Bad Idea: President-Elect Biden Wants To Turn 1/6 Into The New 9/11
from the let's-not dept
Many of us watched in horror as Trump supporters -- encouraged by the outgoing President's insinuation that a "stolen" election could be overturned if VP Mike Pence was prevented from certifying election results -- raided the Capitol building in Washington, DC. What may have started as simple MAGA stupidity ended with five people dead and two improvised explosive devices recovered. Welcome to Leroy Jenkinsville, USA.
Invading federal buildings is a serious federal offense. That's why Trump sent federal officers to Portland -- officers that spent a lot of time shooting and pepper spraying journalists and legal observers. There was a lot of irony contained in the Capitol invasion by Trump supporters -- ones who feel the government can do no wrong when their boy is in charge but cannot be trusted the moment the guy up top is replaced.
But the most painful irony still lies ahead. An executive order from Trump signed in June was meant to target "anarchists and left wing extremists" who tore down monuments to Confederate "heroes" and otherwise menaced federal property. Now, it looks like the latest citizens to be hit with sentence enhancements will be the same people who cheered on this open targeting of people whose views were diametrically opposed to Trump's. "Fullest extent of the law" -- as ordered in the Presidential edict -- means pursuing maximum sentences for attacking federal property.
As horrifying as all of that was, the worst may lie ahead. The incoming president is threatening to turn January 6th into the next 9/11. (h/t Jameel Jaffer)
President-elect Joe Biden characterized the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as domestic terrorists, referring to the violence as “one of the darkest days in the history of our nation.”
“Don’t dare call them protesters,” Mr. Biden said in remarks from Wilmington, Del. “They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”
He's not wrong. Some of the acts -- especially the use of IEDs -- are the very definition of "domestic terrorism." The problem is what Biden wants to do about it.
Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.
This may seem reasonable. And some renewed focus on the domestic side of terrorism might be warranted, considering how it's been back-burnered by law enforcement for, um, personal reasons. It's well documented that law enforcement agencies in the US -- including the FBI -- have ignored domestic extremists in favor of targeting people with darker skin and non-Christian faiths. Ignoring the domestic threat means not having to examine people law enforcement agencies have on their payrolls, far too many of whom have been caught espousing bigoted views in private.
But no matter how good it might feel to finally force law enforcement to confront people whose cognitive dissonance allows them to post ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ memes alongside their Blue Lives Matter content, there's absolutely no reason anyone should welcome another expansion of government power under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The 9/11 attacks vastly expanded the government's reach and grasp. And it has resulted in a lot of domestic surveillance -- much of which uses the pretense of being "foreign-facing" to excuse its intrusion into the lives of Americans. For years, the NSA was able to harvest phone metadata in bulk, almost all of which was generated by domestic communications. Backdoor searches of NSA collections allow the FBI and others to obtain domestic communications without a warrant. And the FBI's war on foreign terrorism has done little more than allow the agency to radicalize people right into lengthy prison sentences.
Add to that biometric collections at airports, no-fly lists that are almost impossible to challenge, and the court-supported belief that the rights of American citizens are null and void anywhere within 100 miles of a border, coast, or international airport, and you have dozens of reason why no one should celebrate a new, entirely-domestic, War on Terror.
What happened earlier this month was disturbing. And domestic terrorism is a threat that should be addressed. But emotional lawmaking in the wake of an attack has never worked out well for Americans, even if many would applaud the punishment of people they don't like. America's law enforcement already has the tools, funding, and power to tackle domestic terrorism. They just need to start doing it. What they don't need is a whole new set of powers. And what Americans really don't need is less freedom and liberty, no matter what threat we're facing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: domestic terrorism, joe biden, patriot act, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thoughtcrime
Thank you, Tim.
I've no sympathy for the idiots who stormed the Capitol, but we're getting uncomfortably close to a clampdown on thoughtcrime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the madness
https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The content maybe good, the framing of the video is not. For those who don't click links, the video is of an interview with ex-KGB Yuri Bezmenoc, talking about the tactics of "Ideological Subversion" engaged by the KGB.
