The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Cornell Student Arrested for Making Online Threats to Jewish Students on Campus"
Federal prosecutors have announced an arrest in the Cornell threats case (see Sunday's post):
Patrick Dai, age 21, a junior at Cornell University who is originally from Pittsford, New York, was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging him with posting threats to kill or injure another using interstate communications….
The complaint alleges that Dai posted threatening messages to the Cornell section of an online discussion site, including posts calling for the deaths of Jewish people and a post that said "gonna shoot up 104 west." According to information provided by Cornell University Police and other public information, 104 West is a Cornell University dining hall that caters predominantly to Kosher diets and is located next to the Cornell Jewish Center, which provides residences for Cornell students.
In another post, Dai allegedly threatened to "stab" and "slit the throat" of any Jewish males he sees on campus, to rape and throw off a cliff any Jewish females, and to behead any Jewish babies. In that same post, Dai threatened to "bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig jews."
The charges and the allegations in the complaint are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The charge filed against Dai carries a maximum term of 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and a term of supervised release of up to 3 years. A defendant's sentence is imposed by a judge based on the particular statute the defendant is charged with violating, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other factors….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't get it. Sounds like just another normal day in your typical average american university.
It is refreshing to see action being taken against actual threats of violence. All too often, action is more readily taken against freedom: fact is not anti-Semitic and even anti-Semitic opinion is protected.
For example, to see video of UN Commissioner Philippe Lazzarini's statement that the number of children under age 13 killed in Gaza during the past three weeks now exceeds the number of same-age-range children killed in all conflicts worldwide during the past four years, one must search beyond YouTube, a private entity which has concluded that certain facts, such as the "anti-Semitic fact" stated by Lazzarini, violates its policies: to see the Wolverton cartoon in which an oversized Israeli military boot is depicted crushing Gazan civilians, one must rely on the Streisand effect and turn to https://twitter.com/DaveMcCormickPA/status/1714345820030419174 .
Lucky for you!
Protected?? NYC gave 18 acres to the UN, who's current "Security Council" (Security for who? Ear-Ron? Roosh-a?) includes the United Arab Terrorists, I mean "Emirates", and Albania. and who once had an actual Nazi as Comrade, I mean "Secretary General", and which just voted 12-1 to resupply Ham-Ass (pretty bad when only Roosh-a and the UK are 1/2 way on your side)
Frank
This is great!
Also I guess David and Josh were wrong. I mean they were obviously wrong, but always worth a shout out.
What were they wrong about, exactly?
Here's Josh, bemoaning college protests:
How is charging the aptly-named Mr. Dai with "posting threats to kill or injure another using interstate communications" labeling anything he did anti-semitisim?
As Eugene suggests, "see Sunday's post." In relevant part:
OH. So actually David and Josh were wrong a few days ago, but you didn't get around to mentioning it until today when you absolutely clicked through and re-read Sunday's post before you dropped your snark here.
Got it.
Well, yeah. That’s what I said… they were obviously wrong from the beginning. They didn’t become wrong, which also means they’re unlikely to admit they were wrong. They probably know they’re wrong, or at least don’t care… they’re just playing their roles as propagandists.
Well, yeah, that's not what you said, but keep dancing!
You're just weird. Scroll up, it's right there you know.
And here's David:
What does a federal arrest have to do with "the DEI norms embraced by most American universities"?
And what happens once the FBI and the Justice Department fully adopt "the DEI norms"?
(Randal will be happy, for one thing.)
It appears the university enlisted the FBI's assistance to protect Jewish students on campus, shortly after a clinger claimed most American universities would not protect Jewish students from intimidation.
Not this David. I was correct that those posts were all by the same person.
For maximum deterrence, change the sentencing. Knock one year off, making it a 4-year maximum prison sentence, but add lifetime prohibition of firearms ownership or use. That will be entirely consistent with Bruen:
“having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
Then, with that on the books, move on to apply the same penalty to anyone who brings a firearm to any political assembly. It is past time to put teeth into the Peaceable Assembly Clause. Define politically-associated possession of a firearm, or body armor, or tactical gear, as "warlike array," and hence not peaceable.
This Cornell incident has been just one among far too many recent examples to show the threat that armed intimidation imposes on the nation's political freedom.
Heavy is usually right, and if he took a year off, he well might meet the criteria for the lifetime ban already.
More brilliant constitutional analysis.
What other rights are people prohibited from exercising at the same time? Should we ban free expression while insisting upon Fourth Amendment protections? Perhaps someone who desires Due Process should have to quarter soldiers?
