In terms of physical intrusion, a tremendous amount of security theater was exposed today. Quite astonishing how easily people were able to gain access.
I recently watched the movie Olympus Has Fallen. We were just wanting a dumb action movie to pass the time. The North Korean terrorists just basically walked in and took the White House. We were like, how stupid is that, no way that could really happen. And here today, we literally saw it happen. People took over one of our nation’s most important buildings with extremely high level people in it without a sweat, without resistance, and basically without repercussions. I remarked today to my family that I bet Russians and North Koreans were watching going, wait, we can just walk in? Of course they couldn’t because they aren’t white “Americans”. And all of this really paints a nasty picture of what happened today. It was a soup of treason, violence, white privilege, disgrace, sadness, and weakness.
I mean, a bomb on the grounds was found and detonated by a bomb squad and people were still allowed to stay on the premises. I really could not believe how they could just take over the place. I even saw a video where police actually just opened the gates for them.
The total strength of government building security in DC is around 2 battaglions.
You think there is nobody who can bring 2000-3000 people to the rifle, and numerically overwhelm them? And it seems that not insubstantial numbers of DC security personnel did simply desert their posts.
Commando paratroopers with heavy weapons, and moreover armour will leave no chances for a regular army unit, let alone civilian police.
I expect (given the consequences of allowing them in and prior use of lethal force against demonstrations by Americans in America) the security personnel to be ready, willing, and able to use lethal force to keep armed protestors out, even if the doors were open.
I expect the doors to be strong enough to withstand anything short of an RPG.
I do not expect security personnel to desert their posts in their own capital city.
Surely that was out of concern for their own safety (to retreat can be a valid strategy) and / or not willing to open fire on US civilians in such a symbolic place.
It's still a shame. I do wonder if there's something else they could have done. I don't know anything about how hard it is to stop a car.
The latter assumption is a serious mistake. Sure, the mob is not as well trained as professionals, but when you consider the number of vets with some military experience, the fairly large numbers of militia organizations which provide amateur levels of training in both virtual and real contexts, and the high availability of training materials (military manuals etc), it's smart to assume that any given mob will contain some people who know what they're doing and are able to direct others.
But DC has rather strict laws about firearms, so it was rational to rely on a swarming approach and then try to exploit the gains from that tactic. While the attempt to take over the capitol failed insofar as Congress reconvened to finish the process of counting electoral college votes, and many of the participants have been or are about to be arrested, the far right has scored an outstanding propaganda victory (complete with photogenic martyrs) at little real cost. I would say 2021 has got off to a spectacular start for them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1347277542588...
If your aim is to stage a putsch for real, you wouldn't be bothered by some gun laws, you would've gone all in.
But you make a good point; perhaps the plotters over-relied on shock value and ended up half-assing it, or perhaps there was no more plan other than stirring up disorder and hoping to capitalize on an emergency situation.
I'm pessimistic about the long-term implications; the far right gave up on the idea of a political solution some time ago and the less far right is now about ready to join them.
To me, it felt they were quite demoralised.
Obviously this is a developing situation. And the details don’t actually matter to my point. Clear and present evidence to commit acts of domestic terrorism was available, and people were still allowed to loiter and vandalize as they pleased.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/pipe-bomb-rnc...
It did show great weakness, but be careful drawing conclusions from this observation, such as a presumption of actual weakness.
As a commenter below notes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=25667558&goto=item%3Fi...
>> Per the capitol police website they have 2,600 officers and a budget of $460 million. It honestly just ... didn't look like they were trying very hard. They managed to arrest what, 14 people? Compare that to the BLM protests on the west coast where unmarked vans of feds were literally rolling up and black bagging people off the street. USCP is charged with protecting Congress, and I think members of congress should be thinking hard about whether the police were complicit in what happened today.
--
> We were just wanting a dumb action movie to pass the time. The North Korean terrorists just basically walked in and took the White House. We were like, how stupid is that, no way that could really happen. And here today, we literally saw it happen.
Technically, you did not see that happen - the people that walked in were not North Korean terrorists. This distinction may be important, or it may not.
> People took over one of our nation’s most important buildings with extremely high level people in it without a sweat, without resistance, and basically without repercussions. I remarked today to my family that I bet Russians and North Koreans were watching going, wait, we can just walk in?
