Separate and Unequal: The Law of Domestic and International Terrorism

U.S. law differentiates between two categories of terrorism. “International terrorism” covers threats with a putative international nexus, even when they stem from U.S. citizens or residents acting only within the United States. “Domestic terrorism” applies to political violence thought to be purely domestic in its origin and intended impact. The law permits broader surveillance, wider criminal charges, and more punitive treatment for crimes labeled international terrorism. Law enforcement agencies frequently consider U.S. Muslims “international” threats even when they have scant foreign ties. As a result, they police and punish them more intensely than white nationalists and other “domestic” threats. This legal divide not only harms individuals and communities but also reinforces distorted public perceptions of terrorism that fuel anti-immigrant and discriminatory policies. This Article is the first to challenge the domestic–international divide in U.S. terrorism law. It maps the divergence in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of terrorism. It then refutes the three leading rationales for the divide: (1) civil liberties; (2) federalism; and (3) the magnitude of the threats. It further argues that, once the law divides threats into the “domestic” and “international,” the latter category will predictably expand to cover U.S. individuals perceived as “foreign,” even if they are citizens with negligible relationships abroad. Policymakers should reject the legal divide as both incoherent and invidious. But rather than “ratchet up” the criminalization of domestic terrorism in the name of equality, they should make the law’s approach to “international” terrorism more accountable and just

The Conundrums of Hate Crime Prevention

The recent surge in hate crimes alongside persistent concerns over policing and prisons has catalyzed new interest in hate crime prevention outside the criminal legal system. While policymakers, civil rights groups, and people in targeted communities internally disagree on the value of hate crime laws and law enforcement responses to hate crimes, they often converge in advocating measures that could prevent hate crimes from occurring in the first place. Those measures potentially include educational initiatives, conflict resolution programs, political reforms, social services, or other proactive efforts aimed at the root causes of hate crimes. Focusing on the public conversation around anti-Asian hate crimes, this Essay argues that very different conceptions of the hate crime problem lie beneath the support for hate crime prevention. Broadly speaking, proposals for hate crime prevention fall into three categories: 1) prejudice reduction measures; 2) political and structural reforms; and 3) socioeconomic investments in communities. Prejudice reduction measures, such as educational programs to reduce stereotyping, stem from a view of hate crimes as an extreme manifestation of bias. Advocacy for political and structural reforms corresponds to a conception of hate crimes as the product of intergroup struggles over power and resources often influenced by the state. Calls for socioeconomic investments link hate crimes to the conditions that produce interpersonal harm more generally, such as economic distress or public health failures. This Essay maps out these different conceptions of hate crime prevention and relates them to theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from social psychology, sociology, criminology, and other fields. Drawing on this review, it argues that the project of hate crime prevention faces several empirical and normative conundrums. In addition to disagreements over conceptualizing hate crimes, these puzzles include the relationship between attitudes and behavior, the potential tension between hate crime prevention and other socially desirable policy goals, and the difficulty of maintaining support for long-term, structural change

The Bacterial and Viral Complexity of Postinfectious Hydrocephalus in Uganda

Postinfectious hydrocephalus (PIH), often following neonatal sepsis, is the most common cause of pediatric hydrocephalus world-wide, yet the microbial pathogens remain uncharacterized. Characterization of the microbial agents causing PIH would lead to an emphasis shift from surgical palliation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) accumulation to prevention. We examined blood and CSF from 100 consecutive cases of PIH and control cases of non-postinfectious hydrocephalus (NPIH) in infants in Uganda. Genomic testing was undertaken for bacterial, fungal, and parasitic DNA, DNA and RNA sequencing for viral identification, and extensive bacterial culture recovery. We uncovered a major contribution to PIH from Paenibacillus , upon a background of frequent cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. CMV was only found in CSF in PIH cases. A facultatively anaerobic isolate was recovered. Assembly of the genome revealed a strain of P. thiaminolyticus . In mice, this isolate designated strain Mbale , was lethal in contrast with the benign reference strain. These findings point to the value of an unbiased pan-microbial approach to characterize PIH in settings where the organisms remain unknown, and enables a pathway towards more optimal treatment and prevention of the proximate neonatal infections. One Sentence Summary We have discovered a novel strain of bacteria upon a frequent viral background underlying postinfectious hydrocephalus in Uganda