Perhaps someday you'll get tired of making yourself look foolish.
Cavanaugh, I read your commentary as insistence that the 2A trumps the 1A. I do not agree.
The rights are in conflict. No matter what Thomas wrote in Bruen, that conflict can be resolved only by striking a balance between competing rights. You aren't saying ban peaceable assembly, of course. You are just okay with seeing it intimidated out of existence by private gun wielders. Better to strike that balance by congressional initiative and court action. Pretty obviously, peaceable assembly without guns will encourage more political liberty than armed intimidation will do.
Have you even thought it through? Are you really in favor of armed intimidation in American politics?
"The rights are in conflict."
No, they aren't. Not remotely. Not any more than freedom of religion and freedom of speech are in conflict, just because somebody could speak extortionate threats against people on the topic of religion.
Actual armed intimidation is not, outside of special circumstances, (Intimidating a burglar into leaving your house, say.) an exercise of 2nd amendment rights. Not any more than writing extortion notes is an exercise of 1st amendment rights.
The problem here is an attempt to define simply having guns as "intimidation". "Eek, I'm so scared!", you theatrically scream, and the 2nd amendment magically goes away. No, simply being armed in public is not intimidation, without some additional act.
Being paranoid doesn't make innocent acts into threats.
I said no such thing.
It is entirely possible for someone to bear arms, while exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, without conflict.
You can't see someone bearing arms as anything other than intimidation. That's a 'you' problem.
It's an extremely widespread, "you," problem. You don't get to say to an actual majority—in Massachusetts for instance—"I've got my rights, so you aren't intimidated by how I choose to exercise them." If armed opponents show up at a political assembly, and because they fear for their lives others choose to stay away, that is a fact, not rhetorical trickery. Whatever it may mean to, "bear arms," it is never inherently peaceable to do it.
I get that gun advocates remain keen to disparage folks who don't want public gun carrying in any context, and to call them names. That doesn't settle the question whether by use of armed intimidation an arms advocate gets to terrify others out of their entire right to peaceable assembly, and then to blame the resulting loss of political liberty on them.
Peaceable assembly is no less a right than gun access, for whatever purpose. This is not about balancing rights against policies. Where the facts show rights are in conflict, a balance must unavoidably be struck. The obvious fair solution is not to impose a burden to stay away on people without guns. Let those whose choices cause the need for balance be the ones to choose which side of the balance they prefer. If people are all free to choose to attend an assembly unarmed, or to stay away and remain armed, then political liberties for everyone are alike, and everyone will agree they are alike.
If one group is not free to attend a peaceable political assembly, because others insist on attending armed, then political liberties cherished by the latter are being imposed on the former. Few will agree those are like situations.
You don’t get to say to an actual majority—in Massachusetts for instance—”I’ve got my rights, so you aren’t intimidated by how I choose to exercise them.”
Yes, actually, I do. Constitutional protection of rights is largely about being able to tell the majority to piss off when it comes to infringing on the free exercise of those rights.
Whatever it may mean to, “bear arms,” it is never inherently peaceable to do it.
Like most of what you spew, that is complete and utter bullshit. Many millions of ordinary bear arms every day, and do so in a completely peaceable manner. Saying that possessing a firearm is inherently violent because it gives one the means (or rather, more means than one already has) to commit violence is like saying that possessing hands is inherently violent because one can use them to commit violence, or possessing a penis is rape because...well...you figure it out.
Sadly, Stephen probably agrees your examples need to be restricted and criminalized.
Exactly! I mean, carrying a device built specifically to kill as many humans as efficiently possible in one pull of the trigger is entirely peaceful. And holding that device while telling someone you disagree with to "piss off" is not at all intimidating.
Why, just the other day, a person with a penis pulled the trigger and raped 30 people in under a minute! And if you're going to let people with penises into an elementary school, which would be shocking, certainly you'd be fine with a loaded AR-15? The rifle is, after all, a world-wide symbol for peace!
It IS entirely peaceful, so long as you don't do anything violent. Not being violent is what "peaceful" means, after all. It doesn't mean "scares people who think being scared gives them an excuse to take your rights away".
"I expect you to be violent so I brought a lethal weapon to kill you with just in case." Totally not intimidating.
Forcing peace from the tip of an AR-15 conflicts with the 1A--which is the point.
This is one of the most incoherent and idiotic collection of strawmen and ignorant bigotry that you've ever managed to produce.
Do you want to try to produce an argument somewhere in there, or are you content with simply displaying that you know nothing, are incapable of rational thought, and are confused about the use of sarcasm as a tool of argument?