The framing of the video poster, however, (WARNING: CONSPIRACY THEORIST NONSENSE) is that the Democrats are Marxist communists and that the mainstream media under Democrat control is leading us to a communist hellhole.
In reality, the problems of ideological subversion and the destabilization of trust in facts and reality have been, as Yuri predicted, put in place, but it's not Marxism that has been amplified by these actions but rather fascism and white supremacy.
It's worth listening to Yuri, but put it in the framing of current events and the knowledge that it's Pro-Trump and White Supremacy groups that are evidencing the things that Yuri is warning against, and take the comments by Yuri about Communism and Socialism in the context of his own background, of the warped and dictatorial system he defected from, which claimed to be Communist or Socialist but fell far short of the ideal, and I would recommend finding a different video than this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"For those who don't click links"
Thanks for that. As with anyone sensible, clicking on a contextless YouTube link is not something I would do, but thanks for taking that bullet for the rest of us.
Anyone wishing to be taken seriously online should learn early on that you have to explain why the link is relevant. If not because we've all been rickrolled, then because too many idiots think that posting a random 30 minute Alex Jones rant means something to people who have evolved past amoebas.
"it's not Marxism that has been amplified by these actions but rather fascism and white supremacy"
As evidenced quite handily by the fact that fascists tried overthrowing democracy last week, while none of them actually know what the word Marxism really means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly.
Also disabling scripts and other stuff youtube is currently build on is just good security practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meh, it's not about security. It's about people who have no thoughts of their own expecting people to watch random crap on YouTube to explain what they've been told to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The main reason I bit the bullet is because my browser is locked down with noscript, ghostery, facebook container, ublock, plus extensions that put me in better control of youtube autoplay and such.
I have the hazmat suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget an anti-fingerprint blocker. You can read a lot out of the information supplied with browser configuration/OS data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for my supposed pro Trump framing, nope, I am not pro Trump, pro Biden, pro rioting...
EVERYONE should watch that video with an open mind.
As for "WARNING: CONSPIRACY THEORIST NONSENSE"
Here's my response to that:
Most people are so brainwashed by media that they can't see two inches in front of their noses, and if you ever challenge them, like Pavlog's dogs they will immediately call you a conspiracy theorist. They will then turn up their nose and walk away with a heightened sense of superiority.
The term "conspiracy theory", literally turns off all critical thinking like a light switch in most of the population. Conditioning the public to react this way has to have been one of the most effect PSYOPS ever pushed onto the general population.
It is euqal parts diabolic and brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can guarentee you don't know what marxism is or what socialism is, because anyone claiming the modern democratic party of supporting either is ignorant of the meanings of those terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where was that claimed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the description of the video itself. My apologies for not making it clear enough in my first response that the term "the video poster" referred to the person who uploaded it to Youtube, specifically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The video you linked frames the democrats as Marxists. You reacted to a criticism of that framing as conspiratorial by saying that such a criticism was designed to shut down critical thinking. This suggests you disagree with the assertion that the democrats are not marxist.
You therefore support the assertion that democrats are marxists. If you don't support that claim, a more nuanced criticism of TFG's response would be in order.
If you fail to be specific in your criticism, it is your fault when we attempt to use context to fill in the blanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please try to think of the content of the video more as an abstraction with interchangable ingredients. The goal is unchecked power - the only ideology a tyrant finds meaningful - while the route to that power is to subvert the consciousness of the target.
.
All belief systems can be subverted and thus are interchangable--They're just the pavement the tyrant drives on to reach the control panel of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is context it would have been helpful to have when you shared the video. As PaulT noted, you should provide context as to the importance of a link, such as "don't concern yourself with the specific framing, I am only sharing this for its description of the use of propeganda to subvert ideals" It also was the very context with which TFG approached the video - that the descriptions of the subversion of the conciousnes are very important but that the framing was not accurate. Your criticism of TFG's commentary ignored his very commentary that the underlying warnings were valuable. Which is why I among others assumed you were endorsing the democrats are marxists message, because what you criticized is a refutation of the democrats are marxists framing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will take partial culpability in that I didn't make it quite clear enough that the framing I was mentioning was that presented in the video description on Youtube, and it could have been (and evidently was) misunderstood that I was referring to the AC who posted the link to the video to begin with.
