Honestly that’s not a very useful term, because lawful is determined by the political system. You’re creating a group that contains both non-police brownshirts going onto campuses to beat up students and any student protesters using violence to defend themselves.
That’s another thing, they make blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional (at a federal level) legislature at the local and state levels, and let it be fought over in courts, with the hope it makes it to the supreme court and maybe becomes legal. While they argue and fight over it, it impacts real people.
Ergo, unlawful violence (arrests) and intimidation (suppression of rights) against civilians, for political aims
Lawful is always going to be defined by whether the state likes you or not.
Whether the state likes you is the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.
It’s better to accept this and understand that using intimidation and violence, including state violence to suppress reactionaries is good, while using intimidation and violence to suppress the left is bad than to play games with what is and isn’t terrorism.
We should ban Republicans from government citing crime.
I’m okay with the entire party being labeled a domestic terrorist organization.
The communist party and participating in “Communist-actions” were banned in the 50s.
Turns out you can just ban your opposition.
That did work surprisingly well in the long run (as a plan, not sure it’s really had much benefit to the everyday person)
That said, not like plenty of Red team (domestically, everybody would for foreign) doesn’t already meet the definition of “terrorist”.
Honestly that’s not a very useful term, because lawful is determined by the political system. You’re creating a group that contains both non-police brownshirts going onto campuses to beat up students and any student protesters using violence to defend themselves.
In practice, it just means enemy of the state.
That’s another thing, they make blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional (at a federal level) legislature at the local and state levels, and let it be fought over in courts, with the hope it makes it to the supreme court and maybe becomes legal. While they argue and fight over it, it impacts real people.
Ergo, unlawful violence (arrests) and intimidation (suppression of rights) against civilians, for political aims
Lawful is always going to be defined by whether the state likes you or not.
Whether the state likes you is the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.
It’s better to accept this and understand that using intimidation and violence, including state violence to suppress reactionaries is good, while using intimidation and violence to suppress the left is bad than to play games with what is and isn’t terrorism.