[pumaontheprowl]

By your definition, the guys who burned down the Wendy's in Atlanta are domestic terrorists, but I've yet to see anybody in the media or law enforcement refer to them as such.

The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.

[stevenicr]

I knew a girl some 15 or so years ago who was charged with terrorism in atlanta. Apparently while trying to wiggle out of being arrested she 'attempted to light a cop car on fire' - so got that charge.

I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch?

Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such.

It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.

[SauciestGNU]

People have been charged under the PATRIOT Act for nonviolent pipeline protests. It's not a new phenomenon that people who act contrary to the interests of the ruling class and the ownership class will see extraordinary state force used against them.

[dragontamer]

Sure there are edge cases, but the vast majority of cases I'm aware of are pretty clear cut.

Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about.

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