If you read the strict, plain English, dictionary definition meaning of the words in the federal statute that defines what terrorism is as far as the US is concerned, most police departments qualify as terrorist organizations.
The only thing preventing President Obama from matching every single criteria for being a domestic terrorist is he has never (as far as we know) ordered a drone strike on US citizens within US borders.
And then watch Trump have an epic meltdown when he discovers he has lost access to the internet.
After all, the primary difference between a Presidential drone strike program and the World Trade Center attack on 9/11 is the 9/11 attackers were courageous and put their lives on the line for their act of terrorism, while drone controllers might not even leave the borders of the United States.
It's true, that having to go through another country's extradition system to lay hands on someone who is not a US citizen, has never set foot in the US or owned any actual property in the US is a tad inefficient.
It would be so much faster if the US courts could simply deputize a Navy SEAL team, send them into a foreign country covertly and just take the accused individual.
But how would that be any different, from an international law standpoint, from international kidnapping?
The US is already arguably a rogue state. And the way we're headed, we will soon remove all doubt. I'm not sure which will happen first -- our second civil war or a reenactment of world war two, with us in the role of Nazi Germany.
The thing many people forget is that any constitutional or civil rights violation you could sue police over and win under Title 42, Section 1983 is ALSO a criminal act -- complete with prison time if convicted -- under Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.
Every time a police officer makes an unconstitutional stop, the number of crimes increments up by at least one. With the rate at which they stop actual criminals by doing stop and frisks, they could reduce crimes overall by ending the stop and frisk program.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the stop & frisk program has something like a 5% or 10% success rate -- success defined as finding a crime, even the most minor of crimes.
If an officer acts alone and leaves his weapons holstered, he commits a misdemeanor with every unconstitutional stop. If he has a partner backing him up or draws any weapon -- even pepper spray -- then the unconstitutional stop is a FELONY. For every officer involved.
If an officer patrols with a partner and they make 30 unconstitutional stops per day, catching three misdemeanor offenders in the process, those officers have taken three minor criminals off the street, at the cost of increasing the overall crime levels of the city by SIXTY FELONIES!
I wonder, if any sort of government building linked to the DoJ has public wifi?
If so, then using that wifi to look up torrents then downloading them after you leave the building would make the DoJ itself guilty of criminal copyright violations under the same logic they are applying to KAT!
I'm curious how the USOC would fare in a pure free speech situation -- Absent a contractual relationship, it would be nearly impossible for them to prevail against an individual or even a corporation, since they'd be asking the courts to impose a prior restraint on the first amendment.