The recent execution style killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson once again highlights the need for our political leaders to add a penalty to the Federal Law defining acts of Domestic Terrorism.
The alleged killer, Luigi Mangione, when arrested in Altoona Pennsylvania, had several items in his possession. Evidence which ties him forensically to the crime. In the search for a motive, a three page “manifesto” was also found on Mangione’s person. One line in the handwritten document stated “What do you do? You wack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention. It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents.” These writings tie directly to three words which were etched into ballistic evidence found on the crime scene. “Delay, Deny, Depose”. A reference to a phrase associated with the belief that Healthcare companies follow the three D’s “Delay, Deny, Defend.”
As investigators drill down on Mangione’s background and online profile it is becoming clear that Mangione was driven by an anti-capitalist Anarchist ideology. Mangione followed and supported the beliefs of Ted Kaczynski, the convicted Unabomber who died in Federal prison on June 10, 2023 after being convicted of an almost 20 year bombing campaign which killed 3 and injured more than two dozen others targeting Universities and the Airline (UNABOM) industry. Like Kaczynski, Mangione was highly educated and it is becoming clear that Mangione was targeting the healthcare industry and capitalism in general.
I have found when speaking to citizen and law enforcement groups that most do not realize that those who commit serious violent criminal acts which meet the legal definition of domestic terrorism are not charged with domestic terrorism. Yes, the individual acts may possibly be charged under federal law, but there are no criminal penalties for the act of domestic terrorism.
The definition of Domestic Terrorism under USC 12-2331(5) and is defined as activities:
Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
- Appearing to be intended to:
o Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
o Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
o Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping;
and
- Occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Kaczynski, long thought of as one of America’s most dangerous lone offender Domestic Terrorist, was actually not charged with a Federal Crime of Domestic Terrorism. He was charged Federally with Transportation of Explosives, Mailing of Explosives, Use of a destructive device, and three counts of First Degree Murder. Kaczynski was found guilty of these Federal charges and received several life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Those opposed to attaching penalties to the crime of domestic terrorism claim that there are enough laws and subjects will still go to prison. I disagree. It matters that a perpetrator of domestic terrorism is actually charged with the crime of domestic terrorism.
People who commit violent crimes which meet the definition of a hate crime are charged under federal hate crime statutes. These people could be charged with a range of serious criminal violations including assault and murder without hate crimes charges, but it’s important that they are charged under the hate crimes statutes because victims, their families and the public deserve to know when someone is a victim of a hate crime. It matters, the crime is serious and needs serious penalties.
The same can be said for domestic terrorism. Federal law enforcement needs the ability to charge subjects who commit serious acts of violence which meet the definition of domestic terrorism because victims, their families and the public deserve to know when someone is a victim of the crime of domestic terrorism. It matters, the crime is serious and needs serious penalties.
Making domestic terrorism a federal crime would increase transparency and accountability and make it possible to track incidents which meet the definition of domestic terrorism. The government, media and others can only anecdotally document crimes which may be acts of domestic terrorism, leading to a lack of resources being provided to address the problem of domestic terrorism across the board.
Note that I am not calling for the designation of domestic groups or ideologies, as is done with international terrorism groups such as ISIS or Al Qaeda, nor do I see a need for increased investigative or surveillance authorities for law enforcement. By creating penalties for the act of domestic terrorism, the government would make clear that political violence, no matter the ideology or the background of the actor, is a serious offense. This would, in fact, strengthen first amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly by making serious acts of violence illegal.
We need to match the criminal charge for those who commit serious violence for political purposes – domestic terrorists—with the crime that they commit: domestic terrorism.