U.S. Justice Department forming unit to counter domestic terrorism(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. Justice Department forming unit to counter domestic terrorism
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-justice-department-forming-unit-counter-domestic-terrorism-2022-01-11/
320 comments
We have a well-funded national security 'state' in the United States, and a decreasing appetite to impose our will abroad. Looking inward/domestically seems like the natural response by organizations that want to stay alive and continue doing what they do.
I'm not surprised that there is increasing rhetoric of the 'domestic terrorism' threat from our officials/traditional media, that doesn't have to be tied to increasing objective harm to the public by such threats. I would not expect this rhetoric to die down anytime soon, unless there are sufficient opportunities abroad for our security state/military to invest in.
I know partisans want to hop on the bandwagon when their political opposition is being lambasted as the 'domestic terrorists' by the media/our officials, but they should really think hard about the precedent and power that they are bequeathing our security state. The application of that power will not just be limited to be used only on those YOU don't like.
I'm not surprised that there is increasing rhetoric of the 'domestic terrorism' threat from our officials/traditional media, that doesn't have to be tied to increasing objective harm to the public by such threats. I would not expect this rhetoric to die down anytime soon, unless there are sufficient opportunities abroad for our security state/military to invest in.
I know partisans want to hop on the bandwagon when their political opposition is being lambasted as the 'domestic terrorists' by the media/our officials, but they should really think hard about the precedent and power that they are bequeathing our security state. The application of that power will not just be limited to be used only on those YOU don't like.
We collecting domistic terrorist attacks here? Add this to the list.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_der...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_der...
No, we weren't. But I hadn't heard of this one, that's interesting.
But that's partisan, is there anything talking about "terrorism" as in, equally abhorrent acts without regard to partisanship?
The article referenced has the January 6th protest listed there and then claims no deaths from left wing attacks, even though there are plenty of left wing protests comparable to January 6th in which people were killed. They are comparable, so it seems to me to be cherry picking what you'd call "terrorism." Any source that calls January 6th terrorism or BLM protests terrorism are not to be taken seriously for this reason. Either they both are or they both aren't, and I don't want to start calling every single disobedient act terrorism just because some people get out of hand, that's a slippery slope.
The arricle puts jihadist and other right wing related violence under one umbrella, so as to pad the numbers it would seem. You can call jihadism "right wing" and you'd be right, but you'd be ignoring an ideological distinction so plainly obvious that one would be warranted in presuming said ignorance is deliberate.
The article referenced has the January 6th protest listed there and then claims no deaths from left wing attacks, even though there are plenty of left wing protests comparable to January 6th in which people were killed. They are comparable, so it seems to me to be cherry picking what you'd call "terrorism." Any source that calls January 6th terrorism or BLM protests terrorism are not to be taken seriously for this reason. Either they both are or they both aren't, and I don't want to start calling every single disobedient act terrorism just because some people get out of hand, that's a slippery slope.
The arricle puts jihadist and other right wing related violence under one umbrella, so as to pad the numbers it would seem. You can call jihadism "right wing" and you'd be right, but you'd be ignoring an ideological distinction so plainly obvious that one would be warranted in presuming said ignorance is deliberate.
Here's the AP story: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-national-security-t...
And in an attempt to find a universally accepted starting point, a definition: "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
I'd hope that everyone can agree it's worthwhile having a dedicated branch of the DoJ looking at incidents of lawbreaking that meet that definition, even if perpetrated by legal residents of the US.
And in an attempt to find a universally accepted starting point, a definition: "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
I'd hope that everyone can agree it's worthwhile having a dedicated branch of the DoJ looking at incidents of lawbreaking that meet that definition, even if perpetrated by legal residents of the US.
Your definition doesn't really matter... it is defined in criminal code https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
The term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Jan 6 doesn't fall under that definition. It wasn't systematic.
It absolutely was and there's extensive documentation on who paid for it and how it came about.
[deleted]
It was if the BLM riots of the previous summer count as well. There doesn't seem to be a difference when looking at the two of them subjectively.
It wasn't even terror.
Trump's and Giuliani's incessant campaign can be seen as domestic terror: "to intimidate and coerce a civilian population", "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". The capitol "tourist visit" were boots on the ground, and can themselves be seen as both terrorists and victims of terror. They were intimidated and coerced by trump ("your country will be taken from you unless you fight like hell", etc.) into themselves using force and violence to coerce congress into overthrowing the vote certification. Ultimately DOJ and the courts will settle this discussion.
5 people died as a result.
Would you say this is an honest statement, or an intentionally misleading one?
Follow up question - with thousands of hours of footage of the events, has anybody been charged with any murders?
Last question, why would you post an intentionally misleading statement like that, do you think it helps your argument or hurts it?
Follow up question - with thousands of hours of footage of the events, has anybody been charged with any murders?
Last question, why would you post an intentionally misleading statement like that, do you think it helps your argument or hurts it?
The comment you're replying to is an example of what they meant by Trump derangement syndrome. People convince themselves of things that are blatantly just not accurate because "orange man bad".
Quantity of death should have no impact on whether something is terror or not. 10 people died at Astroworld, that was obviously not a terror attack. If the Boston bombings had merely injured people instead of killed them--or even if it had miraculously failed and hurt no one--we would obviously still call that a terror attack. No one is going to be scared to visit the Capitol on January 6, 2022 or 2023, unlike how people were afraid to go to las vegas or the Boston marathon after the attacks.
[deleted]
Mostly rioters or suicide later.
The entire thing is a bit odd, as we’ve always had an agency that investigates domestic terrorists. It’s called the FBI.
The FBI is part of the DoJ, and typically has task forces comprised of personnel from both organizations. So, this is tantamount to saying "We take domestic terrorism seriously enough to assign dedicated resources to it."
> "terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
Interesting side effect of this definition is that because the main effect of terrorism is not material or human casualties, but terror, it's usually less damaging way of waging a war than conventional warfare. There are typically more civilian casualties in conventional warfare where civilians are just collateral than terrorist campaigns that target civilians.
Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF
> The costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it characteristically inspires (qualities stoked by the terrorism indus- try), not from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited. Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from overreacting) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily unacceptable, and, despite U. S. overreaction, the campaign against terror is generally going rather well because, no matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states to cooperate to deal with a common problem
‘terrorism industry, an entity that includes not only various risk entrepreneurs and bureaucrats, but also most of the media and nearly all politicians.
Interesting side effect of this definition is that because the main effect of terrorism is not material or human casualties, but terror, it's usually less damaging way of waging a war than conventional warfare. There are typically more civilian casualties in conventional warfare where civilians are just collateral than terrorist campaigns that target civilians.
Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/6PROPS.PDF
> The costs of terrorism very often come mostly from the fear and consequent reaction (or overreaction) it characteristically inspires (qualities stoked by the terrorism indus- try), not from its direct effects which are usually comparatively limited. Therefore, policies designed to deal with terrorism should focus more on reducing fear and anxiety as inexpensively as possible than on objectively reducing the rather limited dangers terrorism is likely actually to pose. Doing nothing (or at least refraining from overreacting) after a terrorist attack is not necessarily unacceptable, and, despite U. S. overreaction, the campaign against terror is generally going rather well because, no matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states to cooperate to deal with a common problem
‘terrorism industry, an entity that includes not only various risk entrepreneurs and bureaucrats, but also most of the media and nearly all politicians.
[deleted]
Many years ago I had to get formally trained on the whole counter-terrorism thing. It was depressing, because of how obviously broken and compromised it was. You could clearly see that the military had done 99% of the leg-work in developing the SOP, and the bureaucrats poisoned the whole thing with their 1% contribution. Anybody who has done any reading about the activities of the USMC in its first 100ish years knows that this was a solved problem. Anyway, here is the most glaring problem that comes to mind for me (maybe it changed and is a non-issue now, dunno): the process for designating a terrorist group.
1) The group must demonstrate that it holds a disposition to terrorism.
2) The group must possess the means to wage a campaign to that end.
3) Be nominated by the Department of State
Gee... I wonder where this whole thing will not only be totally broken - but eventually twisted in ways that only "conspiracy theorists" could imagine?
1) The group must demonstrate that it holds a disposition to terrorism.
2) The group must possess the means to wage a campaign to that end.
3) Be nominated by the Department of State
Gee... I wonder where this whole thing will not only be totally broken - but eventually twisted in ways that only "conspiracy theorists" could imagine?
So who are they going to start with, the CIA or the FBI?
"Terrorism" expands to fill the resources available for "countering" it.
This is in no way going to be used to further infringe on our rights and liberties. Nope, never gonna happen.
/s
/s
So much doubt peddling, and disinformation spewed on these types of posts is astounding. I think we should permanently flag topics like these as they lead to repeated circular arguments about whether or not jan 6 was a big deal or if burning down a planned parenthood constitutes terrorism, everything is fine domestically, all terrorists are outside (or not fine, depending on which TV station your mind is plugged into), BLM AntifaCommunists China HunterBiden and other stupid bullshit.
I find it so stupid that the people of a country with one of the most oppressive law enforcement legislations on the planet is getting triggered by a bureaucratic change because a 'protest went out of hand'. You have a problem with this? Go out and vote, write to your representative, run for office. Where the fuck were you when the Patriot Act passed?
