Here is a statement reportedly from the Puget Sound Anarchists after one their associates was killed by policed during an attack at an ICE facility in Tacoma:
“We find his actions inspiring. The vehicles outside the detention facility are used to forcibly remove people from their homes and deport them, often to situations where they will face severe danger or death. Those vehicles being destroyed is only a start of what is needed,” the Puget Sound Anarchists wrote. “We wish the fires Will set had freed all the inmates and razed the entire Northwest Detention Center to the ground. And we miss our friend and wish from the bottom of our hearts that his action had not ended in his death.”
For background on the attack see:
Here is the federal definition of sedition:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Does the statement from the Puget Sound Anarchists amount to “inciting rebellion or insurrection” under the federal law?
They’re protected (unfortunately) by the 1st Amendment right to free speech. One person’s actions do not amount to “sedition” regardless of how he was inspired, he broke several laws and Tacoma PD did their due diligence.
However that said, should this lunatic fringe group act violently against Federal authorities after making overt threats? I would think they would be rounded up and charged with sedition.
Recent history shows that the statement is more than an empty threat.
One of their friends attempted to set fire to the ICE detention facility. According to police he attempted to ignite a large propane tank near the building, which could easily have resulted in a fire that would have killed hundreds.
The statement includes a call for more violent attacks: “We find his actions inspiring . . .Those vehicles being destroyed is only a start of what is needed . . .”
In reality a sedition charge is unlikely. It probably much easier to get convictions under terrorism and conspiracy statutes.