I would bet my money that they're thinking something else entirely, something more along the lines of: Now isn't this an interesting development! What is the range of plausible explanations for this unusual and counter-intuitve series of events, that took place at one of the most strategic locations in America's capital, on a very special day, when large quantities of protesters were known (in advance) to be present, and violence was expected? Is this strange situation purely organic, or might something more interesting be going on?.
Thirty years ago I expect American journalists would be asking similar questions. Unfortunately, the only place you are likely to find such curiosity and diversity of thought in modern America is in conspiracy theory forums - but you know what they imply(!) (over, and over, and over) about them: "If they propose an idea, or explanation for something, it should be considered to be false".
> Of course they couldn’t because they aren’t white “Americans”. And all of this really paints a nasty picture of what happened today. It was a soup of treason, violence, white privilege, disgrace, sadness, and weakness.
Technically, this is just your heuristic prediction of what happened, and what it is. What really happened, what it really is, is unknown (to the general public).
> I really could not believe how they could just take over the place. I even saw a video where police actually just opened the gates for them.
I don't find it hard to believe at all. I don't even find it mildly surprising - but I do find it extremely interesting. So interesting that if any journalists bothered to look into it, I'd be tempted to read such articles to see what they come up with. I wonder if any such articles will be written, or if this remarkable phenomenon will be universally (by all major media outlets) attributed to "white privilege" or some such simplistic, evidence-free answer.
Let's see what CNN has to say about this performance:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-react...
In this article, we have observations that security was obviously lax despite it being "...known for weeks that President Donald Trump was promoting a rally he said was aimed at preventing the certification of Joe Biden's win."
What we do not have here, is anyone asking questions about why security was so lax.
FTA:
- Lawmakers say they are perplexed at the lack of preparedness among law enforcement given that it had been known for weeks that President Donald Trump was promoting a rally he said was aimed at preventing the certification of Joe Biden's win. Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat who was locked in the House chamber during an armed standoff between Capitol Police and a rioter, praised the officers who were in the building that put their lives on the line to protect the lawmakers. But Quigley made clear that they were outnumbered and law enforcement was under prepared. "The Capitol Police I was around did an amazing job under difficult circumstances," Quigley told CNN. "My concern wasn't with how valiant the Capitol Police were. It was that an hour before the debate started, I looked at the throngs of people surrounding different sections of the Capitol -- and said, we don't have enough security." Quigley added: "I'm no expert in security, but you can tell we were out-manned in an hour before the debate," referring to Congress' proceedings to certify Biden's win.
--
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/capitol-riots-what-h...
In this article we have more observations of unusual anomalies. And again, what we do not have here, is anyone asking questions about why security was so lax.
FTA:
- The chaotic federal response to the Trump rally Wednesday, which was overwhelmed by rioters who stormed the US Capitol, stood in sharp contrast to the heavily-armed presence of thousands of federal authorities during summer protests in Washington, DC, following the police killing of George Floyd.
- The law enforcement response that allowed a typically heavily secured federal landmark to fall under attack, with rioters breaking through windows and into lawmakers' offices and gathering places, came from a hesitant federal bureaucracy after early assurances from DC and Capitol law enforcement agencies. Agencies that had law enforcement that could help Wednesday waited to be asked. "It was a mess. Nobody was communicating. No one knew what we were supposed to be doing there," said one federal law enforcement officer who was dispatched to the Capitol.
- Justice Department officials were in charge of coordinating the federal agencies and US National Guard response ahead of President Donald Trump's rally near the Washington Monument. Some organizers publicly said they planned to conduct a "wild" march to Capitol Hill as the joint session of Congress met to certify President-elect Joe Biden as the next president. But agencies were waiting to be asked by other authorities to help -- even as Trump's election protest unraveled.
- "Law enforcement failed to understand what the likelihood of this threat was," CNN law enforcement analyst Jonathan Wackrow, a former USSS agent, said of the day's events, though "no one should be surprised that this was attempted," given Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani's comments at the rally earlier in the day that this should be a "trial by combat." "There should have been a wall of law enforcement," Wackrow said. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Alexei Woltornist said the agency was running a "virtual situation room" to track communication between agencies, but was "not tracking any active threats." US Customs and Border Protection, a law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security, had dozens of personnel prepared if needed.
- As for the Justice Department, acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen deployed more than 300 agents and officers from the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the US Marshals Service, to assist the Capitol Police. But the Capitol Police had already lost control. Some of those deployments came almost an hour after the mob put the Capitol into lockdown.
