Hacker News Reader

The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows:

> Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here:

> ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly”

So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist.

Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.

Agreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there is a legal element requiring behavior that is in furtherance of "ideological goals", there is a pretty high bar to meet from a legal perspective.

This individual's criminal defense could easily argue the individual had no stated ideological goal they were promoting (unless there is specific evidence to suggest otherwise, such as leaving a manifesto explaining rationale). It's much easier to demonstrate probable cause and/or prosecute via other criminal statues.

There’s no federal statute, at least, against “domestic terrorism”. Domestic terrorists are usually prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit. For instance, Dylann Roof, who murdered black people in a black church, was prosecuted for murder and for a number of federal civil rights offenses, including hate crimes and violent obstruction of the free exercise of religion.

However, from an investigative and enforcement standpoint, it’s useful to have certain distinctions even if those distinctions have no statutory power. If you rob a jewelry store because you, personally, are greedy, that is investigated differently than if you rob a jewelry store in order to fund your anarcho-communist militia or in order to persuade the jewelry store across the street to sign up for your gang’s protection racket. It’s still robbery all three ways, but it could be terrorism or organized crime in addition, which would also imply certain other crimes (e.g. conspiracy).

Great point and you are 100% right - it has been a while since I went through Title 18. Thank you for taking the time to clarify!

As a non american, looking at the amount of video clips from violent protests or people undercover in Antifa (Crowder, Project Veritas), I'm surprised there are still doubts: it's a terrorist organisation by definition.

One of those "I wish you could tie a news event to follow ups" moments: does the alleged pipe bomb ever appear in court as evidence? What happened to the arrestee?

The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.

It’s worth remembering that some of these powerful green ‘laser pointers’ you can buy online can cause permanent eye damage or blindness in a fraction of a second. Sometimes even diffuse reflections of the beam can be hazardous. They’re a real danger to the genuinely peaceful protestors as well as the police that they’ve been aimed at.

If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.

I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right.

I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law.

I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite

Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp.

And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions.

So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest.

Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.

So, let's say it's a Tannerite pipe bomb.

Someone could be wandering around the protest exercising their 2nd amendment right with a Tannerite pipe bomb.

I don't want to be anywhere near that guy because he's probably a little unhinged, but it's not something that would raise my eyebrows these days if I saw it on the news.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

>The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device;

I would argue that packing tannerite into a capped pipe turns it into a grenade or bomb, and thus a destructive device.

Ok, fair enough. That's a good point.

But, I'm not convinced because the pipe doesn't seem all that dissimilar to the 'target container' that the explosive is placed in prior to legal use.

From the Tannerite website, these are the instructions for use:

1. Start by emptying the contents of the target into the mixing container.

2. Next, open the packet containing the catalyst and pour it into the mixing container.

3. Secure the lid and shake the container until you achieve a uniform color throughout the mixture.

4. Then pour the combined mixture back into the target container until it completely fills the target container then secure the lid.

5. Always place Tannerite® Brand targets at least 100 yards away from the shooter and/or spectators.

https://tannerite.com/binary-target-faq/

What is the difference between a capped pipe and the 'target container?'

Legally, what makes the leap from legal, to 'destructive device.'

IANAL: What I've heard is that according to the government unmixed tannerite is 'not an explosive' but once you mix it, it becomes an explosive. And you need permits and licensing to transport or store an explosive, but not to make (mix) it and use it immediately. You can't mix it at home, put it in your car, then drive to the gun range to use it. However I would expect the feds to find a way to charge you if they found unmixed tannerite and pipebomb parts in your backpack.. maybe constructive intent? I would hope so anyway.

That's a great point. I didn't take into account the legal consideration of intent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent

So, I guess if the FBI knew hypothetical pipe bomber was around, they would arrest him. If it was the FBI, and they were looking for him specifically, they would most likely have sufficient additional evidence to prove intent. This is because he would have had to get on their radar somehow, and however that happened would likely supply sufficient evidence to prove intent.

Local police would have to take a different approach, since they would have a much more difficult time proving intent. If they just arrested some random guy with tannerite and a pipe, the prosecutor would then have to go out and construct a case for intent from scratch.

Good video on the legality of tannerite, from someone with a license to manufacture explosives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnXOMMjBcEU

tl;dr: The moment you mix tannerite it becomes an explosive, and about the only legal thing you can do with it is blow it up in a safe manner. Though obviously, that's just a "tl;dr" from a non-lawyer watching a youtube video by a non-lawyer. :)

That is 100% consistent with what is written on the ATF website.