" If armed opponents show up at a political assembly, and because they fear for their lives others choose to stay away, that is a fact, not rhetorical trickery."
Similarly, if black people show up at a political assembly, and because they fear for their lives white people choose to stay away, that is a fact, not rhetorical trickery.
So obviously the right of black people to attend a political assembly needs to be balanced against the first amendment rights of white people.
Brilliant!
Confusing a device designed to intimidate and kill with stereotypes against black people.
Not at all racist.
Understanding the flaws in Stephen’s argument and employing an analogy to expose them. Not at all racist.
Nice try though.
It is entirely possible for someone to bear arms, while exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, without conflict.
Maybe it is - a handgun tucked into a waistband, for instance, ready for use but not brandished. However, most people showing up to protests with visible rifles slung across their backs or shoulders are doing so with the intention to intimidate.
It's not wrong for people to be intimidated by the presence of visible firearms useful for mass violence. You pretty much never see that, in ordinary life. If you're going to a politically charged protest, and you see a lot of those kinds of guns in the "counter-protest," it's rational to feel like their guns are intended to "send a message." Do you suppose their "message" is just, "I am prepared to protect myself and my loved ones from a robber"?
"You pretty much never see that, in ordinary life. "
You have a pretty short and geographically restricted perspective, I gather.
The federal government is ahead of you on that: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7m7yd/leader-of-the-pro-black-nfac-militia-arrested-and-charged-by-feds
But you might want to review what normal people mean when they say “put some teeth into” a law, and apply that to what the Peaceable Assembly Clause actually says. The Bill of Rights doesn’t contain a grant of power to criminalize non-peaceable assembly, even if the First Amendment would tolerate a content-based law of the sort you outlined.
Judges in DC disagree with you in cases involving certain people.
Peaceable assembly isn't an element of anything anyone from J6 is charged with.
It's mostly about attempted overthrowing of our democracy.
Trump lost and a buncha folks tried to use violence to make that unhappen. It was stupid, but also very bad.
"Peaceable assembly isn’t an element of anything anyone from J6 is charged with."
Not true. People who walked thru after the doors were open, looked around for a few minutes and left were still charged.
a) Charged with what?
b) Convicted? Plead out? Found innocent? Charges dropped after facts became clear?
Trespass charges, but gussied up as "entering a secured area" and other similar things.
Anyone who entered the Capitol and they identified has been charges with something, no matter what they did or didn't do.
Yeah. It's still trespassing. You think if someone comes to your house and knocks the door down, that means it's now open to the general public? Everyone can just stroll through your living room and "look around" completely legally? Dumb.
Thanks for proving my point you dishonest leftist POS.
Funny you defend rioters violently assaulting federal buildings, torching churches, annexing US territory or overrunning congressional proceedings in progress but people walking around after security let's them in is a threat to "our democracy" to disingenuous ignoramuses like you.
You are the one that brought up about those on trial for J6 as engaging in peaceable assembly when there was nothing of the sort.
Now you deflect when called out to stuff I never defended.
Pretty lame!
I've never seen Sarcastr0 (nor anyone, really) defend those things.
Are you having a fit? What's going on.
I don’t think anybody would claim that if this suspect is convicted, it would be unconstitutional to deprive him of firearms as part of the punishment. This is not merely a felony, it is a violence/breach of the peace type felony of the most historical/traditional sort. It puts the public in fear in a manner directly analogous to the conduct prohibited by colonial-era statutes. It seems to fit well with Bruen.
This crime is a federal felony, so it already carries a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession.
Other than that, great comment!
but add lifetime prohibition of firearms ownership or use
Why would they need to "add" a penalty that is already automatic?
Your cluelessness continues unabated.
What do you have against body armor *without* a firearm? Is it your contention that everyone must be shootable?
Going to a 1A-related event ready to participate in a violent confrontation implies more of a 2A approach, does it not? Also, if I bring a club/baton, knife, or bear spray but no firearm, does that really change the 1A/2A conflict of rights argument?
It might just reflect the reality that sometimes things get dangerous.
I am not surprised that they identified the perp -- it is way too easy to trace stuff like this unless one is very, VERY, good -- and very few people are. I'll also go further than EV did and hope that the Feds have more than just an IP address -- that they've actually done a forensic search of his machine and found electronic fingerprints because using someone else's IP address is not unheard of.
What does surprise me is that they actually arrested him.