I find it so stupid that the people of a country with one of the most oppressive law enforcement legislations on the planet is getting triggered by a bureaucratic change because a 'protest went out of hand'. You have a problem with this? Go out and vote, write to your representative, run for office. Where the fuck were you when the Patriot Act passed?
[deleted]
These threads truly put to test the typical HN claims about site and comment quality.
I’d argue that they’re off topic solely off of the description in the guidelines, but things have shifted so that the widest interpretations of the “on-topic” criteria are what determine that.
I’d argue that they’re off topic solely off of the description in the guidelines, but things have shifted so that the widest interpretations of the “on-topic” criteria are what determine that.
In 2062, US healthcare costs continue to rise. Congress gets together to discuss a bill to fix it. Increasing healthcare funding would put them 5% in deficit.
They could reduce the military budget which takes up 50% of the total. Afterall, the US hasn't had a war since it pulled out of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 40 years ago. Yet, funding has continued going up. The Cabinet chief of domestic terrorism argues that funding is needed for domestic efforts.
Those in support argue that the National institute of Domestic terrorism's (NIDT) funds are key to academic research in the sciences, meta verse and improved AI sentience. Those in opposition argue that their funding breakdown is a black box, and they need to be audited. The NIDT must be held accountable to the constitution.
Compromise is struck. The Congress approves another 10$ billion for an audit and accountability department in the NIDT. Another $10b are allocated to an exploratory team on healthcare policy. President XÆA-12 calls it a historic moment.
The power output of the Kafka and Orwell grave-power-plants is 10GW higher today. All is right in this world.
They could reduce the military budget which takes up 50% of the total. Afterall, the US hasn't had a war since it pulled out of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 40 years ago. Yet, funding has continued going up. The Cabinet chief of domestic terrorism argues that funding is needed for domestic efforts.
Those in support argue that the National institute of Domestic terrorism's (NIDT) funds are key to academic research in the sciences, meta verse and improved AI sentience. Those in opposition argue that their funding breakdown is a black box, and they need to be audited. The NIDT must be held accountable to the constitution.
Compromise is struck. The Congress approves another 10$ billion for an audit and accountability department in the NIDT. Another $10b are allocated to an exploratory team on healthcare policy. President XÆA-12 calls it a historic moment.
The power output of the Kafka and Orwell grave-power-plants is 10GW higher today. All is right in this world.
50% of the total? The US military currently accounts costs less than 9% of all taxes collected annually.
I'm not a fan of counting medicare or social security in "all taxes collected".
They're collected separately (and they're also really badly designed, but whatever).
So I rather us look at the amount we're spending on stuff that doesn't get a different line item on our paychecks.
They're collected separately (and they're also really badly designed, but whatever).
So I rather us look at the amount we're spending on stuff that doesn't get a different line item on our paychecks.
50% of discretionary and 18% of mandatory.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Income Security are better thought of as insurance and pension systems that happen to be run by the government. This is why they're ear-marked in federal budgets and listed separately on your paycheck.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Income Security are better thought of as insurance and pension systems that happen to be run by the government. This is why they're ear-marked in federal budgets and listed separately on your paycheck.
With a little bit more reading comprehension ability, you’d realize this is a satirical scenario about sometime in the future.
50% of discretionary spending.
Well written. I hope it remains fiction, though
> "We have seen a growing threat from those who [...] ascribe to extremist anti-government and anti-authority ideologies," Matthew Olsen, the assistant attorney general of the department's National Security Division, told a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I wonder what the discussions are like between the domestic security agencies (FBI, NSA, etc.) and the foreign insecurity agencies (CIA, NED, BRL, etc). Doesn't this undermine the efforts of the latter to e.g. overthrow governments in foreign nations?
I wonder what the discussions are like between the domestic security agencies (FBI, NSA, etc.) and the foreign insecurity agencies (CIA, NED, BRL, etc). Doesn't this undermine the efforts of the latter to e.g. overthrow governments in foreign nations?
It's been 27 years. I had to look it up.
The Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 19, 1995.
I heard the government moves slow but that is crazy.
The Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 19, 1995.
I heard the government moves slow but that is crazy.
The KKK was formed in 1865.
I'd argue the KKK is not a good example. The Ku Klux Klan Act was passed in 1871 to target and stop the klan (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act ). This was successful until the Klan was refounded in 1915, thanks to the movie "The Birth of a Nation".
1865, 1910, and 1950+, depending on which iteration
I think they already had that covered.
https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/feds...
https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/feds...
Well, I'm up $4 on my PLTR. Glad I hedged against "dystopian surveillance state"
Relevant (8/2021): https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/14265662504282112...
Potential Terror threats (from HHS):
- Opposition to COVID measures
- Claims of election fraud, believe Trump will be reinstated
- 9/11 holidays and religious holidays
Relevant (today, started 10/2021): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10391397/Biden-educ...
Potential Terror threats (from DOJ):
- Parents at school boards
Potential Terror threats (from HHS):
- Opposition to COVID measures
- Claims of election fraud, believe Trump will be reinstated
- 9/11 holidays and religious holidays
Relevant (today, started 10/2021): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10391397/Biden-educ...
Potential Terror threats (from DOJ):
- Parents at school boards
Even if those were true -- and I don't believe they are -- Washington Times authors and the Daily Mail are terrible sources to prove it.
DailyMail tends to have some of the more accurate reporting. They always cite their content (unlike say, CNN - go check, they always self-reference).
You can see the letters in the article. I don’t know what to say, it’s clearly there. Same with the news broadcast on NBC, watched it live just searched a video and Twitter popped up).
You can see the letters in the article. I don’t know what to say, it’s clearly there. Same with the news broadcast on NBC, watched it live just searched a video and Twitter popped up).
> DailyMail tends to have some of the more accurate reporting.
You're joking, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability
You're joking, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability
That all looks political to me... I'll stick with reviewing content with citations (and reviewing associated citations). Wikipedia is fairly partisan.
Thus far, as stated, it's clear to me DailyMail provides more citations I can use to confirm the data myself. I guess to your point, I don't believe them, the New York Times, NPR, NBC, etc unless I can confirm the data myself.
Thus far, as stated, it's clear to me DailyMail provides more citations I can use to confirm the data myself. I guess to your point, I don't believe them, the New York Times, NPR, NBC, etc unless I can confirm the data myself.
Wikipedia isn't exactly an unbiased source of information, either.
Any chance the first link is fake?
The video about dhs issuing a statement?
I think this may be what they were referring to.
https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisor...
I watched it live so I don’t believe so.
How would the first link be fake? lmao
FBI et all use real terrorists as informants to generate plots then claim they stopped them, all the while those informants get off scott free and without accountability. Something like 97% of domestic terror plots adhere to this modus operandi. But its ok, just like censorship, dumbely assume its good because it will only go after those evil others... until the day you realize oops it goes after everyone but now its too late. So tired of people refusing to see the patterns at play with this stuff.
>Something like 97% of domestic terror plots adhere to this modus operandi.
Can you support this assertion?
Can you support this assertion?
One of the best books on this is The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Maufactured War on Terrorism by Trevor Aaronson. My 97% is based on a memeory of that number being used by Mr. Aaronson in a talk he gave at politics and prose, so the exact percentage may be different the point is that it is the case in the vast majority.
When times are good and trust is high you get lone wolves like McVeigh and Kaczynski. The fact that extremist groups are able to do much of anything means their message resonates and therefore they can secure members and resources. These politicians are too busy complaining that the bird is annoying in to see the canary in the coal mine. If things were looking up people wouldn't be joining extremist movements. No task force will fix that.
I'm astonished by some of the responses in this thread. Why are so many of you upset about this development? Domestic violent extremists (DVEs) are killing more and more people every year.
2017 - DVEs caused 8 deaths
2018 - DVEs caused 17 deaths
2019 - DVEs caused 32 deaths [the most lethal year since 1995]
We are talking about murderers here, primarily lone offenders. This isn't a malicious tactic for going after political opponents or free speech.
"The FBI and DHS define a Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
Are there more serious issues in America? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore this growing threat? No.
2017 - DVEs caused 8 deaths
2018 - DVEs caused 17 deaths
2019 - DVEs caused 32 deaths [the most lethal year since 1995]
We are talking about murderers here, primarily lone offenders. This isn't a malicious tactic for going after political opponents or free speech.
"The FBI and DHS define a Domestic Violent Extremist (DVE) as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute extremism, and may be constitutionally protected." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrori...
Are there more serious issues in America? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore this growing threat? No.
>I'm astonished by some of the responses in this thread. Why are so many of you upset about this development?
Welcome to politics on Hacker News, where nuance goes to die, all the conspiracies are true and anything that governments say or do inevitably lead to the camps. Grab some popcorn.
Welcome to politics on Hacker News, where nuance goes to die, all the conspiracies are true and anything that governments say or do inevitably lead to the camps. Grab some popcorn.
Not sure what you're smoking. I find Hacker News has the most nuance of any content aggregation website out there.
Maybe you'd have a better time on Reddit?
Maybe you'd have a better time on Reddit?