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives

I am curious, however, if it legally becomes a regulated explosive when mixed, how would the law deal with an explosive device that only mixed the compound at the moment of detonation.

For example, a pipe bomb where the binary explosives were separated by plastic bags, but there was a wire that would be pulled through the device prior to detonation, mixing the two compounds.

I realize that it's kind of a weird edge-case, but I'm just sort of pushing it there because I'm curious and I want to see how far I can take the argument before I'm clearly wrong.

An interesting question along those lines is what's the status of flour bombs? Powder explosions can be pretty powerful if conditions are just right.

I've heard of authorities accidentally(1) outlawing the mixing of vinegar and baking soda in attempts to make dry-ice bombs illegal... so who knows?

1) as in, some lawyers thought the laws as written were broad enough to cover that in theory - I've never heard of someone actually being arrested on that basis.

That's another really interesting point.

Blowing flour out of the palm of my hand into a lit BBQ cost me half my eyebrows as a child.

The ability of airborne flour to burn is kind of incredible if you haven't seen it in person.

> carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly

All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion.

Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?

There are very different laws for firearms and what the ATF calls a destructive device (which include pipe bombs).

Ignoring the protest entirely, you will do jail time if the ATF catches you with an unregistered destructive device.

You can use a rifle to defend yourself (which is how Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't murdered by the angry mob), you can't use a destructive device to defend yourself, just to cause destruction.

There are often more restrictive laws against weapons that are not firearms because the 2nd amendment has been held to concern firearms, not weapons in general.

E.g., in Seattle any fixed blade is illegal to carry. Even chefs have to take special precaution if they want to carry their knives to and from work. Same for hunters/fishermen (fillet knives) heading to or from the wild.

In Oregon (and probably most states), it is illegal conceal most knives, except pocket knives.

Often, the same laws restricting knives cover brass knuckles, clubs, etc.

"any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor" https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240

I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph

> consented to his phone being searched.

He consented to it being searched once, not permanently exploited without his knowledge.

That’s what exploited means in this context. It’s not a permanent backdoor. It’s fed speak for “accessed.”

> not permanently exploited without his knowledge.

You may be thinking of the narrow use of exploit in relation to computer device exploits, which may or may not grant permanent access.

In general, to exploit something means simply to take advantage of or utilize it. For example, to exploit natural resources or to exploit a weakness in the other team's defense.

Sounds like a generic search subsequent to arrest.

Well within the law and normal.

> Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.

No, the individual did not. This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.

It does seem quite... incredible.. that such a person in such a circumstance would consent to a search. Can the government prove they had consent, or is this just their claim?

>The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative.

irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones?

https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fl...

"The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."

Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. This journalist just decided to take the worst possible interpretation of the e-mail and state it as fact.

You may not like the FBI, but to assume that they are malevolent actors or are intent on trampling on people's rights disingenuous and unhelpful. I'm all for bringing government misconduct to light, but this article is trying to make legal conduct seem illegal by distorting facts and selectively quoting information to fit a preconceived narrative.

>nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property.

sorry, man, the "initial exploitation" language is pretty clear:

"CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying."

It is pretty clear that there is no specific probable cause, no search warrant, no consent, just a fishing net. That is exactly the process you'd want and expect the tax dollar funded FBI to perform in case of exigent circumstances. It is just these days the protests seems to fall into exigent circumstances category. Or as one of these emails says

"I can help, though their definition of exigency will be different than ours..."

I think I explained the reasoning as to why it is not clear and the journalist (and you) are reading into something that isn't there. Would you have preferred if the e-mail stated, "Conduct initial exploitation once you have a search warrant or receive consent"?

That qualification is unnecessary for a supervisor directing their subordinates that are well aware of their authorities and the policies/procedures that need to be followed to do their job. This isn't staff legal counsel offering legal advice to a federal agent, this is a routine communication between a boss and their employees.

it is you who is reading what isn't there - like "search warrant" and "consent". I refer to the words what is explicitly there - like "exigency" (which allows to bypass search warrants and consent) and clearly sets the context, especially when we are talking about FBI Fly Team.

I am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous.

The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is referenced by the author as being present in a separate email (which for some reason they didn’t include...?) and then qualified via a source as being facetious.

Even if it was there and taken literally, I fail to see anywhere in law, case law, the email, and/or the article that suggests “exigency” is sufficient justification for violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. To the best of my knowledge, that does not exist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.