He might get out of this on mental health grounds -- he does appear to have some mental health issues -- but he's not being hidden behind obscurity as I have seen done in the past. And he actually is facing FEDERAL charges -- the FBI actually did its job.
See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/cornell-university-junior-accused-of-threats-was-campus-leader/ar-AA1jc8JS
50-50 they found that he was capable of being portrayed as a conservative, and so fair game.
But maybe I wrong them, and Hamas' behavior has actually woke some people up to the threat at the DOJ. We'll see.
In other words, even Brett thinks there's a reasonable expectation for the guy to turn out to be a right-wing choad.
Sure, I'd never deny that there are anti-Semites on the right, as well as the left. And the DOJ, for some time now, has been more eager to expose wrong-doing on the right, so the DOJ action here does incline me to suspect he's one of those instances. Whereas if they'd just blown it off, you'd reasonably expect him to be a left-wing anti-Semite.
But, as I say, it's possible that Hamas' actions were SO egregious that partisan bias has been set aside for the duration. That would be a welcome development.
'has been more eager to expose wrong-doing on the right'
How to explain away a statistical anomaly.
You really want to claim the DOJ prosecutes a representative sample of crime? That's funny. How are they doing with those pro-life center attacks?
You claiming it’s not representative isn’t the same thing as it not being representative. I suppose whenever they do catch people who attack pro-life centres you also have to act 'surprised.'
50-50 they found that he was capable of being portrayed as a conservative, and so fair game.
Quit making up conspiracies out of whole cloth.
'Oh looks like academia didn't act like the far left cartoons I always say they are. Better explain that away with a fiction I made up!'
I do appreciate the “50-50” hedge—that way, whatever happens will just be further vindication for Brett Bellmore’s delusions.
"But maybe I wrong them, and Hamas’ behavior has actually woke some people up to the threat at the DOJ. We’ll see."
Who? I thought that they were all undercover at School Board meetings.
I hate Asian Nazis
There are Nazis you don't hate? Who, Sgt Schultz?
I know Nut-Tink of any Sergeant Schultz!
Of course, I laughed at "Hogan's Heroes" and Marya? Hey Now!!
It was funny, Jews's playing German Soldiers, Schultz, Klink (You Idiot!) General Burkhalter, heck, even Gestapo Major Hochstetter!!!)
Frank
Always wished there had been one last episode of Hogan's Heroes, at the Nuremberg trials. Schultz definitely gets off thanks to testimony from the gang that he was in on it. But does Klink's argument that, come on, nobody is THAT stupid, he was deliberately looking the other way, work?
No POW camp commander in the West was tried for a war crime as far as I know. The Luftwaffe especially ran clean camps, again in the West only.
FYI, Frank's comment was a Blues Brothers reference to "Illinois Nazis".
Sure, but that’s because you’re an idiot.
They found him (however that happened), and made sure he cannot act out on what he wrote. Thank God. Nobody has died.
Is this guy having a mental crisis, or is he just an antisemitic asshole who made terroristic threats? Remains to be seen. I hope it is the former because it can probably be fixed.
I'm guessing the former.
But I would also say, it's the "atmosphere" that made his threats against Jews reasonable in his (distressed) mind. I mean, why pick out the Jews? Likely because of all the language being used against them and lack of protections.
Yeah, seems like there's a lack of protections considering that he's in jail.
More likely a troll. It's pretty hilarious.
¿Por qué no los dos?
It could be 'and both' instead of 'either or' David. That is true.
Really hoping it is just a resolvable, temporary mental/emotional crisis.
Implying that if it's the latter, it would not be fixable?
Oh, because beliefs are immutable, right? Especially when you think those beliefs target you, in which case the person involved is a complete lost cause, irredeemable and deserving of nothing more than to be collateral damage in an Israeli airstrike.
You're the poster child for how Hamas attempts to justify anti-Semitism, and you're too idiotic and wrapped up in your own vile dehumanization of your enemies to even notice.
Not sure what the point of this blog is.
Is it to point out threats (and actual violence) to people due to their religious beliefs?
Because then Prof. Volokh could have listed this item: Man allegedly kills 6-year-old boy, wounds mother in 'heinous' stabbing over their Muslim faith; https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-allegedly-kills-boy-wounds-mother-heinous-stabbing-muslim-faith
Or is this site only concerned about Jewish matte . . . .
Never mind.
That murder was mentioned, and roundly denounced, in comments here the day it happened. There's not some conspiracy to ignore terrible acts that are committed against Muslims. But we see your attempted invocation of an antisemitic trope.
There’s not some conspiracy to ignore terrible acts that are committed against Muslims.