I'm not sure what you're smoking if you can read this or any political thread on HN and hold it up as an exemplar of nuanced thinking.
What's the current definition of terrorism ?
I'm not Trumper, but honestly, I don't think this will end well. Words like "terrorism" and "extremism" are inherently subjective ideological judgements, and subjective ideological classification should has no place in domestic law enforcement.
Also the way I'm hearing "extremists" and "extremism" used feels like people drawing up lines for a civil war.
Also the way I'm hearing "extremists" and "extremism" used feels like people drawing up lines for a civil war.
I'm pretty much a leftist but not supportive of either party.... but as I see the divides between liberals and conservatives (of which I'm neither) ... are (according to some news outlets) already starting a 'cold' civil war.
If there really is a cold civil war, seems this might be to me a way for someone to at least gain the upperhand and put the military force behind one side or another...
as fractured as D.C. is...and w/ elections coming up, and 2024 up in the air... I can't even tell which side would be in charge of the nation + military.
I can see civil wars though coming from many angles:
The current divide/conquer tactics creating polarization (check), and then it's just us vs them...(lib/cons)...
Or it could be the labor class vs the elites. Because times are going to get rougher. We've got depression/stress rampant. Homelessness is rising. Wages are stagnant or were, maybe rising now because of actual labor rising up a bit... but still rent/housing is skyrocketing to the point they need to rise up in the first place...
Unfortunately most people don't have any class consciousness, so it'll probably be the first one... I wish it were the second one...or the fabled "poor eating the rich scenario" ... but might be 20 more years till we get there..
3rd option is governors and congress maybe decide to do a do-over and hold a constitutional congress and maybe re-organize more loosely like the EU as smaller city states. This would be a dream to me but hopefully we could organize into smaller states maybe where there's like 100 or even 500 autonomous cities that self-govern and maybe have some 10 year meeting of all governors to re-ratify the constitution, and add any changes, etc.
A small fed govt would still exist for foreign affairs, and interstate agency management. Military would be a coalition force from all the city-states. People who live in really rural places might even live completely outside of a 'country' so to speak, if it's unincorporated, but would still have the rights as if they were in one.. like access to fire department and emergency services etc...
to get the best scenarios...requires level heads and cooperation from decent politicians who have our best interests at heart.... so, we're f*ked.
If there really is a cold civil war, seems this might be to me a way for someone to at least gain the upperhand and put the military force behind one side or another...
as fractured as D.C. is...and w/ elections coming up, and 2024 up in the air... I can't even tell which side would be in charge of the nation + military.
I can see civil wars though coming from many angles:
The current divide/conquer tactics creating polarization (check), and then it's just us vs them...(lib/cons)...
Or it could be the labor class vs the elites. Because times are going to get rougher. We've got depression/stress rampant. Homelessness is rising. Wages are stagnant or were, maybe rising now because of actual labor rising up a bit... but still rent/housing is skyrocketing to the point they need to rise up in the first place...
Unfortunately most people don't have any class consciousness, so it'll probably be the first one... I wish it were the second one...or the fabled "poor eating the rich scenario" ... but might be 20 more years till we get there..
3rd option is governors and congress maybe decide to do a do-over and hold a constitutional congress and maybe re-organize more loosely like the EU as smaller city states. This would be a dream to me but hopefully we could organize into smaller states maybe where there's like 100 or even 500 autonomous cities that self-govern and maybe have some 10 year meeting of all governors to re-ratify the constitution, and add any changes, etc.
A small fed govt would still exist for foreign affairs, and interstate agency management. Military would be a coalition force from all the city-states. People who live in really rural places might even live completely outside of a 'country' so to speak, if it's unincorporated, but would still have the rights as if they were in one.. like access to fire department and emergency services etc...
to get the best scenarios...requires level heads and cooperation from decent politicians who have our best interests at heart.... so, we're f*ked.
So for all those years of fighting Islamic terrorism they did not need such unit despite huge domestic population of potential collaborators. But now they do. It sure going to end well...
Because there's been an uptick in domestic terrorism? As in not from foreign nationals (eg Islamic terrorists). The richest country in the world with the biggest military almost failed a year ago. Something should be done about it.
> almost failed
Is there some magical switch inside the Capitol which can turn off our democracy? I really don't understand the constant hyperbole about 1/6.
Is there some magical switch inside the Capitol which can turn off our democracy? I really don't understand the constant hyperbole about 1/6.
Yeah, it's called the entirety of congress and the peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power is a fragile miracle and almost having it ripped apart is not something to downplay. Say what you will, I will live in the real world.
I earnestly cannot understand what a tiny minority of people trespassing could have done to destroy anything meaningful. Our country has survived much worse. Don't forget that same building was once burned down by a hostile invading force.
Saying "tiny minority of people" is a flaccid lie. Watch the footage and stop lying.
When has the country failed to have a peaceful transition of power? When has the entirety of congress been ripped apart by a mob of a thousand extremists? When has USA survived worse?
When has the country failed to have a peaceful transition of power? When has the entirety of congress been ripped apart by a mob of a thousand extremists? When has USA survived worse?
It was 2,000 people. What are you referring to?
My point is that the building was literally burned down and our country bounced back to the point where most people probably don't even know it happened. There's nothing sacred about the Capitol building itself or honestly the people in it. Our collective commitment to democracy doesn't exist in a physical location.
My point is that the building was literally burned down and our country bounced back to the point where most people probably don't even know it happened. There's nothing sacred about the Capitol building itself or honestly the people in it. Our collective commitment to democracy doesn't exist in a physical location.
Ripped apart? Really? Imagine the damage if BLM had been there. And don't pretend like there isn't a long history of their extensive damages.
The U.S.A. has survived literally splitting itself in half, and having a war against itself. Despite a presidential assassination. I'm pretty sure people who were videoed saying "we gotta keep it peaceful guys, we have the right to peacefully assemble" after Capitol cops told them to stay civil, are not nearly has bad of a threat.
The U.S.A. has survived literally splitting itself in half, and having a war against itself. Despite a presidential assassination. I'm pretty sure people who were videoed saying "we gotta keep it peaceful guys, we have the right to peacefully assemble" after Capitol cops told them to stay civil, are not nearly has bad of a threat.
Congress was set to certify the election that day. Had the insurrection succeeded, Mike Pence likely would have been killed (remember the "hang Mike Pence" slogan?), along with Democrats in Congress. This would have allowed Trump to remain "president" indefinitely, especially because any election he wouldn't win would be "fraudulent". It was an extremely important moment for our country.
If they had killed Mike Pence I have absolute faith they would have been thrown in jail forever and the Speaker would have taken over his duties certifying the election. If all that's standing between us and fascism/anarchy is 2,000 people choosing to walk into the Capitol we are already lost.
The duty of certifying the election falls to the President of the Senate, not Speaker of the House. It would have been up to Republicans to replace him. It’s possible in such a scenario they would have replaced him with someone who was willing to decertify the election and initiate a contested election, which would have then enabled Trump to be installed over Joe Biden.
Congress doesn’t need to be in that building to certify. How would trump have stayed president? You just glide over that part
The law says what the process is on Jan 6. It is silent as to what happens if the process on Jan 6 is disrupted. There is no law that brings them back together, so if they don’t finish their job on that day, they would have entered a Constitutional grey area, a kind of hack of the electoral process system. Trump needed such a hack because the regular order would have, and did, end with him losing power. This is why Pence refused to leave the Capitol, McConnell insisted on finishing the certification that night, and Trump’s associates were furiously calling Senators to continue delaying the certification (even after the insurrection).
If the executive decapitates the legislative how would the executive individual stay in power?
Almost half the country incorrectly believed that it won the election, as did the sitting president, and a large fraction of congress (147 Republicans, to be exact).
It's trivial to tip that sort of situation into a successful coup. All you need is a convenient excuse (All electronic/late/mail-in/democratic ballots are fraud, and should be disqualified! There's a state of emergency in the capitol!).
Do you think democracy just keeps working, regardless or whether or not all the mechanisms that ensure the transfer of power were carried out? If certification of the results is unnecessary, why do we do it? At what exact point is the winner of an election determined? It's not when CNN/MSNBC/FOX call the race. It's not when the last ballot gets counted. It's not when the electoral college votes. It's not when <some common sense thing> happens, because the law doesn't care about your common sense.
It happens when Congress certifies the results. If Congress certifies that Mickey Mouse won the election, that's who you'll be seeing at the inauguration. If the only people voting to certify are those 147 Republicans, guess who will be getting certified?
The transfer of power after an election is binary process. It either happens, or it doesn't. Any binary process, by definition, has at least one single point of failure. In the United States, one of those points of failure is certification.
The transfer of power is the most important aspect of a democracy. It has to happen correctly, every single time.
It's trivial to tip that sort of situation into a successful coup. All you need is a convenient excuse (All electronic/late/mail-in/democratic ballots are fraud, and should be disqualified! There's a state of emergency in the capitol!).
Do you think democracy just keeps working, regardless or whether or not all the mechanisms that ensure the transfer of power were carried out? If certification of the results is unnecessary, why do we do it? At what exact point is the winner of an election determined? It's not when CNN/MSNBC/FOX call the race. It's not when the last ballot gets counted. It's not when the electoral college votes. It's not when <some common sense thing> happens, because the law doesn't care about your common sense.
