IANAL but my understanding is that there would have to be a change in the law to allow designating domestic terror groups and it’d be tough to make it constitutional. Like, international groups don’t have any constitutional protections so the State Department can make a list. For domestic groups, we have hate crime laws and the FBI can infiltrate groups and foil plots but no government agency makes a list (so it falls to non-profits like the SPLC and others).
Yeah, the big thing about the designation (at least how the article describes it being applied here) is that is denies the designees access to the US financial system. Imagine the Proud Boys et al suddenly cut off from their finances. SPLC can designate any group anything they like, but without the backing of the government, it’s like me saying “I’m writing your name down on a list”: ultimately meaningless.
But yeah, like you said, there are probably constitutional considerations working against taking similar measures for domestic problems. Just wish they’d…do more, I guess. Seems like things are ramping up and getting worse every day (confirmation biases, aside).
Relevant bit from the article:
Friday’s designation will deny NRM members from accessing the US financial system, with the intention of making it more challenging for them to move money through the international system and fund their efforts.
IANAL but my understanding is that there would have to be a change in the law to allow designating domestic terror groups and it’d be tough to make it constitutional. Like, international groups don’t have any constitutional protections so the State Department can make a list. For domestic groups, we have hate crime laws and the FBI can infiltrate groups and foil plots but no government agency makes a list (so it falls to non-profits like the SPLC and others).
“Peaceful protesters” is an officially designated domestic terrorist group since Occupy Wall Street.
Might be a different kind of designation?
Yeah, the big thing about the designation (at least how the article describes it being applied here) is that is denies the designees access to the US financial system. Imagine the Proud Boys et al suddenly cut off from their finances. SPLC can designate any group anything they like, but without the backing of the government, it’s like me saying “I’m writing your name down on a list”: ultimately meaningless.
But yeah, like you said, there are probably constitutional considerations working against taking similar measures for domestic problems. Just wish they’d…do more, I guess. Seems like things are ramping up and getting worse every day (confirmation biases, aside).
Relevant bit from the article:
Who needs traditional banks if there is crypto?..