There's not some conspiracy to ignore other terrible acts either. What's your point?
Isn't there? Here's an interesting fact.
In 1947, there were 80,000 Jews living in Egypt. Guess how many live there today?
Interesting fact two:
There are more Israeli Arabs living in Israel today, with full voting rights and everything, than there were Arabs living in Israel in 1947.
That's part of the problem
And yet by the end of the next decade there will be more Haredim in Israel than Arabs. https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2022/?chapter=48263
But what is your point in saying that? Serious question.
Airmchair was sharing some interesting facts about Israeli demographics. So I thought I'd join in.
IOW, you're just trolling. Par for the course.
I notice you somehow ignored the terrible acts perpetrated against the Jews in Egypt. How in the years since 1947 virtually the entire Jewish population has been eliminated. There are...3...Jews left in Egypt. From 80,000
But that's not isolated to just Egypt. Similar actions took place in Syria, in Iraq, and in many other Muslim-majority countries
Martinned is indulging in a little "Jewish Replacement Theory", that's all.
So? Is there a point to your posts?
That murder was mentioned, and roundly denounced, in comments here the day it happened.
By Prof. Volokh?
By Prof. Bernstein?
Why not?
Amid a half-dozen posts regarding nonlethal threats of particular interest to this white, male, conservative blog?
Why not?
By you? By apedad? Why not?
Does my consistency bother you? I doubt the Volokh Conspirators' partisan inconsistency bothers you.
Carry on, clinger. Better Americans will, however, as has become customary, let you know the limits within which you will operate.
"Or is this site only concerned about Jewish matte . . . Never mind."
It is concerned about other matters. But the VC bloggers are deeply concerned about the strong showing of anti-Semitism in America.
Why is that a surprise?
Why do you complain about it?
Sure. It is quite concerned about white grievance, Black crime, coddling of gay-bashers, safe spaces for transphobes, disdain for (most) classifications, protection of those who use racial slurs . . .
Apedad's comment was dumb in many ways, but one that hasn't been remarked on is this: "due to their religious beliefs." Antisemitism has virtually nothing to do with Jews' religious beliefs.
I agree with that David
Antisemitism has virtually nothing to do with Jews’ religious beliefs.
True. It is, from the POV of bigots, a marvelous invention, much superior to mere anti-Judaism, which could, in at least some cases, be dodged by conversion.
The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion is a classic piece of disinformation. I wonder if it counts as protected speech, since the death toll it's associated with is way up in the millions, the human suffering beyond comprehension. I wonder why people who are currently on an anti-anti-semitism/pro-war trip also dismiss concerns about modern disinformation with that example to go by.
Just more Democrats being Democrats. Nothing to see here.
Which Democrats, you bigoted, worthless clinger?
LOL, Meat
That comment hit too close to home?
Remember, your betters are watching.
And, taking extensive notes.
That comment was inane.
You will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters, clinger. You get to whine about it as much as you like, as do all deplorable culture war casualties, but you will comply.
For the record, I don't think the Federal government should get involved in a case where someone located in New York state commits a crime against someone else located in New York state. That seems like something the state of New York can handle just fine. Interstate communications my bee-hind...
They can't know that a priori though. All they know is someone, somewhere, used interstate communications, to post threats to a community in NY.
The person could be in NY. Could be in CA. Could be in Canada. Until they investigate, they don't know. Seems reasonable, especially based on how the internet works, for a federal investigation unit to look into it.
Possibly... But is it also reasonable for the Federal government to arrest and prosecute the accused?
Well, it IS a Democratic administration, remember. At present Democrats aren't much into the principle of subsidiarity, let alone federalism.
Tell that to the new Speaker of the House, who wants to ban abortion nationwide in Federal legislation.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4275453-democrats-mike-johnson-anti-abortion-record/
Well, apparently Republicans, too, can "virtue signal".
Short of declaring the unborn to be people under the 14th amendment, I don't see any constitutional basis for such a law. That said, I don't see any genuine constitutional basis for a lot of federal law... If the federal government can regulate firearms on the basis of interstate commerce, in the teeth of the 2nd amendment, I suppose after Dobbs they could regulate abortion on the same (illegitimate!) basis.
I would not be upset if the effort got struck down, and took a lot of other federal usurpations with it...
Fortunately we can see the explanation of why the hon. gentlemen thought their abortion ban was within the powers of Congress:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/36/text
Well, IF they had the power, that's where they'd find it, but,
1. Basing it on the commerce clause is utter bullshit, but he's right, that utter bullshit is Supreme court precedent. I still don't like it, we should be rolling those illegitimate precedents back, not cementing them by using them ourselves.