It happens when Congress certifies the results. If Congress certifies that Mickey Mouse won the election, that's who you'll be seeing at the inauguration. If the only people voting to certify are those 147 Republicans, guess who will be getting certified?
The transfer of power after an election is binary process. It either happens, or it doesn't. Any binary process, by definition, has at least one single point of failure. In the United States, one of those points of failure is certification.
The transfer of power is the most important aspect of a democracy. It has to happen correctly, every single time.
> Do you think democracy just keeps working, regardless or whether or not all the mechanisms that ensure the transfer of power were carried out?
As long as they happen in a relatively timely manner, as they were in this case. Our democracy does not live in a building, there is no switch to turn it off. The Capitol Building and everyone in it could disappear in a wormhole and I'm confident we would retain our democracy, logistical nightmare aside.
As long as they happen in a relatively timely manner, as they were in this case. Our democracy does not live in a building, there is no switch to turn it off. The Capitol Building and everyone in it could disappear in a wormhole and I'm confident we would retain our democracy, logistical nightmare aside.
> incorrectly believed that it won the election
According to who? The polling companies that predicted a landslide for Hillary in '16?
According to who? The polling companies that predicted a landslide for Hillary in '16?
Yes, actually. Well, I think the better question is this: is there some magical switch that stops power-hungry people, endorsed by the President of the United States, from seizing extraconstitutional power? The answer is no.
The coup plot has been confessed to already on live TV by one of the coup plotters. They even gave their plan a name: the "Green Bay Sweep"
1. No matter the outcome, claim victory. In the event of an electoral loss, claim fraud ad nauseum. The former President began this campaign on election night before all votes were even counted.
2. Begin a campaign of discrediting the election results. By the time the race was called for Biden, the former President refused to concede and claimed the election was rigged. He has persisted with this claim to this very day.
3. Use the pretense of a fraudulent election to overturn states results. A pressure campaign mounted to overturn election results in a number of states. It was directed at local elections officials all the way up to US attorneys, Secretaries of State, and the Governor of Georgia.
4. Use overturned state elections results to try to cause a contested election. This is the scenario where neither candidate reaches 270 votes, and the decision is sent back to the House of Representatives. In this scenario, the House delegates get one vote per state delegation. Since Republicans hold the majority of state delegations, they could install Trump as president despite the fact that he lost fair and square.
The question is, how do you get to a contested election? Well, there's a process, but the hope of the Green Bay Sweep was that Pence would just unilaterally do it himself, but he needed a pretext. Hence the legal campaign, but it lost 62/63 legal cases so that didn't work. There was also a pressure campaign on the AG, but he didn't budge -- Bill Bar claimed there was no evidence of fraud and quit before he could be fired. They attempted to install a Trump loyalist Jeffry Clark who would claim there was evidence of fraud, but the entire senior leadership at DOJ threatened to quit if that were to have happened, which would have ruined the pretense. There was the likely criminal effort the former President took to threaten the governor of GA with prosecution if he didn't doctor the election results to favor Trump. That failed as well.
The lack of concrete evidence of fraud did not deter this pressure campaign. Eventually the White House wanted Pence to decertify the election results even without a pretext. They wanted him to flatly assert nebulous and unspecific fraud occurred in PA, MI, WI, AZ, and GA, and that the electoral votes for those states should be thrown out. While the campaign to find evidence failed (because there was none to find), there were still GOP members of the House and Senate willing to go along with the plan if Pence would do his part of refusing to certify the contested states. During the counting of the certificates, objections were raised by GOP Rep. Gosar, and GOP Senator Cruz when AZ was called. This turned the counting of the votes from a perfunctory ceremony that would take a few minutes of counting 50 pages, into a 2 hour debate as to the merits of their claim. They had planned to do this for all contested states, for a total of 10 hours of delay. Given the makeup of the House and Senate at the time, each objection was doomed to fail, but their purpose was to buy time.
Why did they have to buy time? To give Trump the opportunity to incite the mob, which he did masterfully along with his son, Mo Brooks, and Rudy Giuliani who urged "trial by combat". At this point there were two ways to get to a contested election. (1) Pence plays his role and baselessly denies certification, assume powers that are not granted to him by the Constitution or any law. (2) Completely circumvent the certification and try to get friendly states to send alternate slates of electors.
But by the morning of Jan 6, Pence had already made up his mind and informed Trump that he intended to certify the results. This had taken (1) off the table before the join session even began in the eyes of senior White House leadership.
This meant that (2) was the only option left to prevent Joe Biden from becoming the president elect on Jan 6. Delaying the counting of the vote certificates represented a sort of buffer overflow attach on the electoral process: The Jan 6 certification is the last step in the process, there's nothing on the books about what to do if that isn't finalized on Jan 6. Hence the mob. The hope was that the mob would cause so much disruptions that the entire Congress and VP would be sent to safe locations. At this point, the entire government would be in extraconstitutional territory (a sort of buffer overflow for democracy), where a raw exercise of power cannot be put in check by laws (none are written to cover this scenario). In such a situation, the winner is usually who can convince the most people with the most power to go along with their version of events. It's lucky we didn't get there, because all it would have taken would be the right group of a few people to decide to overturn the decision of the democratic process in favor of their preferred electoral outcome.
Think of it this way:
On Jan 7, 2021, the Constitution prescribed that Joe Biden was to have been certified President Elect of the United States the day before. If on the morning of Jan 7 he wasn't President Elect, that would have represented a step away from the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law. Maybe the country can step back in line with the Constitution after that, but maybe not. Maybe it takes one further step. And another. How many steps away from the Constitutional order does it take before it's impossible to come back?
The coup plot has been confessed to already on live TV by one of the coup plotters. They even gave their plan a name: the "Green Bay Sweep"
1. No matter the outcome, claim victory. In the event of an electoral loss, claim fraud ad nauseum. The former President began this campaign on election night before all votes were even counted.
2. Begin a campaign of discrediting the election results. By the time the race was called for Biden, the former President refused to concede and claimed the election was rigged. He has persisted with this claim to this very day.
3. Use the pretense of a fraudulent election to overturn states results. A pressure campaign mounted to overturn election results in a number of states. It was directed at local elections officials all the way up to US attorneys, Secretaries of State, and the Governor of Georgia.
4. Use overturned state elections results to try to cause a contested election. This is the scenario where neither candidate reaches 270 votes, and the decision is sent back to the House of Representatives. In this scenario, the House delegates get one vote per state delegation. Since Republicans hold the majority of state delegations, they could install Trump as president despite the fact that he lost fair and square.
The question is, how do you get to a contested election? Well, there's a process, but the hope of the Green Bay Sweep was that Pence would just unilaterally do it himself, but he needed a pretext. Hence the legal campaign, but it lost 62/63 legal cases so that didn't work. There was also a pressure campaign on the AG, but he didn't budge -- Bill Bar claimed there was no evidence of fraud and quit before he could be fired. They attempted to install a Trump loyalist Jeffry Clark who would claim there was evidence of fraud, but the entire senior leadership at DOJ threatened to quit if that were to have happened, which would have ruined the pretense. There was the likely criminal effort the former President took to threaten the governor of GA with prosecution if he didn't doctor the election results to favor Trump. That failed as well.
The lack of concrete evidence of fraud did not deter this pressure campaign. Eventually the White House wanted Pence to decertify the election results even without a pretext. They wanted him to flatly assert nebulous and unspecific fraud occurred in PA, MI, WI, AZ, and GA, and that the electoral votes for those states should be thrown out. While the campaign to find evidence failed (because there was none to find), there were still GOP members of the House and Senate willing to go along with the plan if Pence would do his part of refusing to certify the contested states. During the counting of the certificates, objections were raised by GOP Rep. Gosar, and GOP Senator Cruz when AZ was called. This turned the counting of the votes from a perfunctory ceremony that would take a few minutes of counting 50 pages, into a 2 hour debate as to the merits of their claim. They had planned to do this for all contested states, for a total of 10 hours of delay. Given the makeup of the House and Senate at the time, each objection was doomed to fail, but their purpose was to buy time.
Why did they have to buy time? To give Trump the opportunity to incite the mob, which he did masterfully along with his son, Mo Brooks, and Rudy Giuliani who urged "trial by combat". At this point there were two ways to get to a contested election. (1) Pence plays his role and baselessly denies certification, assume powers that are not granted to him by the Constitution or any law. (2) Completely circumvent the certification and try to get friendly states to send alternate slates of electors.
But by the morning of Jan 6, Pence had already made up his mind and informed Trump that he intended to certify the results. This had taken (1) off the table before the join session even began in the eyes of senior White House leadership.
This meant that (2) was the only option left to prevent Joe Biden from becoming the president elect on Jan 6. Delaying the counting of the vote certificates represented a sort of buffer overflow attach on the electoral process: The Jan 6 certification is the last step in the process, there's nothing on the books about what to do if that isn't finalized on Jan 6. Hence the mob. The hope was that the mob would cause so much disruptions that the entire Congress and VP would be sent to safe locations. At this point, the entire government would be in extraconstitutional territory (a sort of buffer overflow for democracy), where a raw exercise of power cannot be put in check by laws (none are written to cover this scenario). In such a situation, the winner is usually who can convince the most people with the most power to go along with their version of events. It's lucky we didn't get there, because all it would have taken would be the right group of a few people to decide to overturn the decision of the democratic process in favor of their preferred electoral outcome.