I will point out, however, that my entire post would have been needless had the AC who first posted the link to the video provided that context themselves, as you point out here.
If you take anything away from this, AC, I hope it's that next time you want to share a video, provide some commentary that explains in brief what you are sharing and why, so as to guard against it being ignored or misinterpreted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People keep calling the insurrectionists, fascists let alone anyone that supports Trump. But from what I've read, fascism contains socialism and I don't think anyone would claim Trump supporters are socialists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haven't read much. Fascism relates to the government - how the power of government is established and derived. Socialism relates to economics - how ownership of income generating property is established and who owns the profits.
Nazis for instance, took over Jewish owned busineses. But the government didn't own/run them generally. Nazis were big on privitization, a hallmark of capitalist economic thought.
Fascism, academically, is considered the reaction of the "political right" to leftist calls to extend the ideals of democracy into economics. It doesn't require any socialism to operate, and while they tend to talk socialism, those that implement 'socialism' use state ownership as a substitute for public ownership, which is highly disfavored in modern socialist thought. But as seen in the Nazi example, many also just say "socialism" when actually engaging in capitalist economic policy.
THat is why, as the video suggests, the understanding of what maxist theory is, and what mordern socialist theory is, compared to the propeganda you hear, is highly important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is one of those cognizant dissidence situations that undermines the MAGA cult. Many, if not most of white supremacy, white nationalist groups are admittedly socialist! Only, and Bernie Sanders totally nailed this during the debates, they want socialism for themselves, but not other races, ethnicities it otherwise minority groups. Basically socialism for me but not for thee, which is also what things like corporate welfare (like subsidies, tax breaks, and protectionist trade practices)boils down to. Both parties want socialism, they just want it for different groups. And I'm pretty sure that the nationalist socialist white supremacy movement is part of the drive to declare that Democrats are not just socialist, but actually communist, and communism is so much more awful than socialism. And of course they really make themselves look dumb by holding the Nazi regime as an aspiration, because Nazis were communist. Stalin was a nationalist socialist, responsible for more death than Hitler, his just wasn't as targeted, resulting from widespread famine, starvation and disease from endless war.
Truth is that Trump mirrors the rise of Mussolini most closely, a fascist-nationalist. Lots of blaming the nation's problems on the "other", as in immigrants and foreign countries, claiming to fight for the common man, who has been a victim that everyone else ignored. Sound about right?
And in addition to trying to paint the Democrats as the evil communist, they love to throw "Marxist" around too, when they themselves are mostly middle class, workers railing against the so called elite, especially rich capitalist like Bezos, and their favorite boogieman Soros.
I mean, the Dems are pretty confused on who the "bad guys" are too; there is a lot of blame on capitalism that is actually the result of cronyism, which happens when government gets involved in regulation without sufficient knowledgeable, representative over site, (especially in local level governments that can be influenced by spending a lot less money than a State or National government would cost).
I guess the short answer is that Trump supporters pretend the socialism they want isn't socialism, probably because they feel entitled to benefits because they are more equal than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Nazis were neither socialist nor communist. They were fascist.
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/o utlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/
https://www.prospect magazine.co.uk/magazine/was-communism-as-bad-as-nazism
https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.htm l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Nazis were neither socialist nor communist"
More to the point - they named themselves socialist to fool the ignorant who might support them, then when they got the power they wanted they killed the actual socialists in their ranks. It's a damn shame that this tactic is still fooling the ignorant to this day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does that include all of the modern elected Democrats openly describing themselves as Marxists and Socialists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
individuals aren't the Party. The American Democrat Party platform is not marxist or socialist. That Bernie is considered a fringe platform within the party loyalists is evidence to this. However to address your question on its own terms: I don't know of any nationally elected official describing themselves as marxist. Bernie uses the term democratic socialist, something his history backs up as his personal beliefs, but the policies he proposes are more in line with the social democrat philosophy as seen in the similarly named parties of Europe. You might wonder the difference.
