Terrorism Should Not Be a Crime: How Political Labels Are Dangerous to American Democracy

This Note calls for a dismantling of the United States’ current method of prosecuting terrorism, rejecting the “terrorism” label as a mechanism for charging crimes. Prosecutors should instead charge individuals in terrorism cases for their underlying criminal actions rather than rely on material support statutes and political innuendos to secure a conviction. By examining the implications of the terrorism label in post-9/11 America, this Note addresses how a moral panic enabled the executive branch to overstep its constitutional restraints and threatened the delicate balance of powers central to American democracy. Next, it proposes, as many have before, that Article III courts are the most adept forum to prosecute crimes relating to terrorism. However, the way they do so should be depoliticized and focus on substantive crimes, rather than offenses political in nature. Lastly, it addresses how nationwide hysteria surrounding “terrorism” gives rise to increased Islamophobia and intolerance, thus becoming a de facto campaign against Muslim Americans.

Publication Details

Journal
eYLS (Yale Law School)
Published
2024-10-01
Primary Topic
Magnetic confinement fusion research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Terrorism Should Not Be a Crime: How Political Labels Are Dangerous to American Democracy

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Magnetic confinement fusion research
article

Terrorism Should Not Be a Crime: How Political Labels Are Dangerous to American Democracy

article en

Abstract

This Note calls for a dismantling of the United States’ current method of prosecuting terrorism, rejecting the “terrorism” label as a mechanism for charging crimes. Prosecutors should instead charge individuals in terrorism cases for their underlying criminal actions rather than rely on material support statutes and political innuendos to secure a conviction. By examining the implications of the terrorism label in post-9/11 America, this Note addresses how a moral panic enabled the executive branch to overstep its constitutional restraints and threatened the delicate balance of powers central to American democracy. Next, it proposes, as many have before, that Article III courts are the most adept forum to prosecute crimes relating to terrorism. However, the way they do so should be depoliticized and focus on substantive crimes, rather than offenses political in nature. Lastly, it addresses how nationwide hysteria surrounding “terrorism” gives rise to increased Islamophobia and intolerance, thus becoming a de facto campaign against Muslim Americans.

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Magnetic confinement fusion research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.