Think of it this way:
On Jan 7, 2021, the Constitution prescribed that Joe Biden was to have been certified President Elect of the United States the day before. If on the morning of Jan 7 he wasn't President Elect, that would have represented a step away from the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law. Maybe the country can step back in line with the Constitution after that, but maybe not. Maybe it takes one further step. And another. How many steps away from the Constitutional order does it take before it's impossible to come back?
>The coup plot has been confessed to already
Can you explain why we're calling this a coup when nobody has been charged with anything related to a coup/insurrection/treason etc?
You wrote a huge text wall as if that helps your point, but missed the most obvious - nobody in the Department of Justice actually thinks there was a coup attempt.
Can you explain why we're calling this a coup when nobody has been charged with anything related to a coup/insurrection/treason etc?
You wrote a huge text wall as if that helps your point, but missed the most obvious - nobody in the Department of Justice actually thinks there was a coup attempt.
I am not sure if you are still monitoring these replies, but if you are I would just like to bring to your attention this development from today, which speaks directly to your assertion that DoJ does not view Jan 6 as an insurrection:
Jan 6 is an ongoing story, it’s developing in real time. DoJ is working up the chain of command. They’ve been working on the rubes and foot soldiers for the past year. Now they are going after lieutenants with seditious conspiracy charges. Once those charges start sticking (and they will) the DoJ will go after the generals of the Jan 6 insurrection.
Stewart Rhodes — founder and leader of the extremist group Oath Keepers, whose members are accused of being key players in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress — has been indicted and arrested, people familiar with the matter said Thursday.
The 56-year-old, who was at the Capitol that day but has said he did not enter the building, is the most high-profile person charged in the investigation so far. He and 10 others were charged with seditious conspiracy, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Jan 6 is an ongoing story, it’s developing in real time. DoJ is working up the chain of command. They’ve been working on the rubes and foot soldiers for the past year. Now they are going after lieutenants with seditious conspiracy charges. Once those charges start sticking (and they will) the DoJ will go after the generals of the Jan 6 insurrection.
If someone tells you they have a plan to affect a fraud which would prevent the transfer of power from the duly-elected executive and instead divert that power to someone else, what word would you use to describe this plan?
Also, you can't assert that no one at DOJ thinks this is a coup attempt. All you can assert is that no one at DOJ has said so publicly, which is not a very strong evidence of anything, since that's how they operate in a general sense. It takes a long time to bring charges for anything at the federal level, and this particular charge needs to be more airtight than anything they've ever charged in the past. It may also be that they are afraid of looking partisan in doing so, and are waiting for a referral from the bipartisan Jan 6 committee.
Also, you can't assert that no one at DOJ thinks this is a coup attempt. All you can assert is that no one at DOJ has said so publicly, which is not a very strong evidence of anything, since that's how they operate in a general sense. It takes a long time to bring charges for anything at the federal level, and this particular charge needs to be more airtight than anything they've ever charged in the past. It may also be that they are afraid of looking partisan in doing so, and are waiting for a referral from the bipartisan Jan 6 committee.
Where? Where is this uptick? Unorganized lone wolf shooters belonging to no particular ideological movement or group, who haven't made an appearance since the start of the pandemic? How many bombings have there been? Where are the political murders? Hostage crises?
Or is this a response to nationwide, coordinated BLM rioting and violence? Unlikely given the messaging over organized "white supremacist" terrorism which, somehow, has yet to materialize, beyond its use as a political cudgel...
Or is this a response to nationwide, coordinated BLM rioting and violence? Unlikely given the messaging over organized "white supremacist" terrorism which, somehow, has yet to materialize, beyond its use as a political cudgel...
Yet to materialize? You should pay closer attention. A straight line is drawn between inflammatory rhetoric and radicalization of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
There's been a huge uptick in white supremacist terrorism in the US since 2015.
Charleston church shooting (2015)
Charlottesville car attack (2017)
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018)
Escondido mosque fire and Poway synagogue shooting (2019)
El Paso Walmart shooting (2019)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
There's been a huge uptick in white supremacist terrorism in the US since 2015.
Charleston church shooting (2015)
Charlottesville car attack (2017)
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (2018)
Escondido mosque fire and Poway synagogue shooting (2019)
El Paso Walmart shooting (2019)
Those are exactly the events I was referencing. None of those were organized, coordinated, or affiliated with any particular ideology. What exactly is a task force going to do to stop such random attacks beyond entrapment?
Just because terrorism is stochastic doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. The mustache twirling villains don't exist and if they do they're not breaking laws, just adjusting mindshare.
What could go wrong
The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well.
...
...
Please don't post unsubstantive comments. I'm not saying you're wrong, but leads to tedious, dumbed down threads, and usually flamewars.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I disagree with the characterization of this user's comment as unsubstantive.
It's a divisive topic and the comment is adding almost zero information plus a bunch of snark. That's not what we want here. (This has nothing to do with who one agrees or disagrees with on the topic.)
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Same
Fair enough.
> The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well.
Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past.
After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it.
* https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit...
* https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history...
* https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...
Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past.
After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it.
* https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit...
* https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history...
* https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...
Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia?
How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.
How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.
> Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia?
If they are participating in domestic terrorism, which is defined as (18 USC § 2331(5))
> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
I'm not aware of (m)any active (far-)left militias in recent years, though in the past there were some, e.g.:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
If they are participating in domestic terrorism, which is defined as (18 USC § 2331(5))
> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
I'm not aware of (m)any active (far-)left militias in recent years, though in the past there were some, e.g.:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
Every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Most military age males are in a militia.
>Every state has laws
Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Most military age males are in a militia.
>Every state has laws
Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?
You're totally taking that section of USC out of context. It specifies only the criteria for membership in an organized or unorganized militia. What either is allowed to do is determined by state constitutions and laws. As already noted, every state has significant restrictions on those actions. For example, here's some information on those laws in my own state of Massachusetts.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Some choice quotes:
===
Massachusetts Constitution: The Massachusetts Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority, providing that “the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.
Massachusetts Statutes – Prohibition on private military units: Massachusetts law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state. ... Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 33 §§ 1, 130–31.
===
Phrases like "exact subordination" and "permission of the state" are not just window dressing. They're legally binding. You might consider yourself a member of such a militia, but to operate as such - notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
As the above document also mentions, every state has similar restrictions. They might differ in details, but the message is the same: without state or federal command, your "sovereign militia" can do no more than cosplay (and sometimes not even that) without getting into legal trouble.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Some choice quotes:
===
Massachusetts Constitution: The Massachusetts Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority, providing that “the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.
Massachusetts Statutes – Prohibition on private military units: Massachusetts law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state. ... Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 33 §§ 1, 130–31.
===
Phrases like "exact subordination" and "permission of the state" are not just window dressing. They're legally binding. You might consider yourself a member of such a militia, but to operate as such - notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
As the above document also mentions, every state has similar restrictions. They might differ in details, but the message is the same: without state or federal command, your "sovereign militia" can do no more than cosplay (and sometimes not even that) without getting into legal trouble.
It's not just telling you the criteria for membership, it's telling you who's in it. Again, most military age male citizens of US are in a militia, whether you like it or not.
>You might consider yourself a member of such a militia
You can consider yourself in or out the militia or not. That doesn't make it fact, from a legal perspective. For government's purposes though I would use government's law, which tells us able-bodied military age males, generally, are in a militia.
> notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
Um, the thread we're both replying to was about 'every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia.' You're arguing about something entirely different here, that is about state laws (not under purview of DoJ) that limit uses of militia.
>You might consider yourself a member of such a militia
You can consider yourself in or out the militia or not. That doesn't make it fact, from a legal perspective. For government's purposes though I would use government's law, which tells us able-bodied military age males, generally, are in a militia.
> notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
Um, the thread we're both replying to was about 'every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia.' You're arguing about something entirely different here, that is about state laws (not under purview of DoJ) that limit uses of militia.
> It's not just telling you the criteria for membership, it's telling you who's in it
Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.
> You're arguing about something entirely different here
No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.
> You're arguing about something entirely different here
No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
>Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.
Yes there is. If the criteria for membership in a club is that you have to be an able bodied male, that doesn't mean every able bodied male is a member of the club. It means an able bodied male could potentially choose to join the club. The US Code says they're in the club whether they want to or not.
>No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
My point was never that a militia could perform same actions as military or law enforcement, YOU were the one who moved the goalposts. You didn't prove jack shit wrong.
Yes there is. If the criteria for membership in a club is that you have to be an able bodied male, that doesn't mean every able bodied male is a member of the club. It means an able bodied male could potentially choose to join the club. The US Code says they're in the club whether they want to or not.
>No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
My point was never that a militia could perform same actions as military or law enforcement, YOU were the one who moved the goalposts. You didn't prove jack shit wrong.