Democratic socialists want economic change that democratizes ownership of business and profits (eliminating the capitalist class) without the nationalizing of industry, in contrast to many interpretations of early marxist thought such as in the USSR.
Social democrats advocate for the retention of capitalist owned industry but use the power of the the state and the democratic process to curb excesses of Capitalism through strong social programs, ala the Nordic model.
Can you cite a marxist american politician? I admit I can't keep track of every state and local level official. Id love to learn about some of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Does that include all of the modern elected Democrats openly describing themselves as Marxists and Socialists?"
Can you name them? I know that a lot of right-wingers deliberately misquote Sanders to pretend that when he mentions socialism he's talking about Venezuela rather than Scandinavia, but I can't think of anyone significant that refers to themselves as a Marxist. Can you list them, or is this one of those things where you realise you misspoke when asked to provide evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this whole thing comes from some founders of BLM that declared themselves (or maybe even just herself) trained Marxist revolutionaries. I'm pretty sure most of the more recent accusations come from this, along with a few people involved in Antifa activities mentioning communist and socialist ideals. I think it's mostly innocent ideas and hopes for a better society for everyone that are completely blown out of proportion, and as someone mentioned above, an attempt to tie socialism to nations so thoroughly corrupt that no financial system could have overcome, like Venezuela, instead of Sweden, or any other North Western European nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"EVERYONE should watch that video with an open mind."
Why, exactly? You failed to give a single reason why anyone should watch that as opposed to me posting a link about the mating habits of tree sloths in the context of your argument.
"Most people are so brainwashed by media"·
As opposed to people brainwashed by random YouTube videos?
"The term "conspiracy theory", literally turns off all critical thinking like a light switch in most of the population"
Then, present your own arguments using your own words, instead of expecting people to watch any old random crap you choose to link to?
If I've not made myself clear, you failed at your attempt at "informing" people by the way you wrote your first post. Try better next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The video has been discussed, maybe even viewed by someone"
It was, but you gave no reason for anyone to actually do so. You just said that you thought that letting someone else make your point for you was easier for your tiny simple mind than actually saying something yourself.
"I saw no reason to pollute the minds of anyone who might be curious enought to view it with my own opinions on the content."
So, you have no thoughts of your own worth sharing? Figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now we're down to insults, that was quicker than I anticipated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm. not entirely sure what you think was an insult, but your failure to explain your own thoughts in your own words has been noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see you are refuting claims of conspiracy theory by diving deeper into conspiracy theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You betcha! Let's kick this conspiracy talk into high gear shall we?
Asset Forfeiture, NSLs, ALEC, AIPAC, TPP,
FISA Courts, Congressional Insider Trading,
Parallel Construction, Stingray Devices,
Judicial Standing, Deferred Prosecution,
EO 12333, XKeyscore, COINTELPRO
Pentagon Papers, Gary Webb
Operation Mockingbird
Operation Northwoods
MKUltra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do any of thiese things relate to the question of if democrats are marxists looking to destroy democracy and the United States?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Humans can only process so much information at any time. When the executive branch and the right wing media are spewing out volumes of conspiracy-laden dreck that is interfering with rational public discourse purely due to its volume, using "conspiracy theory" as an initial filter makes all kinds of sense. If there's actually something in it, that limited brave set of the population who parses the content and flags up stuff the rest of us should pay attention to... do that. Such as Tim and TFG.
As someone who doesn't click links, TFG did a great job of framing the content as well as applying the CT filter, so that I know generally what it's about, and that I don't have to waste my time watching it.
Whereas all I'm getting from you is attempts to derail discussion and introduce FUD, with nothing but your opinion to back that up.