- "By the time the Capitol Police asked for help, the crowd was already inside the building," another federal law enforcement official said.
- After criticism from Washington, DC, municipal officials over the heavy-handed response during the summer Black Lives Matter protests, federal authorities had a visibly lighter presence for the Trump rally.
- Two federal law enforcement officials said Capitol Police assured Justice officials that they were prepared for the rally, particularly since the Capitol grounds are already barricaded in preparation for the Inauguration ceremonies in two weeks.
It's interesting though....it seems like such an obvious question, doesn't it? Shouldn't at least some journalists have this question?
Or, imagine a scenario where this took place at a business owned by anyone in this forum - wouldn't they be asking some questions about wtf happened? Yet when it is the US Capitol, most people have no curiosity.
To me, there are at least two interesting aspects to this. The first is the conspiracy theory aspect (why was security so lax), and then the psychological/neurological aspect (why do so few people who are highly skilled in logic have no curiosity)?
The US Congress of of great symbolic and relatively little actual importance. If the North Korean military walked in to the Senate and gunned down everyone in it the outcomes would roughly be: US loses ~80 corrupt leaches. US loses ~20 great people. Northern part of the Korean peninsula becomes a glassy wasteland inhabited by cockroaches.
Mobs of grumpy people routinely yell at US politicians, I've seen various protesters screaming politicians into a defensive corner. The BLM protests at the 2020 RNC convention jumps to mind as having scenes that were probably felt just as scary for the politicians involved (the treatment of Rand Paul jumped out at me as unpleasant). US citizens get to scream at their politicians an they frequently exercise that privilege. There isn't an obvious racial element to it.
Others disagree. Nearly half a billion was spent in total in the fight over the seat for Georgia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/us/politics/georgia-senat...
The institution of Congress is critical. But the specific people in it at any time are important because of how they got there/who supported them on the way in and not because of who they are. They could be replaced and it wouldn't be a big issue, technically speaking. Practically there'd be huge consequences for whoever was stupid enough to disrespect the US Congress.
The intent was partisan, to remove representatives of one side to change the result of votes.
> Practically there'd be huge consequences for whoever was stupid enough to disrespect the US Congress
A few people have been arrested. I don't expect many of them to serve prison time. Those who organised this, encouraged it, sold tshirts with "Civil War 6 Jan" on, will not experience any consequences. And don't forget the president can still pardon them.
Selling offensive t-shirts isn't even remotely close to a problem. I too doubt they will experience any consequences.
Hopefully the violent looters and lawbreakers in the protest get prosecuted. But there are recent precedents on this issue; most of the protesters will have been peaceful and shouldn't suffering consequences for exercising basic freedoms.
Interesting time to make this observation. Let’s see.
If North Korean terrorists were to execute 100 senators, you've already lost. Massacring a bunch of poor pawns in North Korea doesn't solve anything except maybe appeasing some people's ideas of revenge. The DPRK hardly cares today about most of population, but in return they would effectively shutdown the US government and possibly put the entirety of the government into a standstill, possibly freezing tons of regular processes. Before any other bomb is launched, people would be more concerned about making sure they are properly secured - after all if north korean terrorists already executed the Senate, your main fear would be that you're next; and glassing peasants wouldn't prevent that.
In other words, your opponent has just taken your all your Rooks, Knights and Bishops and in response you wipe out their pawns while the opponent's queen is about to checkmate you.
There were clear examples of failures like the police letting them in or taking selfies with them. We'll see what oversight gets applied to the Capitol police... https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/capitol-riots-polic...
I wouldn't say that's even a fair characterization. Per the capitol police website they have 2,600 officers and a budget of $460 million. It honestly just ... didn't look like they were trying very hard. They managed to arrest what, 14 people? Compare that to the BLM protests on the west coast where unmarked vans of feds were literally rolling up and black bagging people off the street.
USCP is charged with protecting Congress, and I think members of congress should be thinking hard about whether the police were complicit in what happened today.
Let's not lose perspective.
In the protests outside the Portland federal courthouse building, police held out for weeks while insurrectionists threw bombs [0] and incendiary devices [1], attacked officers with hammers [2] and blinding lasers [3], and tried to breach the courthouse with crowbars and power saws [4]. Nightly arson attempts set fires at, around, and inside the courthouse [5]. The protestors' goal- as stated in their extensive graffiti [6]- was to attack police, breach the courthouse and destroy public property, much as they had done in earlier riots [7]. One stabbed a black conservative journalist in the stomach [8]. Many were arrested carrying illegal guns and ammunition [9].