> This report identifies, for each of the 50 states, the constitutional and statutory provisions relevant to paramilitary and private militia activity. Importantly, each state has at least one constitutional or statutory provision that applies to the type of paramilitary and private militia activity that may arise at future rallies similar to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.
> ICAP has categorized the relevant state laws into four groups: (1) constitutional provisions requiring the subordination of the military to civilian authorities; (2) statutes restricting unauthorized private militia activity; (3) anti-paramilitary-activity criminal laws; and (4) prohibitions on the false assumption of the uniform or duties of a peace officer or member of the military. The report describes these categories in more detail below and notes which states have statutes or constitutional provisions falling into each category. Following that summary is a chart listing each state’s relevant provisions, and finally each constitutional or statutory provision in full, organized by state. The chart also includes annotations of relevant case law.
* https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
> ICAP has categorized the relevant state laws into four groups: (1) constitutional provisions requiring the subordination of the military to civilian authorities; (2) statutes restricting unauthorized private militia activity; (3) anti-paramilitary-activity criminal laws; and (4) prohibitions on the false assumption of the uniform or duties of a peace officer or member of the military. The report describes these categories in more detail below and notes which states have statutes or constitutional provisions falling into each category. Following that summary is a chart listing each state’s relevant provisions, and finally each constitutional or statutory provision in full, organized by state. The chart also includes annotations of relevant case law.
* https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Interesting read, thanks. It thoroughly discredits lokar's claim.
The paper you say just say the law prohibits militias "from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. Some, including California, also prohibit paramilitary activity during or in furtherance of a civil disorder."
Then it goes on to cite the California misdemeanor for doing so, in state law.
Why would DoJ (feds) be investigating misdemeanor state law in California?
Then it goes on to cite the California misdemeanor for doing so, in state law.
Why would DoJ (feds) be investigating misdemeanor state law in California?
I did not mean to imply they should. Rather to refute the common view that self organized private militias are allowed or even somehow encouraged and have some kind of official status.
The source provided by throw0101a shows that 21 states allow organization of private military unit without any authorization of state government at all. The 'common view' that they are 'allowed' seems to be rooted in reality.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
[deleted]
[deleted]
To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that often have barely functioning or extremely corrupt governments.
> To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that
To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created
To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created
Wonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.
It’s a self sustaining bureaucracy that is disconnected from any particular administration. Administrations will, of course, set a particular tone.
The DoJ is in federal executive branch. President is top of chain-of-command of executive branch. In fact, the constitution itself [0] states the [federal] executive power is vested in the president. Disconnect is probably not an accurate word to describe the relationship between DoJ and President.
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...
True but the president can’t fire the whole department and hire a new one. They have enough trouble when the want to fire the USAG if the other party doesn’t want to see change.
You don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.
The legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.
Right, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.
So there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch.
The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.
The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.
Pedantic arguments aside, congress does all of that too.
> The executive branch conducts investigations,
>> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate.
> issues subpoenas
>> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt."
> certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt
>> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code.
> others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court
>> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote.
https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...
> The executive branch conducts investigations,
>> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate.
> issues subpoenas
>> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt."
> certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt
>> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code.
> others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court
>> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote.
https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...
Yes, Congress does issue subpoenas and conduct investigations as stated in your original post and I didn't disagree with you on this point, but you also claimed that the "presidential branch" doesn't do these things. The main point of my reply is that the executive branch does do those things also.
What are you implying with this comment?
That this is essentially a low-key Stasi that can and will be used to improperly go after political dissidents under the guise of "domestic terrorism."
The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule.
NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).
The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule.
NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).
You're implying that democrats are doing all this PsyOps preparing to rule the country indefinitely? From where I sit, democrats are lame ducks who are set to get swept in 22 and 24.
No. The whole Democrat vs Republican thing is itself a psyop to drive the country apart (divide and conquer). It's about normalization of single-party rule in general. The end goal being willful acceptance of global governance. The public face of that, typically, is someone who is a democrat but there are plenty of republicans (neocons) in on it, too.
This new unit is just a way to flush out the straggler dissidents who will get in the way.
This new unit is just a way to flush out the straggler dissidents who will get in the way.
I don't believe that. It would take too much work to have a coverup like that, especially as total nitwits are elected to congress constantly. To address that, you'd have to say that no, people are divided into two camps with an infinite chasm between them: the ones in the know, and the total idiots. The far more plausible and minimal explanation is that it's a complex power balance that can tip unpredictably.
You're overthinking it. You can have a few in the know coordinating the direction while the eager idiots follow. It's happened time and time again throughout history.
Have fun, Alice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ&list=WL&index=1
According to that lady, the Mexican drug war is an American psyop, and US Marines are the ones running the drug flow into the US.
The CIA was running cocaine in Nicaragua [1]. It's not that far fetched.
https://archive.is/uFSlR
https://archive.is/uFSlR
[deleted]
Administrations change and you better be ok with future executives inheriting powers that you create.
One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.
One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.
I think he is implying it may be used on political enemies or just generally for discretionary prosecution that disproportionately targets those who fall out of favor with the powerful.
[deleted]
Huh?
rib3ye(2)
Good. Between insurrections in DC, women's clinics burning down, church fires, etc., etc., etc., we need a federal-level team coordinating efforts against this stuff.
Hopefully they will start with the domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The federal government executed a search warrant on the Branch Dravidian compound. It was a legally executed warrant and 4 government agents were killed in a gun battle. After this the FBI surrounded the compound for 51 days before using tear gas to storm the compound. A fire started (possibly due to FBI incompetence) and a lot of people died. This does not qualify as domestic terrorism. If a government can’t enforce a search warrant then it’s pretty much useless.
It’s weird to use Waco and not a multitude of other legitimate examples of government law enforcement overreach. At any rate, none of those would qualify for the label “domestic terrorism” in the strict sense of the word but would suffice for a broader point you might be trying to make. To wit, are there adequate checks on the abuse of police power. The answer is no and one group that tried to bring up this issue, ironically given your apparent political leaning, is BLM. Police in the U.S. regularly mete out non judicial punishments and there are virtually no real checks against this.
The common ground, perhaps, that we share is that government overreach and abuse of police powers ought to be addressed in a meaningful way before expanding police powers or creating new investigative units. Especially when the charge is to stop domestic terrorism. That phrase can be twisted and abused in a such a manner that a non violent advocate like Martin Luther King could be labeled a domestic terrorist.
It’s weird to use Waco and not a multitude of other legitimate examples of government law enforcement overreach. At any rate, none of those would qualify for the label “domestic terrorism” in the strict sense of the word but would suffice for a broader point you might be trying to make. To wit, are there adequate checks on the abuse of police power. The answer is no and one group that tried to bring up this issue, ironically given your apparent political leaning, is BLM. Police in the U.S. regularly mete out non judicial punishments and there are virtually no real checks against this.
The common ground, perhaps, that we share is that government overreach and abuse of police powers ought to be addressed in a meaningful way before expanding police powers or creating new investigative units. Especially when the charge is to stop domestic terrorism. That phrase can be twisted and abused in a such a manner that a non violent advocate like Martin Luther King could be labeled a domestic terrorist.
Agreed on the common ground.
>'The answer is no and one group that tried to bring up this issue, ironically given your apparent political leaning, is BLM'
Is this supposed to be some smear at me suggesting I don't believe many very real claims that have been made by black demographic regarding police abuse? What do you even mean by this being ironic?
>The federal government executed a search warrant on the Branch Dravidian compound
That's the most charitable view I think I've ever heard described defending what happened at Waco. You believe what happened was 'legally executed'? Or that those killed were legally executed? I'm not sure if number of people who died means anything in terms of who was right and who was wrong, but it's pretty telling you mention the 4 government agents that died by number but don't number the 25 dead children (mostly burned alive) and 2 pregnant women. This all after Koresh could have just been grabbed peacefully outside the compound rather than in a standoff. Afterwords agents POSED over the rubble and dead bodies.
But a few paragraphs of us describing Waco isn't going to do justice to ourselves or fellow HNers, so please the few of you who haven't read about it please study and make your own decision.
Lastly: I didn't say Waco had to be interpreted by the reader as 'domestic terrorism', I said they (DoJ) should start with the 'domestic terrorism organization' that carried it out. Do you understand the difference? You can decide for yourself what agency or body(ies) that applies to.
>'The answer is no and one group that tried to bring up this issue, ironically given your apparent political leaning, is BLM'
Is this supposed to be some smear at me suggesting I don't believe many very real claims that have been made by black demographic regarding police abuse? What do you even mean by this being ironic?
>The federal government executed a search warrant on the Branch Dravidian compound
That's the most charitable view I think I've ever heard described defending what happened at Waco. You believe what happened was 'legally executed'? Or that those killed were legally executed? I'm not sure if number of people who died means anything in terms of who was right and who was wrong, but it's pretty telling you mention the 4 government agents that died by number but don't number the 25 dead children (mostly burned alive) and 2 pregnant women. This all after Koresh could have just been grabbed peacefully outside the compound rather than in a standoff. Afterwords agents POSED over the rubble and dead bodies.
But a few paragraphs of us describing Waco isn't going to do justice to ourselves or fellow HNers, so please the few of you who haven't read about it please study and make your own decision.