And you really need to learn what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are. I recommend a good book called "Marx and Engels - Selected works" -- interestingly, the Marxist society appears to have created a web version of the book without scripts and trackers: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm
Read some of those, so you know what it is you're trying to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey you know, I would read those books since I apparently don't know what Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are, but someone once told me they were filled with conspiracy theories, which flagged my content filter, so I don't have to read them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are your present descriptions of; Marxism, Socialism, and Communism.
You obviously have an opinion about what these terms mean, please share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what else is filled with conspiracy theories? Whatever weak propaganda you've been consuming that gives you your false definitions of the terms you're using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What definitions for which terms, Paul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ones you mentioned and refused to read up on - Marxism, Socialism, and Communism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A bit late here, but I'll clarify my own post.
The framing to which I refer, and the "conspiracy theorist nonsense" is reference to the content in the video description on youtube, specifically. As in, what the person who posted the video on youtube said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, my apologies TFG. Thank you for clarifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was blatantly clear if you read his commentary rather than get triggered when he described the content of the video as conspiracy riddled nonsense. Everyone criticizing you understood the context of TFG's commentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Upon re-reading TFG's initial reply, you are correct. Lesson learned.
.
Also Mr. Burkhardt, I quite enjoyed reading your analysis throughout this thread: it was very well articulated and instructive and those types of comments are the primary reason I've been visiting this site for over a decade.
.
TFG, thanks for your analysis as well and keeping your cool to my over-reaction. I imagine your initial summary is the only reason any one paid any attention to the video at all, given the inane way I presented it. Lesson learned there as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sadly rare
Hey, AC, Kudos to you on taking the time to examine, understand, and react well, even after the fact.
May there be more people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would like to also accept your apology, recognize that you did re read and understand your mistakes. We all have had comments we misread, I've had to eat crow on more than one occasion myself. While we all might hope we see those mistakes earlier, what matters is that you took the time to understand the positions we were putting forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be better to investigate law enforcement, and clean up that mess, rather than give them more tools with which to oppress the citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One hopes that any legislation aimed at Domestic Terrorism that does get through is focused on cleaning house within Law Enforcement, rather than expanding Law Enforcement's power.
It may be faint hope, based on past experience, but we can hope, and call for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Taking a critical look at the Federal Bureau of Instigation might be a good start for house cleaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. The FBI has definite uses, but an inordinate amount of their time seems to be focused on international terrorist attacks and pedophiles considering the volume of those events compared to other federal crimes -- and the fact that Homeland Security is supposed to be the clearinghouse for tracking how international threats map to federal domestic policing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can think of a better target for some housecleaning: the Capitol Police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I applaud Biden for tackling the instigators of the Capitol Siege sooner rather than later, I do hope that he realizes that his decisions are on a thin tightrope of making problems worse. Fighting extremism shouldn’t be fought with extremism and emotional thinking. The last thing we need right now is the democratic party’s equivalent of George Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering that Biden is the moderate's moderate, it makes me wonder what sort of pressures he's facing from the government and the political left.
And yes; a democratic Bush would be a horrible pendulum swing from Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This attack was MUCH worse than 9/11 and needs stronger response
9/11 killed more people. But ability of Al-Qaeda to continue damaging America was trivial compared to the Al-Qanon poison that is everywhere in masses inside the borders already.
We were extremely lucky it wasn't MUCH worse on 1/6.
We nor more vigilance than after 9/11, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demanding
Those in power are demanding retribution. You might want to be careful about opposing those demands, or else they could label your speech as "hate speech" as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Demanding
Ya, it's worrisome.
We're seeing a reaction of the elites - to suppress the mob.
Which will only enrage the mob further.
I may have said this before somewhere, but everybody needs to calm down a little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Demanding
The elites are the mob. You don't get more elite than the president and those in his favor. Pretending they are oh so downtrodden and everyone is out to get them just because they were outvoted after enjoying 4 years of power over everyone else is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Demanding
No, the elites direct the mob, and then go home and watch what the mob does on TV. If you then just change the laws so you can lock those (guilty) people up more easily with fewer checks, the mob just looks for a new charismatic leader to guide them. And they WILL find one. When that leader becomes a martyr, they'll find another, and add to the list of reasons why violent overthrow of the government is the only recourse.
