{"id":37305,"date":"2019-08-10T08:24:44","date_gmt":"2019-08-10T15:24:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=37305"},"modified":"2019-08-10T08:24:44","modified_gmt":"2019-08-10T15:24:44","slug":"everyday-erinyes-178","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2019\/08\/10\/everyday-erinyes-178\/","title":{"rendered":"Everyday Erinyes #178"},"content":{"rendered":"

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto<\/span><\/strong>, Megaera<\/strong><\/span>, and Tisiphone<\/strong><\/span>. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”<\/p>\n

I think all of us are aware that the FBI is knowledgeable about the threat posed by white nationalist domestic terrorism. After all, it has been issuing statements and warnings; the director, Christopher Wray, has been on TV talking about it (as TC posted just last Tuesday<\/a>); and statistics are being pushed out. But what is the FBI actually DOING about domestic terrorism? Well, it turns out, that’s not such an easy question to answer.
\n==================================================================<\/p>\n

The FBI Told Congress Domestic Terror Investigations Led to 90 Recent Arrests. It Wouldn\u2019t Show Us Records of Even One.<\/h1>\n

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter<\/a> to receive stories like this one in your inbox<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

On July 23, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that federal investigations of domestic terrorism had led to some 100 arrests<\/a> in the last nine months. While the FBI quickly announced that the number was 90, not 100, the basic message appeared unchanged: The FBI was actively investigating and prosecuting domestic terrorists.<\/p>\n

The 90 arrests have been cited countless times since last weekend\u2019s killing of 22 people in El Paso, Texas, by a man suspected of harboring racist views of immigrants. To find out more, we contacted the FBI on Monday, asking who had been arrested, as well as where and when, and what the allegations were in each case.<\/p>\n

Four days later, we have been given next to no information about them.<\/p>\n

Our first inquiry on Monday was straightforward: We asked for basic information about each of the 90 arrests, which we assumed had all been publicly announced.<\/p>\n

An FBI spokeswoman wrote back: \u201cWe would not be able to provide you with a comprehensive list of these press releases. As there is no federal domestic terrorism statute so DT subjects are charged under other federal, state, and local charges.\u201d<\/p>\n

We understood that those arrested for committing or intending to commit violent acts on American soil are typically prosecuted for an assortment of crimes \u2014 murder, say, or illegal possession of firearms \u2014 not domestic terrorism, for which there\u2019s no federal charge. The 90 people who were supposedly arrested might have been ultimately prosecuted by local authorities.<\/p>\n

But it seemed clear from Wray\u2019s statements that the FBI had done the work of determining which of the cases involving, as the spokeswoman put it, \u201cother federal, state and local charges\u201d involved elements of domestic terror. There had been a formal count. Wray had testified as much.<\/p>\n

We wrote to the FBI again: \u201cThank you for getting back to me this fast and for your answer. I am a bit confused though: The number of DT arrests I was referring to originally comes from the FBI Director and was later clarified by a FBI spokesperson. So where would that number come from? I would be happy if you could clarify this point?\u201d<\/p>\n

The spokeswoman responded: \u201cWhat do you mean? We clarified the number, it\u2019s a comprehensive list of press releases that I\u2019m saying we\u2019re unable to provide.\u201d<\/p>\n

The spokeswoman, saying she was speaking \u201con background,\u201d and thus not to be identified, later suggested that we go on the Department of Justice\u2019s public affairs website and \u201csee what pops up.\u201d<\/p>\n

So we did. When we typed in domestic terrorism arrests for the past nine months, five cases came up. But only one of the cases actually involved an American arrested for seeking to harm others in the U.S. \u2014 Cesar Sayoc<\/a>, the man recently sentenced to 20 years for mailing 16 explosive devices to a variety of current and former government officials and the philanthropist George Soros.<\/p>\n

Obviously, that was far short of the cases Wray had referenced. It also seemed odd that the FBI would suggest this approach to searching since it had to have done a more comprehensive compilation to equip its director with the numbers he gave the Senate Judiciary Committee.<\/p>\n

We tried again: \u201cThanks for your reply! What I mean is: you clarified the number, so despite DT subjects being charged under \u2018other federal, state, and local charges,\u2019 as you wrote, the FBI obviously has information about all these cases. And this is what I\u2019ve been originally asking for. So I would be glad if you could give me the following information about as many of the 90 arrests as possible: who was arrested, where, when and what the allegations were. If you are unable to provide this information or a comprehensive list of press releases I would like to know why.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the phone, she again cited the figure of 90 arrests, adding, \u201cThese are people that the FBI arrested as a result of a domestic terrorism investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

But she also repeated that the bureau couldn\u2019t give us any information, even press releases, about these arrests. \u201cIn their arrests they may not be characterized as domestic terrorists depending on how those arrests were made in the locality, in the state \u2026 so it\u2019s just not something the FBI is able to publicly provide,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Yahoo News on Thursday published what it said was a document detailing the 2018 domestic terrorism arrests involving white supremacists, something the article said Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had been unsuccessfully seeking from the Department of Justice.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis map reflects 32 domestic terrorist attacks, disrupted plots, threats of violence, and weapons stockpiling by individuals with a radical political or social agenda who lack direction or influence from foreign terrorist organizations in 2018,\u201d the document cited in the Yahoo article stated. The document, the article said, had been produced by New Jersey\u2019s Office of Homeland Security Preparedness.<\/p>\n

Late on Thursday, we tried to make things simpler with the FBI in hopes of getting some kind of firm answer: If the FBI could not quickly list the arrests stemming from domestic terrorism investigations, could it say how many such investigations had been carried out in 2019?<\/p>\n

The spokeswoman did not respond to the request.<\/p>\n

The entire exchange left us increasingly perplexed. The FBI had clearly been proud of its record in making arrests of possible domestic terrorists. Wray had testified that the bureau took the threat \u201cextremely seriously.\u201d The country was eager to be reassured in the aftermath of the killings in El Paso. Why wouldn\u2019t the FBI be able to quickly cite its array of successes?<\/p>\n

We asked the FBI if it could send us any of the press releases of the cases Wray had referenced specifically at the hearing. Once again, the spokeswoman demurred.<\/p>\n

\n

Filed under:<\/strong><\/p>\n