Lastly: I didn't say Waco had to be interpreted by the reader as 'domestic terrorism', I said they (DoJ) should start with the 'domestic terrorism organization' that carried it out. Do you understand the difference? You can decide for yourself what agency or body(ies) that applies to.
I’ll rephrase to clear misunderstandings. A legal warrant was obtained and federal agents attempted to exercise that warrant. Whilst attempting to carry out the warrant a gun battle ensued in which 4 federal agents were killed and 7 or so members of the cult were killed. After 51 days federal agents stormed the compound and quite a few people including children died.
All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult. Nothing they did was moral or justifiable. A government should have the power to exercise legally obtained warrants. Otherwise it is a useless government.
All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult. Nothing they did was moral or justifiable. A government should have the power to exercise legally obtained warrants. Otherwise it is a useless government.
>I’ll rephrase to clear misunderstandings. A legal warrant was obtained and federal agents attempted to exercise that warrant. Whilst attempting to carry out the warrant a gun battle ensued in which 4 federal agents were killed and 7 or so members of the cult were killed. After 51 days federal agents stormed the compound and quite a few people including children died.
I take this as basically accurate.
>All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult. Nothing they did was moral or justifiable. A government should have the power to exercise legally obtained warrants. Otherwise it is a useless government.
You make a lot of presumptions about what I've said about Waco. ALL I said was DoJ should start with the 'domestic terror organization' that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I said nothing about morality, whether the WARRANT was justified, or even who the blame for Waco rests on.
This is starting to look like your own rabbit-hole we're going down where you think something you say about who is to blame at Waco discredits the ONLY assertion I made about Waco (which was civilians were fired upon.) It's starting to look like your own personal vendetta, one I'm very confused of the reason behind.
>All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult.
Even I don't have this level of confidence as to what proportion of blame to assign to who at Waco. The fact that you've reached such confidence about an event where we still lack full accuracy of details, is one of the most stunning and clear cases of Dunning-Kruger-esque effect I've seen on HN.
Regarding a useless government? Nah I think the government can still maintain functional ability to execute a search warrant without executing in in the way the fatal siege was executed in Waco.
I take this as basically accurate.
>All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult. Nothing they did was moral or justifiable. A government should have the power to exercise legally obtained warrants. Otherwise it is a useless government.
You make a lot of presumptions about what I've said about Waco. ALL I said was DoJ should start with the 'domestic terror organization' that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I said nothing about morality, whether the WARRANT was justified, or even who the blame for Waco rests on.
This is starting to look like your own rabbit-hole we're going down where you think something you say about who is to blame at Waco discredits the ONLY assertion I made about Waco (which was civilians were fired upon.) It's starting to look like your own personal vendetta, one I'm very confused of the reason behind.
>All of the blame rests on the people in charge of the cult.
Even I don't have this level of confidence as to what proportion of blame to assign to who at Waco. The fact that you've reached such confidence about an event where we still lack full accuracy of details, is one of the most stunning and clear cases of Dunning-Kruger-esque effect I've seen on HN.
Regarding a useless government? Nah I think the government can still maintain functional ability to execute a search warrant without executing in in the way the fatal siege was executed in Waco.
Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given. I’m not making assumptions on what you’ve said in this regard. I’m explaining why I think using “domestic terror organization” with regard to Waco is not justified.
It is incorrect in my opinion to use Waco as an example of a law enforcement agency being in any way comparable to a domestic terror organization.
Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges.
It is incorrect in my opinion to use Waco as an example of a law enforcement agency being in any way comparable to a domestic terror organization.
Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges.
>Dunning-Kruger has nothing to do with this exchange. That effect is an observation that less intelligent people tend to overrate their abilities more than higher intelligent people. I’ve not rated my abilities at all in any of these exchanges.
False again. Dunning-Kruger is not about intelligence. It is about 'the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.' If you're saying you don't assign yourself any ability to determine if someone was to blame, then I guess you're also saying your claim of 'all the blame' being with the cult leaders to merely be a meaningless statement made by someone devoid of any confidence in their ability to make it.
"Dunning-Kruger-esque": I'm referring to the limited ability we have to know what actually happened at Waco, which you then parley into the ability to outright assign that you have the ability to know where ALL the blame lies for what happened at Waco.
>Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given.
How many times must I repeat myself? I said DoJ should start with 'the domestic terror agency that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge.' Again, where are you pointing out that I said that I was calling them domestic terrorists BECAUSE of Waco? We've belabored this straw-man over again, it's not what I said.
False again. Dunning-Kruger is not about intelligence. It is about 'the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.' If you're saying you don't assign yourself any ability to determine if someone was to blame, then I guess you're also saying your claim of 'all the blame' being with the cult leaders to merely be a meaningless statement made by someone devoid of any confidence in their ability to make it.
"Dunning-Kruger-esque": I'm referring to the limited ability we have to know what actually happened at Waco, which you then parley into the ability to outright assign that you have the ability to know where ALL the blame lies for what happened at Waco.
>Calling a federal law enforcement agency a domestic terror agency over Waco is precisely what I’m objecting to for the reasons I’ve given.
How many times must I repeat myself? I said DoJ should start with 'the domestic terror agency that fired upon civilians at Waco and Ruby Ridge.' Again, where are you pointing out that I said that I was calling them domestic terrorists BECAUSE of Waco? We've belabored this straw-man over again, it's not what I said.
I haven’t judged my abilities or rated them in our exchange and therefore Dunning-Kruger does not apply. You can’t know by how much I overrate myself or under rate myself; I’m just giving opinions. Just like you are giving an opinion about some federal law enforcement agencies being domestic terror organizations. This opinion of yours does not mean you think you are an expert or that you are overrating yourself. I could make the same baseless Dunning-Kruger accusation about you but I don’t because I actually understand that this cognitive bias pertains perceptions of oneself’s abilities and neither of us have made any self observations in our respective abilities.
If you don’t believe Waco makes the law enforcement agencies in question domestic terror organizations then why bring up Waco? What is it that causes those agencies to be domestic terror organizations and why not give those reasons instead of bringing up Waco? These are rhetorical questions by the way.
If you don’t believe Waco makes the law enforcement agencies in question domestic terror organizations then why bring up Waco? What is it that causes those agencies to be domestic terror organizations and why not give those reasons instead of bringing up Waco? These are rhetorical questions by the way.
>I haven’t judged my abilities
So you just went off spouting all the blame lied on the 'cult' [or leaders thereof] without even bothering to make the slightest judgement whether you had the ability to say that.
I didn't expect such a stunning admission, but at least we got the truth.
So you just went off spouting all the blame lied on the 'cult' [or leaders thereof] without even bothering to make the slightest judgement whether you had the ability to say that.
I didn't expect such a stunning admission, but at least we got the truth.
You stated an opinion about some law enforcement agencies being domestic terrorist organizations. You did not up this assertion. You provided no evidence other than to mention Waco. Was this opinion of yours, the certainty with which you made it, an example of Dunning-Kruger? If not then when is my stated opinion that federal agencies deserve no blame for Waco such an example?
It’s strange that you don’t see how your reasoning about Dunning-Kruger applies to what you’ve written. You should strive to be consistent in your reasoning and apply it to your own arguments. It’s sloppy thinking to engage thusly.
It’s strange that you don’t see how your reasoning about Dunning-Kruger applies to what you’ve written. You should strive to be consistent in your reasoning and apply it to your own arguments. It’s sloppy thinking to engage thusly.
Well you admitted that you didn't assess your ability to make the statement. That you basically just spouted it off without thinking if you had the ability to say it truthfully: 'I haven’t judged my abilities.' So I agree, that isn't Dunning-Kruger on your part, just sloppy thinking. I withdraw the Dunning-Kruger statement based on your admission.
I think we have way more information about the government and these agencies when looking at our national history, than just looking at single event Waco. With much more information, we have higher ability to make a statement. This is precisely why I did not say BECAUSE of Waco.
But sure, Dunning-Kruger is merely observation of human trait, and not a sin at face. I think it's a lot more forgivable merely to actually over-estimate yourself after genuinely attempting to do so accurately. If I'm guilty of over-estimating my ability to think DoJ should investigate domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians at Waco, that can be your opinion. More forgivable than straight up not even assessing if you have ability to truthfully assign ALL of blame for dozens of horrible deaths with members of 'cult', but making the accusation anyway, which you have so sloppily done.
I think we have way more information about the government and these agencies when looking at our national history, than just looking at single event Waco. With much more information, we have higher ability to make a statement. This is precisely why I did not say BECAUSE of Waco.
But sure, Dunning-Kruger is merely observation of human trait, and not a sin at face. I think it's a lot more forgivable merely to actually over-estimate yourself after genuinely attempting to do so accurately. If I'm guilty of over-estimating my ability to think DoJ should investigate domestic terrorist organization that fired upon civilians at Waco, that can be your opinion. More forgivable than straight up not even assessing if you have ability to truthfully assign ALL of blame for dozens of horrible deaths with members of 'cult', but making the accusation anyway, which you have so sloppily done.
They tried to give Chipman a top-level position. This indicates the target of this new regime is after.
