Mihail Pojarsky/Home terrorism

Nothing is more annoying in current events than the devaluation of the concept of "terrorism". During the summer riots, Donald Trump called antifa terrorists and threatened to ban it. Now Joe Biden, although not yet formally seated in the presidential chair, continues the same line, calling "domestic terrorism" what happened the other day in the Capitol. It is clear that on both sides this is an attempt to write out ideological opponents from the legal and, in general, ethical field. After all, one does not enter into discussions with terrorists.

Alas, inciting this moral panic has very specific state consequences. To the public, "terrorism" may sound like a moral stigma, but to the state it is a very specific thing. Terrorism for the state is closed trials, legalized torture, general surveillance and other restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of "general security" . In the USA, this is many years of extrajudicial detention with Guantanamo, a report on CIA torture, Snowden's revelations, etc. In Russia, it is even more prominent - the Network case, horse sentences, dynamo torture, criminal cases for "justifying terrorism" And so on.

Journalist Glen Greenwald (the same one who once published information from Snowden in the Guardian) writes about the danger of a new incitement of moral panic around terrorism. The panic after 9/11 led to many years of insane "war on terror", which resulted in, incl. several wars and a "wise" foreign policy that gave birth to ISIS. It also reminds that it all started a little earlier - when Timothy McVeigh blew up the FBI building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the Clinton administration then greatly expanded the powers of the special services and, among other things, demanded access to any encrypted communications on the network.

In all cases, moral panic does not parse halftones and operates on the principle of "all or nothing." Those who, after 9/11, offered to think and not to chop off their shoulders, were branded as traitors and accomplices of Islamic terrorism. In 1995, the media fueled hysteria that "regional militias" in the US were planning to start a war against the government. But in reality, it is precisely the moderate position that is correct: 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but not a reason to bomb half the world, Oklahoma City is also a terrible event, but also not a reason to disarm and listen to half the country.

As for the events in the Capitol, this is not terrorism at all, but spontaneous riots (no one killed civilians there, no one took hostages, etc.). But they will shout about "domestic terrorism", marking the bearers of a more moderate point of view as collaborators of the Nazis, Q-anon conspirators and the devil knows what else. However, this will only lead to further tightening of the screws, no matter in which direction exactly. By and large, the power bureaucracy does not care who it is to digest - kuanon or antifa.

Mihail Pojarsky 2021-01-10