the 10 years following 9/11. The study did not limit its
findings to animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchist extremists, sovereign citizens,
unauthorized militias, black separatists, white supremacists, and anti-abortion extremists. It
included incidents by what it described as left-wing and right-wing terrorists.270
Some U.S. government sources suggest levels of domestic terrorist activity. Examples of such
sources include the following:
•
An unclassified 2008 DHS report includes a table that lists selected criminal acts
perpetrated by people involved in the animal rights extremist and eco-terrorist
movements. This list counts 74 criminal acts between 9/11 and March 2008.271
267
“Far Right Domestic Terrorism on Par with Foreign Threat, Experts Say,” CNN, July 25, 2011.
Ibid.
269
From 2004 to early 2012, the National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS)
publicly captured information on terrorist incidents (attacks) worldwide, including in the United States. It is no longer
available. Prior to WITS, the FBI published regular reports of such activity. See http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/
publications.
270
Peter Bergen et al. Right- and Left-Wing Terrorism Since 9/11, New America Foundation, September 10, 2011,
http://homegrown.newamerica.net/overview. Hereinafter: Bergen et al. Right- and Left-Wing.
271
Department of Homeland Security, Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights Militants in the United States,
Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat Assessment, May 7, 2008. Table 1 from the report is a “compilation of material
from ALF and ELF communiqués and publications, media reports, and law enforcement” listing selected criminal acts
perpetrated by the ALF and the ELF from 1984 to March 2008. Table 1 from the DHS report is not a comprehensive
list of crimes tied to the ALF and the ELF. Hereinafter: Department of Homeland Security, Ecoterrorism.
268
Congressional Research Service
38
The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress
•
As noted, the FBI estimated that animal rights extremist and eco-terrorists
together committed between 1,800 and 2,000 criminal incidents accounting for
more than $110 million in damages from 1979 to early 2009.272 In 2012, the FBI
also publicly discussed a decline in eco-terrorism, especially after a wave of
successful prosecutions in 2007. The Bureau reportedly attributes the perceived
dip to activists possibly viewing “a Democratic administration as more
sympathetic to their goals and [thus] be less inclined to take radical steps.”273
•
An unclassified FBI intelligenc
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.