2. I think there's approximately zero chance the Supreme court will uphold any legislation based on the unborn being 14th amendment persons. Certainly if they do so, it will only be post-viability, but I don't see them doing even that.
They just took a crazy amount of heat for saying, "This is not a federal issue." They're not going to volunteer to double that heat by changing their minds about that.
That's a diversion, Brett.
Whether such a law would be Constitutional or not has nothing to with whether Johnson would like to pass one.
If a Democrat proposed a law banning firearms ownership nationwide, would you calmly discuss the Constitutional issues, or would you yell something about Democratic tyranny, etc.?
"Whether such a law would be Constitutional or not has nothing to with whether Johnson would like to pass one."
It SHOULD. He did swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, you know.
"If a Democrat proposed a law banning firearms ownership nationwide, would you calmly discuss the Constitutional issues,"
I'd rather heatedly discuss the Constitutional issues. I've been doing that since the 90's, you know.
He also tried to subvert an election and wishes to establish a theocracy (because he's a gullible clinger who believes fairy tales not only are true but also should rule the world). His oath doesn't seem to mean much.
It SHOULD. He did swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, you know.
Sure, it should. But it doesn't.
Look, Brett, guys like Johnson don't give a FF about the Constitution. Sure, they will emphatically defend the parts they like, but the rest means nothing to them, especially the Establishment Clause. He's a Christian nationalist. What more do you need?
yes, combating domestic terrorism is one of the FBI's top priorities. It is literally the first thing mentioned on their website.
If that’s all they know, how could they have had probable cause to arrest this individual?
The question is, the initial investigation. Who investigates the crime?
With some/most crimes, it's more definitively local. But with something like this, it's almost impossible to tell if it's local, or across state lines, before the investigation.
Why is that a problem? Local police investigate crimes that end up being handed to the feds and prosecuted federally all the time. What’s the problem if the reverse sometimes happens?
Agreed. Using a cell phone or computer should not automatically make any state crime federal.
I don't disagree, but unfortunately that ship sailed a good while ago. The statute they presumably charged him under prohibits "transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another" so they're likely leaning on SCOTUS's ever-diluted notion of interstate commerce including acts that merely influence it in some nth-degree attenuated manner. Or, more simply, that Dai used his computer in NY to send posts via the Internet to servers in a different state/country.
O yes, I understand the jurisdictional hook. I just wanted to register my disapproval on a "ceterum censeo..." basis.
The state of New York is on process of aggressively demonstrating that it has trouble handling any prosecution “just fine.” When that failure concerns citizens’ rights to be free from hate-motivated threats and violence, that seems like a perfectly reasonable time for the federal government to be involved.
Am I the only one who wants this fuck put on the next El-Al flight and dropped off in Gaza?
You, Frank Drackman, are the pristine distillation of the Volokh Conspirators' target audience.
You like me! you really like me!
Just keep "Little Jerry" in your pants and we'll be fine
Frank
And as an Auburn fan, I'm extremely offended by his name.
The Volokh Conspirators seem to be riled by this episode far more than they are by actual mass shootings.
Which is weird, because this blog and its fans seem to dislike the concept of hate crimes, or the idea that any threat or mistreatment is different from any other threat or mistreatment or should be treated specially.
What could explain this, other than low-grade partisanship?
Carry on, clingers.
this blog and its fans seem to dislike the concept of hate crimes, or the idea that any threat or mistreatment is different from any other threat or mistreatment or should be treated specially.
One more piece of rank dishonesty by RAK.
That someone dislikes the concept of hate crimes does not mean they approve of crime. This person is not charged with a hate crime. He is charged with "posting threats to kill or injure another using interstate communications."
That law makes no difference if his motivation is (1) hate of an ethnic or religious group, or (2) to extort money, or (3) because the target is dating the perp's girlfriend. A threat is a threat.
Hate crimes laws say the very same threat (or other crime) is worse, and receives an enhanced punishment, if your motivation is (1) rather than (2) or (3).
To me, if he made the very same threat because he does not like some Cornell grading policy, he should receive the same punishment.
What do you see as "partisanship" here?
Interview with leader of Hamas on Lebanon TV:
https://vinnews.com/2023/11/01/hamas-official-we-will-repeat-oct-7-until-israel-is-annihilated/
This is why there cannot be a cease-fire. Cease-fire = More Hamas terror.