EVERYONE has to be equal under the law, and the respect for privacy has to be the same across the board. Except for the government. They need LESS privacy due to operating for the public's interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Demanding
A mob whipped up by the most elite person ever to hold the presidency, a billionaire who inheritedthe vast majority of his wealth, near tax free, that has been shielded by his family, the media and bankruptcy laws from the consequences of his repeated failures. He gave his unelected, unqualified daughter and son in law powerful jobs in the government, changed the tax code to benefit himself, spent most of his presidency playing golf while people died and using the secret service and militarty to help prop up his failing businesses. He lived in a literal golden tower in the heart of New York until they started actually investuigating his criminal activities...
This wasn't the mob rising up against the elites, this was an attack on the people of the united states, who declared categorically they did not want four more years of this. He tried to overrule the will of the people, demanded that their votes be discarded in millions for his benefit, he tried to force Michigan to discard the entire city of Detroit for his benefit. He failed over and over and lied to his supporters continually, playing to their victim complexes, with other nepotisim beneficiaries like Matt Gaetz and Tucker Carlson acting as his backing singers until they were baying for blood, then he set them loose on the capital, fleeing to the safety of the whitehouse.
People went into congress looking to take people hostage, they set up a noose outside, they beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The people that did this will not calm down if nothing is done, they will be back in greater numbers with more bombs and more guns next time and more people will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This makes me think of the Republicans currently calling for “unity” and “healing” because they think impeachment will piss off the same people who already stormed the Capitol once (some of them with legitimately murderous intent).
Those Republicans are cowards. So is anyone who thinks appeasing fascists and terrorists is better than holding them accountable. That doesn’t bring about unity. It creates a mob that thinks more terrorism will help them get what they want.
Do you want more violence? Because that’s how you get more violence. And while I believe violence always creates more problems than it solves, I also believe capitulating to violent people doesn’t solve any problem. Fascists deserve no place in American society. Neither do the cowards who enable them.
And that includes the only president to be impeached twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This makes me think of the Republicans currently calling for “unity” and “healing” because they think impeachment will piss off the same people who already stormed the Capitol once (some of them with legitimately murderous intent).
As I saw in a tweet from a cancer survivor responding to that idea, 'you can afford to focus on healing after the cancer is no longer trying to kill you'.
It's all well and good for republicans to be talking about 'healing' and 'unity' after they've spend years 'drinking the tears of the libs' and supporting a president who's SOP is insults and animosity, along with supporting either directly or indirectly the lies that caused the recent insurrection. They want unity and healing then great, they've got a lot of house-cleaning to do and that starts by making it clear that insurrections are absolutely not acceptable and anyone involved should and will have the full weight of the law brought down on them paired with public condemnation, with anything less from them making clear that all they really want is to dodge responsibility for and from their actions and inaction like the cowards they are.
(As an related aside reading your comment a 'joke'/observation popped to mind, 'How can you tell when republicans don't have power? When they start talking about unity, cooperation and letting bygones be bygones.')
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's more like the Republicans are arguing against chemo because it makes you feel bad for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, that’s their argument against measures to prevent the spread of COVID (e.g., “the cure can’t be worse than the disease”).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Demanding
Amazing, every word of what you just wrote ... is wrong.
Joe Biden is not in power. Retribution can be had simply by applying current laws to the maximum. Those who oppose it (largely with good reasons, even if not winning ones) have no reason to fear. There is no chance that their speech will be labelled "hate speech", or at least not by anyone who matters. You are simply projecting the traits of your own God-Emperor onto others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great idea. I support it 100%, as long as he makes sure that the actual domestic terrorists we've been facing for the better part of a year now -- the ones calling themselves "Black Lives Matter" and "Antifa" -- are at the top of the list.
Rules are only rules if they're applied evenly and impartially. Otherwise they're nothing more than pretexts for persecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you have credible evidence that members of the Black Lives Matter movement, or that members of organizations bearing the name of Antifa, have committed acts of domestic terrorism, I urge you to report said evidence to the proper authorities, such as the FBI.
