Thanks to Stephen Lerner’s detailed plan to bring down the U.S. economy by crippling the banks and causing the stock market to crash–so that the socialist utopia known as wealth distribution can ensue–“economic terrorism” has become the buzz-term among conservatives bloggers and talking heads at the moment, with people like Rush Limbaugh asking: “Is this not a form of terrorism this guy is preaching?”
The term “economic terrorism” is even gaining some traction on Capitol Hill. As we reportedyesterday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah sent a letter to Eric Holder, asking the justice department to investigate Lerner. Chaffetz wrote, “The escalation of Mr. Lerner’s threats would clearly constitute domestic terrorism and pose substantial harm to the American people and the economy.”
But what is economic terrorism–and whatever it is, did Lerner in fact engage in it or incite it by saying the below?
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything…
…So I think we weed out a very simple strategy: how do we bring down the stock market, how do we bring down their bonuses, how do we interfere with their ability to, to be rich.
In 2005, the Center of Security Policy of Geneva Definition organized a roundtable discussion of 45-some participants from governments, international institutions, the private sector, and independent consultants to discuss the very real threat economic terrorism poses to modern society. That roundtable, which included U.S. and European representatives, ultimately defined economic terrorism as any activity undertaken by a non-state actor which involves “coordinated and sophisticated or massive destabilizing actions in order to disrupt the economic and financial stability of a state, a group of states or a society (such as market oriented western societies) for ideological or religious motives.”
According to a report, “The roundtable’s main objective was to analyse a category of terrorist threats with potentially large-scale impact on complete economies.”
Economic terrorism was also the subject of a just-released report commissioned by the Pentagon in early 2009. The report blames economic terrorism–targeted financial strikes on the U.S. economy and by U.S. enemies–for the financial meltdown of 2008. “That the economic crisis was an intended purpose of a specific financial attack perpetrated by one or more actors driven by a combination of motives.”
In his speech, Lerner discusses causing “a new financial crisis.”
The Legal Question
But at root, whether Lerner is a so-called economic terrorist boils down to a legal issue, which must be understood within the context of U.S. law. That is to say, if Lerner engaged in or incited economic terrorism, then he would have been acting outside the boundaries of the law.
Experts on national security and the law, however, say that there is no specific legal definition of economic terrorism in U.S. law. Eugene Volokh, the law professor who runs the popular legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy, told me, “I’m unaware of any definition of the term – I don’t think it’s a legal term of art, or otherwise clearly defined.” And when I asked David Bernstein, a professor of law at George Mason University, for a definition of the term, he said: “I‘ve never heard of ’economic terrorism.’”
What we do have are statutory definitions of “terrorism” from which we may be able to extract what, in theory, “economic terrorism” would be. In his letter to Holder, Chaffetz cited the FBI’s definition of terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or 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.”
Meanwhile, the Patriot Act of 2001–which is set to expire at the end of May–defines terrorism thus:
activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Both definitions of terrorism require an imminent danger to human life. Does Lerner’s statements rise to that level?
Nathan Sales, former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security in the Bush administration, told me that “It‘s hard for me to imagine a purely economic activity that could be ’dangerous to human life’ in that sense.” In his speech, Lerner uses the term “civil disobedience” to describe his plan. Civil disobedience is usually defined as non-violent illegal actions undertaken for the purpose of political protest.
Sales made a distinction between making a “threat” and inciting terrorism. He said that Lerner was “making a threat, sure, but not all threats rise to the level of terrorism. What sets terrorism apart from other kinds of threats is the use of physical violence, and often deadly violence, against protected civilian populations. This kind of economic gamesmanship seems to me to be something altogether different.”
Enter: The First Amendment
There is a further distinction to be made, which legally protects Lerner. The distinction between what Lerner said about desiring to cause instability to the US economy, and what he may do, which is in fact causing that instability.
Legal experts unanimously agree that what Lerner said is protected by the first amendment. Richard Epstein, a professor of law at New York University, explains that “ranting is political speech.“ But ”when he starts to buy munitions you have a problem.” In other words, political speech–ranting–can push against criminal law when illegal and violent activity incited imminently. “Immediacy is elusive but often decisive,” Epstein, below, tells me.
What about what Lerner is advocating? Could inciting people, en masse, to default on their loans in order to cause instability and wreak havoc on the US economy illegal? Todd Zywicki, an expert on bankruptcy law, doesn’t think so. Encouraging people to default on their loans is an “entirely legal activity.”
“The only way I could see this being a problem is if there are some sort of laws that would prohibit, for example, encouraging people en masse not to pay their taxes. But that, of course, would be incitement to an illegal activity,” Zywicki said.
While it may not be illegal to encourage people to default on their loans, Lerner specifically used the term “civil disobedience” to describe at least part of his plan–which means that something illegal would be happening. Rick Garnett, an associate dean at Notre Dame law school, said, “Actions in accord with speech like Mr. Lerner’s could, of course, bring the actor within the coverage of the criminal law. Traditionally, for example, the crime of ‘conspiracy’ is committed by people who agree to engage together in some other illegal activity, and to take some steps toward that goal.”
Does Terrorism Have to Involve Violence?
While by just making his speech, Lerner is on legally safe ground, there are elements of his plan that may approach something like economic terrorism. Benjamin Wittes, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, tells me that, “There is definitely a species of terrorism that is targeted at civilian critical infrastructure of one sort or another.”
He went on to explain that, “one of the goals of terrorism much of the time or some of the time is to create panic and even disrupt day to day economic activities.”
Along these lines, a North Carolina judge declared just last week that peacefully circulating counterfeit money, as defendant Bernard Von NotHaus did, is “economic terrorism.”
“While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” the judge said in declaring the verdict against NotHaus.
That’s “a mischievous use of the term ‘terrorism,’” says Wittes.
The point, however, is that there are certain forms of terrorism that do not involve inflicting physical harm on human beings, but could count as terrorism nonetheless: cyber-terrorism is the example Wittes cites. “It’s more hypothetical than real to date, although a lot of people are very concerned about it as a prospective matter.”
Lerner vs. Al Qaeda
Is Lerner’s plan another example?
Wittes makes an interesting point here. He says that Lerner is not guilty of inciting economic terror. However, if al Qaeda–or an al Qaeda representative–had made Lerner’s speech, we would undoubtedly identify that as economic terror. “Here’s the difference,” he begins: “When people who have killed people talk about bringing down the banks, and people who haven’t killed people talk about bringing down the banks, we know there is a difference in intention.”
Political context–which is no small thing–matters. Consider this example: a cyber-attack on the U.S. initiated by al Qaeda would be called “terrorism.” But that same attack, initiated by a pimply-faced 15-year old, would be called a “serious prank.”
“You would treat one as a serious threat to the United States, but you wouldn’t confuse the two,” Wittes explains.
“We know in our hearts there is a difference. One thing [Lerner] is not doing is engaging in war against the United States. When he talks about non-violent action to bring about political change within the United States, he’s not talking about killing people, or war, or a campaign to bring down the banks in the context of a violent campaign of killing people.”
Some of us may disagree with what Lerner says–we might find his future vision for the U.S. to be noxious–and we might hear hints of coercion and even violence in his speech, but as long as he keeps the munitions at home, and is not inciting mobs to violence, then he has a right to express his outlandish ideas.
But if Lerner takes it to the next level, as Rep. Chaffetz fears he will, does that constitute economic terrorism?
No comments:
Post a Comment