‘People should be scared’: convictions in US ‘antifa’ trial set dangerous precedent | US politics
The conviction of nine activists on terrorism and other charges in Texas earlier this month sets a worrying precedent: The Trump administration could crack down on left-wing groups and label them “domestic terrorists.”
The case was widely seen as a major test of the Trump administration’s efforts to punish protesters and left-wing views. The charges follow a protest outside an ICE facility outside Fort Worth last year. Activists planned to set off fireworks outside the facility in solidarity with those detained inside, traveling with automatic weapons and body armor that they said were for self-defense against counter-protesters. Once there, a small group split up and began vandalizing cars in the parking lot, spray-painting graffiti, slashing the tires of a government van, and breaking a security camera. While the police officer who arrived at the scene drew his gun on those in the parking lot, one of the activists opened fire with an AR-15 and hit the police officer in the shoulder. He eventually survived.
Eight of the protesters was sentenced rebellion, use of explosives and providing material support to terrorists. The shooter, Benjamin Song, was found guilty of attempted murder and additional firearms charges. A ninth person who did not attend the protest was convicted on charges related to carrying a box of fanzines in the days following the protest.
Following the killing of Charlie Kirk last year, the Trump administration vowed to crack down on “Antifa,” calling it a domestic terrorist group. This labeling was met with heavy criticism, as experts noted that antifa, short for anti-fascism, is not an organization but rather an idea used to describe a cluster of left-wing views.
Trump administration was quick to frame the decision in the Texas case as a vindication of efforts to crack down on Antifa – justice department press release announcing decision uses the word 16 times. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantled antifa and finally stopped the violence on America’s streets,” U.S. attorney Pam Bondi said in a statement.
But despite the Trump administration’s focus on Antifa, the legal issues in the case had nothing to do with the group. The terrorism charges against the defendants focused on the narrow issue of whether they provided support for specific crimes. Prosecutors did not have to prove anything about an organization’s affiliation or ideology. Before giving deliberation instructions to the jury, U.S. district judge Mark Pittman asked prosecutors why they needed to mention “antifa” and suggested it was irrelevant. “Whether it’s Antifa or Weatherford Methodist Women’s Auxiliary, why does it matter?” he said. His lengthy instructions to the jury telling them how to evaluate the charges contained only the word “antifa.” just oncein passing.
“This verdict is not a jury jury saying that Antifa exists as an organization and supporting it is supporting a terrorist organization,” said Francesca Laguardia, a professor at Montclair State University who studies terrorism. “It will be important for the public to remember that.”
Mike German, a former FBI special agent, likened the prosecution to this: hundreds of cases Number of protesters arrested for damage caused by a small group during Trump’s first inauguration.
“I think both of these efforts are not about winning convictions against the defendants, but rather about sending the message to protesters that you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s also not worth going out and protesting because you might get beaten up by far-right militants and the police might ignore it, or you might get arrested for something you weren’t involved in but were there when it happened,” he said.
Experts said they were alarmed that prosecutors noted such things as protesters using Signal to communicate, wearing dark clothing and reading left-wing literature at a book club, suggesting the demonstrators were part of a coordinated group.
“People are increasingly concerned about surveillance online, at protests or anywhere. So people are going to be more careful about what they say and what they do for a variety of reasons,” said Mark Bray, a professor at Rutgers who studies anti-fascism. “The more careful you are, the more it sets a precedent that you could potentially be accused of trying to hide something.”
“The government has gone on record saying that the use of Signal is evidence that someone is a terrorist,” added Bray, who consulted as an expert witness for one of the defendants in the case but did not testify.
Seven of the defendants (except the shooter) were acquitted of attempted murder charges. Cody Cofer, an attorney for one of the defendants, Autumn Hill, said these acquittals show that jurors did not believe the story from prosecutors about a law enforcement ambush.
Still, Cofer said the trial underscores how easy the law makes it for prosecutors to plot. “People should be afraid,” he said.
“There’s an online culture, the Reddit culture, that these government officials know absolutely nothing about and only engage with it through criminal investigation. So when you engage with these cultural aspects only through criminal investigation, you naturally have the exemplary bias of ‘oh, this is indicative of criminal behavior.'”
The federal government does not currently have any other cases pending for alleged terrorism or any other criminal charges against people accused of being Antifa, but that could change. An FBI document obtained by the Guardian in December stated that the agency had launched “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” in at least 23 counties. A senior justice department official also called on prosecutors to aggressively go after protesters, telling them to “go big” and “speak up.” According to the New York Times.
“I definitely think the government will bring more of these cases,” Laguardia said. “There is clearly an interest in prosecuting individuals the government believes are associated with Antifa. There is clearly an interest in promoting the idea that Antifa exists as an organization.”