Anyone calling for a cease-fire is calling for Hamas to stay in power, have time to regroup, and commit more massacres.
(Shockingly, the Biden Administration said the same thing in different words.)
You can debate whether that's anti-semitic. But it's disgusting.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think a cease-fire is the right idea at the moment either. All my comments about the conflict in recent weeks have been about *what* Israel shoots at, not about whether it should be shooting at all.
That said, this analysis by former French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin has rightly been shared a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIqMHQdLa5Q.
So far, Hamas's strategy is working, given its objectives. All talk of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is out the window. The West looks weak and hypocritical. Support for Ukraine in the Global South is all but gone. Abraham accords are dead letter. Etc.
Which is why Hamas must be removed from power. Which if those who claim to care about the Palestinians really cared, would be calling for.
People who care about Palestine have been pointing out what a bad idea it was for Netanyahu to support Hamas in the first place, just to bolster his hard-line stance.
Glad you support the war to force Hamas out then.
Oh no with your clever comment you have tricked me into supporting the mass killing of civilans!
Can you point me to a translation to English of the French Foreign Mininster's interview? Youtube does not have it.
This video (of about 10 mins) has subtitles. No guarantees though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_wzmAYKZUQ
This mega-tweet seems to do the job as well: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246
By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, Dominique de Villepin was France's prime minister (2005-2007) and foreign minister (2002-2004) under Jacques Chirac. The current foreign minister, Catherine Colonna, is not in a position to be this candid.
"All talk of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is out the window."
Good
"The West looks weak and hypocritical."
according to whom? Euroweanies and hamas supporters
"Support for Ukraine in the Global South is all but gone. "
LOL, what support. What arms or munitions have they sent?
"Abraham accords are dead letter. "
"The Abraham Accords are not at risk amid the war between Israel and Hamas, said Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, chairman of the Defense, Interior, and Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Arab Emirates Federal National Council on Tuesday, according to the European Jewish Press." Jerusalem Post
'“All talk of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is out the window.”
Good'
You lot really do see Oct 7th as more of an opportunity than a tragedy. Celebrating the conflict getting worse and worse. Rejecting the possibility of de-escalation and non-violent resolution. Holy war! Yay!
There can be peace with Hamas and Fatah when the crows are picking out the eyes of the last dead terrorist.
Never, then. An eternal war to 'keep people safe' and a security state to go with it.
“The West looks weak and hypocritical.”
according to whom? Euroweanies and hamas supporters
According to the people we're normally trying to impress and/or persuade, from China and Taiwan to Russia to the aforementioned Global South.
IMHO, standing up for Israel makes us stronger, not weaker in the eyes of Russia and China. If we won't defend Israel, why will we defend Taiwan?
Nobody cares about the "Global South".
And yet, from the perspective of the Global South, it's hypocritical to defend Ukraine, whose territory is being occupied by Russia, but not the Palestinians, whose territory is being occupied by Israel. If you want to go explain to them why that's wrong, go ahead.
As for Russia and China, all they're seeing here is the US and Western Europe being weak, because they now stand alone on the global stage.
“Support for Ukraine in the Global South is all but gone. ”
LOL, what support. What arms or munitions have they sent?
We don't need them to send arms and munitions. The US alone has enough guns and bullets to keep Ukraine going for a decade, and that's just the stuff owned by civilians. We need the Global South to help us isolate Putin diplomatically, rather than inviting the latest incarnation of the Wagner Group in to help them deal with unpleasant opposition.
"We need the Global South"
Again LOL.
“The Abraham Accords are not at risk amid the war between Israel and Hamas, said Dr. Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, chairman of the Defense, Interior, and Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Arab Emirates Federal National Council on Tuesday, according to the European Jewish Press.” Jerusalem Post
And that's what UAE officials will keep saying, right up until the moment when they get replaced by someone more pleasing to public opinion. Likewise in other Gulf states. But in the background, everything is coming to a standstill, because every dead Palestinian makes it harder for the rulers in the Gulf states to do anything other than support Hamas. Contrary to what you might think, even absolutist monarchs have to worry about what their subjects think.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/11/01/arab-regimes-destabilized-by-war-between-israel-and-hamas_6217628_23.html
The geopolitical fundamentals won't change so after a pause, UAE and the Saudis will resume it.
Weird how that doesn’t apply to Hamas in Gaza.
It does. That's part of why Hamas likes shooting at Israel. It's a great way to undermine Fatah. (See above.)
Hamas is Amalek. They have (will) never stop trying to kill us.
There is only one answer from Israel to this, Bored Lawyer. Israel cannot stop striking at Hamas until they are physically obliterated.