My only confusion is that I believed that they surely must have had a domestic counterterrorism unit previously?
I mean if they didn't, what are we paying them for?
No wonder Walmarts, schools and places of worship are getting shot up.
I guess it's good they created one now, but if they didn't have a unit with dedicated resources on the domestic terrorism problem previously, it really does demonstrate a lack of military sense.
I mean if they didn't, what are we paying them for?
No wonder Walmarts, schools and places of worship are getting shot up.
I guess it's good they created one now, but if they didn't have a unit with dedicated resources on the domestic terrorism problem previously, it really does demonstrate a lack of military sense.
I'm certain the US government had more than one of these units prior to this announcement. I sense this is probably more of an organizational realignment more than anything else, kind of like how "The Space Force" was created by carving out elements from the other branches, mainly the Air Force, and calling it something new.
DOJ has a National Security Division, headed by the Assistant Attorney General
for National Security. Within the DOJ National Security Division, there is a Counter-Terrorism Section, headed by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for Counter-Terrorism. The Counter-Terrorism Section deals with all cases of terrorism, whether international or domestic.
My interpretation of this story, is they are creating a dedicated team of people within the Counter-Terrorism Section to handle "domestic" terrorism, rather than having the same team(s) handle a mixture of "international" and "domestic" cases.
It really is a nothing story. It is nothing like the Space Force – that involved a major legal change in the high-level military structure, changing reporting lines for senior officials (the Air Force's space head was elevated to membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), this seems to just involve a change in the internal team structure of an existing government office (a section of a division of a department). They just want to make it sound like they are doing something.
How do you decide what is "international" and what is "domestic" terrorism anyway? If someone is recruited by Islamic State to commit a terrorist attack, that's international. But if some lone wolf radicalises themselves by spending hours a day watching Islamic State propaganda videos, and that inspires them to commit a terrorist attack – is that "international" or "domestic"? And how is that different from if the lone wolf had spent hours a day watching QAnon videos instead?
My interpretation of this story, is they are creating a dedicated team of people within the Counter-Terrorism Section to handle "domestic" terrorism, rather than having the same team(s) handle a mixture of "international" and "domestic" cases.
It really is a nothing story. It is nothing like the Space Force – that involved a major legal change in the high-level military structure, changing reporting lines for senior officials (the Air Force's space head was elevated to membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), this seems to just involve a change in the internal team structure of an existing government office (a section of a division of a department). They just want to make it sound like they are doing something.
How do you decide what is "international" and what is "domestic" terrorism anyway? If someone is recruited by Islamic State to commit a terrorist attack, that's international. But if some lone wolf radicalises themselves by spending hours a day watching Islamic State propaganda videos, and that inspires them to commit a terrorist attack – is that "international" or "domestic"? And how is that different from if the lone wolf had spent hours a day watching QAnon videos instead?
> it really does demonstrate a lack of military sense.
The US military is forbidden from domestic enforcement action, except in certain circumstances. Google "posse commitatus" for details.
The US military is forbidden from domestic enforcement action, except in certain circumstances. Google "posse commitatus" for details.
> The US military is forbidden from domestic enforcement action, except in certain circumstances. Google "posse commitatus" for details.
Kind of. The Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply to the Navy. However, the DoD and/or the DoN has regulations that align with the Posse Comitatus Act. So it's not the military as a whole which is forbidden, just part of it, and the other part can change their own rules to allow it.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Kind of. The Posse Comitatus Act doesn't apply to the Navy. However, the DoD and/or the DoN has regulations that align with the Posse Comitatus Act. So it's not the military as a whole which is forbidden, just part of it, and the other part can change their own rules to allow it.
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Wow, thanks, I appreciate the correction. Very much not my area, but I had no idea.
Military sense is a general term. A homeowner can use military sense in setting up his home security for instance. Intelligence and nation state level security organizations can also have military sense.
The term scales. There are many, many lessons learned in the service that have application to the civilian world. If those lessons will be received by the learners.
The term scales. There are many, many lessons learned in the service that have application to the civilian world. If those lessons will be received by the learners.
The DoJ maybe didn’t but homeland security, FBI, CIA, NSA etc certainly did
You say that, but then imagine "the other side" calling BLM protests, etc as domestic terrorists and same feds go after them.
Yes. Leftist activists tend to be pretty unenthusiastic about this stuff because any new tools, powers, or resources will be turned on us eventually.
Shit just in the last few years we've had pipeline protestors charged with domestic terrorism, BLM protestors facing gang enhancement felony charges for property damage (paint not arson if that matters).
It's good that the government is ready to back down its stance of "ignore extremist violence as long as they call themselves patriots" but I don't want to find out what the tucker carlson administration would do with a domestic terrorism task force ya know?
Shit just in the last few years we've had pipeline protestors charged with domestic terrorism, BLM protestors facing gang enhancement felony charges for property damage (paint not arson if that matters).
It's good that the government is ready to back down its stance of "ignore extremist violence as long as they call themselves patriots" but I don't want to find out what the tucker carlson administration would do with a domestic terrorism task force ya know?
That happened. They sent white vans to pick people up in Portland... https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
The FBI has a long history of going after leftist groups. In recent memory: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-...
This sounds like it's creating a central function instead of leaving it to regional JTTFs.
This sounds like it's creating a central function instead of leaving it to regional JTTFs.
So we should never investigate partisan criminals because someday "the other side" might do the same.
That leads to the situation where any violence is allowed, and I don't want to live in that society.
That leads to the situation where any violence is allowed, and I don't want to live in that society.
I think the commenter was just trying to even the political playing field.
The threat list you provided seemed like it was from someone left-leaning. It did not mention the commonly-occurring mayhem, riots, vandalism, and arson coming from people describing themselves as affiliated with Leftist organizations (sorry, I cannot find better wording here. I am not trying to sound partisan here.)
The threat list you provided seemed like it was from someone left-leaning. It did not mention the commonly-occurring mayhem, riots, vandalism, and arson coming from people describing themselves as affiliated with Leftist organizations (sorry, I cannot find better wording here. I am not trying to sound partisan here.)
They are being investigated now by law enforcement without this special unit.
I won't be surprised one little bit if this happens.
How can they form a new unit when Washington is trashed, but stand by when inner city neighborhoods are set afire? History wouldn't judge that kindly.
How can they form a new unit when Washington is trashed, but stand by when inner city neighborhoods are set afire? History wouldn't judge that kindly.
Brought by the same people who supported the destruction of entire city centers last year.
I live a couple blocks from CHOP/CHAZ. There was no destruction. I got my haircut every couple weeks at a business inside CHOP. Everything was and still is entirely normal.
I’m assuming you are referring to BLM and those who support them. I don’t know of anyone who supported the destruction of entire city centers. One person convicted of burning a building down in Minneapolis was not from Minneapolis and was a right wing supporter. I do know that people felt that police abuses had gone too far and with impunity. In places like Minneapolis police no longer had the consent of the governed. Quoting the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Perhaps you view the protestors as terrorists but I suggest this is a twisting of that term. I do not embrace a domestic office of terrorism for the same reason that I oppose the Department of Homeland security. We Americans have become a divided people wallowing in fear of those fellow countryman who adhere to the wrong ideology. It is too easy for a demagogue to usurp the normal functioning of the law enforcement to go after “domestic terrorism”. Too many people will willingly support the infringement of the rights of those with the wrong ideology.
One thing we should all agree with is that major police reforms are badly needed.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Perhaps you view the protestors as terrorists but I suggest this is a twisting of that term. I do not embrace a domestic office of terrorism for the same reason that I oppose the Department of Homeland security. We Americans have become a divided people wallowing in fear of those fellow countryman who adhere to the wrong ideology. It is too easy for a demagogue to usurp the normal functioning of the law enforcement to go after “domestic terrorism”. Too many people will willingly support the infringement of the rights of those with the wrong ideology.
One thing we should all agree with is that major police reforms are badly needed.
This type of mentality is what lead to forever wars in the Middle East. How about we don't establish organizations that will likely be used to infringe on the rights of innocents?
You can say a lot of things about the Jan 6 rioters. But you can't call them terrorists. They didn't go after civilians. They went straight at the government.
[deleted]
Terrorist - an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion
Terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
They were exactly terrorists. Also, insurrectionists...
Terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
They were exactly terrorists. Also, insurrectionists...
Any attack involves fear. The soldiers at Pearl harbor were probably terrified. Doesn't make it a terrorist attack.
orang2tang(1)
I guess they weren’t insurrectionists either, as no one has been charged with that crime.
18237198371q(1)
18237198371q(6)
dilap(3)
kryogen1c(7)
Not a second too soon.
And honestly, where's the domestic terrorism? The closest thing I can think of was the Vegas shooting, not known to be ideologically motivated. Before that it was the Boston marathon, which was foreign nationals, before that 9/11, which was foreign actors. And before that, Oklahoma city...
January 6th? Really? Let's get real for a second on this one, partisans on the left claim this was terrorism when it wasn't and partisans on the right claim BLM protests are terrorism when they aren't. These are all protests that got a little out of hand. Do we really want a task force to deal with rowdy protests and prosecute them the same as the Boston bomber? What kind of country do you want to live in?