Paenibacillus infection with frequent viral coinfection contributes to postinfectious hydrocephalus in Ugandan infants

Postinfectious hydrocephalus (PIH), which often follows neonatal sepsis, is the most common cause of pediatric hydrocephalus worldwide, yet the microbial pathogens underlying this disease remain to be elucidated. Characterization of the microbial agents causing PIH would enable a shift from surgical palliation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) accumulation to prevention of the disease. Here, we examined blood and CSF samples collected from 100 consecutive infant cases of PIH and control cases comprising infants with non-postinfectious hydrocephalus in Uganda. Genomic sequencing of samples was undertaken to test for bacterial, fungal, and parasitic DNA; DNA and RNA sequencing was used to identify viruses; and bacterial culture recovery was used to identify potential causative organisms. We found that infection with the bacterium Paenibacillus, together with frequent cytomegalovirus (CMV) coinfection, was associated with PIH in our infant cohort. Assembly of the genome of a facultative anaerobic bacterial isolate recovered from cultures of CSF samples from PIH cases identified a strain of Paenibacillus thiaminolyticus. This strain, designated Mbale, was lethal when injected into mice in contrast to the benign reference Paenibacillus strain. These findings show that an unbiased pan-microbial approach enabled characterization of Paenibacillus in CSF samples from PIH cases, and point toward a pathway of more optimal treatment and prevention for PIH and other proximate neonatal infections

The Conundrums of Hate Crime Prevention

The recent surge in hate crimes alongside persistent concerns over policing and prisons has catalyzed new interest in hate crime prevention outside the criminal legal system. While policymakers, civil rights groups, and people in targeted communities internally disagree on the value of hate crime laws and law enforcement responses to hate crimes, they often converge in advocating measures that could prevent hate crimes from occurring in the first place. Those measures potentially include educational initiatives, conflict resolution programs, political reforms, social services, or other proactive efforts aimed at the root causes of hate crimes. Focusing on the public conversation around anti-Asian hate crimes, this Essay argues that very different conceptions of the hate crime problem lie beneath the support for hate crime prevention. Broadly speaking, proposals for hate crime prevention fall into three categories: 1) prejudice reduction measures; 2) political and structural reforms; and 3) socioeconomic investments in communities. Prejudice reduction measures, such as educational programs to reduce stereotyping, stem from a view of hate crimes as an extreme manifestation of bias. Advocacy for political and structural reforms corresponds to a conception of hate crimes as the product of intergroup struggles over power and resources often influenced by the state. Calls for socioeconomic investments link hate crimes to the conditions that produce interpersonal harm more generally, such as economic distress or public health failures. This Essay maps out these different conceptions of hate crime prevention and relates them to theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from social psychology, sociology, criminology, and other fields. Drawing on this review, it argues that the project of hate crime prevention faces several empirical and normative conundrums. In addition to disagreements over conceptualizing hate crimes, these puzzles include the relationship between attitudes and behavior, the potential tension between hate crime prevention and other socially desirable policy goals, and the difficulty of maintaining support for long-term, structural change

Separate and Unequal: The Law of Domestic and International Terrorism

U.S. law differentiates between two categories of terrorism. “International terrorism” covers threats with a putative international nexus, even when they stem from U.S. citizens or residents acting only within the United States. “Domestic terrorism” applies to political violence thought to be purely domestic in its origin and intended impact. The law permits broader surveillance, wider criminal charges, and more punitive treatment for crimes labeled international terrorism. Law enforcement agencies frequently consider U.S. Muslims “international” threats even when they have scant foreign ties. As a result, they police and punish them more intensely than white nationalists and other “domestic” threats. This legal divide not only harms individuals and communities but also reinforces distorted public perceptions of terrorism that fuel anti-immigrant and discriminatory policies. This Article is the first to challenge the domestic–international divide in U.S. terrorism law. It maps the divergence in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of terrorism. It then refutes the three leading rationales for the divide: (1) civil liberties; (2) federalism; and (3) the magnitude of the threats. It further argues that, once the law divides threats into the “domestic” and “international,” the latter category will predictably expand to cover U.S. individuals perceived as “foreign,” even if they are citizens with negligible relationships abroad. Policymakers should reject the legal divide as both incoherent and invidious. But rather than “ratchet up” the criminalization of domestic terrorism in the name of equality, they should make the law’s approach to “international” terrorism more accountable and just