I would also be interested in seeing said credible evidence, though as I am not a member of law enforcement or homeland security my right to see it is much reduced. Nevertheless, if you were to share said evidence, it would go a long way toward taking your claims seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In all the protests duting the trump era, it wasn't Black Lives Matter and Antifa doing the killing for the most part, sure were a lot of feds, proudboys and nazis assaulting or murdering innocent people though. The one left wing counter protester you could say for sure killed someone was gunned down by a mob of deputies without warning, without any attempt at an arrest. The only person who could say what happened to spark the killing was executed by the authorites qwithout trial Trump could have something to crow about on the evening news... But sure, it's antifa who are the real villains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that a group does not turn into "domestic terrorists" just because you fear them, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you can show us Black Lives Matter groups and Antifa groups storming a government building with the intent to kidnap and kill government officials, you let us know. Until then? Even the FBI says the biggest domestic terror threat in the U.S. comes from right-wing extremist groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both of those aren't even groups for one - let alone the massive disingenuous conflations and false equivalences. It isn't even "taking all Catholics as treasonous Guy Fawkes" wrong. It is like saying "geeks" are responsible for hacking and there is a need to crack down on model train builders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree to disagree
I can understand the intent of the article, even if I disagree. For years now the FBI and other federal agencies have sounded the alarm on domestic terrorist groups growing rapidly in the US. These aren't partisan hacks spewing fear campaigns. Thru misinformation and propaganda, we now have citizenry ok with foreign powers tampering in our elections as long as their side wins. After 1.6.21, it has reached the tipping point. These groups will now be emboldened to escalate the violence if stronger measures aren't taken.
Do we need a vast new federal department? No, but assigning/creating a division within Homeland Security would certainly be a good move. It would mean resources, money, and logistics could be focused where/when it is needed. This division could help cities/states better manage local incidents as well.
If anything, we should pressure the incoming administration for strong oversight rules with language to punish abuse of said oversight as well.
Maybe they could divert resources from the soon to be demolished "Space Force". lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree to disagree
Same...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we really need is a repeal of ... probably nearly anything passed or ordered since September 2001 in relation to law enforcement, terrorism, etc., for starters, and some real, evidence-based policing of actual threats regardless of where they originate. Nothing new needs to happen to "fix the insurrectionist/ domestic terrorist problem" than people doing their damn jobs in a 1990s legal framework*. Then start dismantling all the unnecessary agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that Biden himself many times took credit for writing the Patriot Act (at least, very significant parts of it) right after the Oklahoma bombing could mean something for how this story develops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A confusing claim since the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 1995, and the USA PATRIOT Act was written in 2001. What he said was he drafted an anti-terrorism bill in 1995 that was essentially the same as what became the Patriot Act later.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Clinton's Antiterrorism and effective death penalty act.
You can't trust Biden any farther than you can throw him. Sure Trump has rightest within his supporters but it's nothing like the old Boston Democratic Party racist anti-busing mobs. The busing the Biden said everyone (except Black people) opposed. Court ordered bussing not Kamala Harris voluntary bussing in the SF Bay Area or Boston's METCO program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing confusing in these simple facts. Biden drafted a law after a terrorist attack in 1995 - the law was not adopted, but a few years later reused after the 2001 terror attack. Then Biden claimed (and was given) credit for large parts of this "new" anti-terror text now known as Patriot Act. The fact is that Biden already responded to a terror attack (in 1995) by immediately writing (and trying to pass) new anti-terror legislation, then supported a similar anti-terror legislation as soon as a new possibility arose a few years later to make it pass, despite the fact that it was under Republican presidency. To me this is an indication of how he thinks - I believe he does have draft laws ready to be pushed in the House if there is the right political momentum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regime Changes
So it's ok to do "regime changes" all over the world... but it's not ok in your own backyard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regime Changes
Who said it's ok to do regime changes elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]