I give props to POTUS Biden for speaking with moral clarity on the horror of what occurred. His policies however are an abject failure, especially those vis a vis KSA and Iran.
It's an open question whether there is antisemitism in this?!
Anyway, the interview excerpt you quote is admirable for the clarity of its statement of Hamas' intent. It should be widely posted and communicated so there may be no mistake about it. (Entirely consistent with the anhilationist sentiment Hamas stated in its charter. ) And while I am hesitant to suggest any agreement between neurodoc and Martinned, I can agree with him if we amend Cato the Elder just slightly to, "Ceterum censeo Hamas esse delendam."
"It’s an open question whether there is antisemitism in this?!"
Of course it's antisemitic. But some maintain that eliminating Israel is not, because Jews can live elsewhere. I don't want to get into that.
Agreed on your second point. I took it a step farther -- that's why there cannot be a cease fire. A position which is agreed to by (gasp) the Biden Administration and Hillary Clinton.
‘Cease-fire = More Hamas terror.’
Eternal war it is, then. The Oct 7th attack didn’t succeed because Israelis weren’t killing enough civilians with bombs, you know, it occurred, at the Israeli end, because of a failure by the government of Israel to protect its people, an intelligence failure and a security failure. Were these failures so absolute and definitive that nothing can be learned or fixed to prevent further attacks? Or is it just that the Israeli government doesn’t want people thinking about that.
Sure. And the Palestinian civilian deaths are due to a failure of the Palestinians to protect their people.
" Were these failures so absolute and definitive that nothing can be learned or fixed to prevent further attacks?"
Huh? They learned what they needed to do and are implementing the fix right now.
"Eternal war it is, then."
People who are calling for a cease-fire now do not understand Hamas; that is not possible. It would be such a gift to Hamas because they would spend whatever time there was a cease-fire in effect rebuilding their armaments, creating stronger positions to be able to fend off an eventual assault by the Israelis.
People calling for a cease fire might be valuing Palestinian lives differently than you and are less concerned about Hamas than the huge loss of innocent life. I think it's fairly well established that Hamas cares little about those Palestinians and Israel shows a similar level of concern. The value judgement of those arguing for a cease fire may be short-sighted, but it's not evil and it's understandable.
There is no "fending off an assault by the Israelis." That is not within Hamas' ability given how grossly outmatched they are in just about every measure. Hamas is a fanatic-powered political tool of Iran used to stir things up when it looks like there's an opportunity to affect the regional power balance in their favor. The current right-wing Israeli government has found Hamas useful for maintaining power and advancing their own goals, as well.
The only people a cease fire would benefit are the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict.
Israeli citizens didn't seem to benefit much from the cease fire on October 7th, now, did they?
No, their supposedly hard-line tough-on-terrorism government, military and intelligence all fucked up beyond belief.
But there have been ceasefires between these same parties a number of times over the years, the last of them through the night of October 6 and into the early hours of October 7. So you are just calling for a pause in the slaughter of Jews by Hamas, which doesn't appeal to the Israelis.
https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-repeat-october-7-attack-time-and-again-until-israel
"This is why there cannot be a cease-fire. Cease-fire = More Hamas terror. Anyone calling for a cease-fire is calling for Hamas to stay in power, have time to regroup, and commit more massacres."
And that is the long and short of it. If (and that is a big if) Israel wanted to announce a 12 or 18 hour pause for a humanitarian relief convoy, MAYBE (and that is an even bigger MAYBE) that would be okay as long as the exact time of ending is announced ab initio.
As for ant-Semitic, if the de facto effect is targeting and killing Jews, it's anti-Semitic in my books.
Federal charges?
I'll wait for an actual conviction, not celebrate the arrest.
You do that! In the meantime, how much money would you wager whether young Dai will be convicted if he goes to trial or cop a guilty plea? And you won't mind, will you, if the rest of us procede on the presumption that Mr. Dai is the right guy.
It seems this young man had to take a leave of absense from school on account of acute mental illness. And since that will undoubtedly be the basis of his defense if he ever goes to trial rather than accept a plea deal, his parents would well-advised to engage a good forensic psychiatrist to get involved rather than somone wthout medicolegal chops.
A few days ago, someone issued anti-semitic and illegal threats. A few days later, the authorities identified and arrested the person they think was responsible. He will be charged and prosecuted. The odds are that unless he has some mental illness that absolves him of criminal liability, he will be convicted. That's how it is supposed to work. There was never any good reason to expect anything different.