In response, and after local law enforcement abandoned the courthouse by order of Portland's Mayor Wheeler, federal agents arrested suspects in accordance with the law. They read suspects their rights, treated them fairly, and in most cases- thanks to an extremely permissive District Attorney [10]- released them within 48 hours of arrest.
What happened in Portland (and Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, and other American cities) this summer was also undeniably insurrection, and undeniably much more violent. Despite this, police in Portland never shot anyone in the back, much less fatally.
Call today's insurrection what it is, but be consistent.
[0] https://twitter.com/thetypeofguy69/status/129308897288596275...
[1] https://katu.com/news/local/molotov-cocktail-rattles-portlan...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-assa...
[3] https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/federal-officers...
[4] https://twitter.com/Clypian/status/1286906816018841600
[5] https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-police-less-lethal...
[6] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/protesters-h...
[7] https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/portland-man-charged-may-...
[8] https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/07/man-knifed-in-back-...
[9] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/26/portla...
[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/no-charges-for-many-ar...
2) I think the major difference in the left’s eyes is that those protests were against police brutality and racism, whereas this is an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overrule a free and fair election. Motives matter
3) Invading the capital building wielding deadly weapons is (pretty objectively) more serious than attacking the outside of a single federal courthouse (not to minimize that of course)
The Portland courthouse siege- OP's chosen example- was led by violent white anarchists. Their motive was to topple the government. Portland's Black Lives Matter activists complained many times that their cause and movement had been hijacked [0][1][2].
The people who invaded the capitol today, at least some, probably thought they were protecting democracy. They may have thought they were defending election integrity. They were wrong. That doesn't mean they are evil or amoral. It means they are misinformed and misled. Using them as a foil to downplay other, much more violent unrest is neither helpful nor informative.
I haven't seen photos of armed rioters in the capitol. If you have some, please link them.
[0] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/professor-focus-of-po...
[1] https://komonews.com/news/local/black-people-in-portland-str...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-04/black-lives...
What they thought is irrelevant in a country that believes in the rule of law: they were attacking the highest institution of one branch of government with the express purpose of forcing them to overturn the legal result of the election and install their preferred president. This is an (attempted) insurrection, and there are no two ways around it.
Comparing this to an attack on a courthouse is patently absurd. Especially since the courthouse was not attacked for 'toppling the government' - I can't even imagine where you came up with that - but because it was known that arrested/kidnapped protesters had been held inside the courthouse building. In general, none of the BLM or Antifa protesters are interested in "toppling the government" - they are interested in "toppling" the police and in stopping the white nationalist fascists that police are openly supporting from taking over the country.
Yes, I called it insurrection earlier. You've replied to my comment out of context of the reply which preceded it, so your strawman of me doesn't make any sense.
>they are interested in "toppling" the police and in stopping the white nationalist fascists that police are openly supporting
I wrote a longer reply to your comment, but then I deleted it. DC metro police are more than 50% black, it's a joke that they would "openly support white supremacists."
Trying to draw any sort of equivalence is insincere.
And honestly any one who breached or attempted to breach the courthouse or the Capitol (the building or the property) should go to jail for a long time. So in that sense, we agree.
What do you think the establishment would have done if BLM protesters stormed congress?
Stop projecting about being a hypocrite.
>What do you think the establishment would have done if BLM protesters stormed congress?
Those rioters have a well documented history of destroying federal property, attacking federal officers, employees, etc. What do you think?
It appears the DC leadership and the Pentagon wanted to avoid a show of force that mimicked what happened during the summer, trying to learn from their mistakes during the protests triggered by Floyd’s death.
Boy, I wonder if the fact that these guys basically just goofed around and took pictures instead of burning down the capitol (like what happened in the Portland courthouse) had any bearing on that.
[0] https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-shot-killed-after-pro-trum...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/electora...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/pipe-bomb-rnc...
Not sure if I understand the point you're trying to make.
They shouldn't have been outmatched in the first place. The protest was planned and the information was extremely overt. Something went horribly wrong for this to happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/pipe-bomb-rnc...
1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
- At least one flash-bang (probably) and one tear gas grenade (definitely) were used on the capitol steps.
- Their duty as police is to protect and serve, so shooting would have been a terrible idea. Evacuation is not difficult in an ultra-hard target like the capitol, and a lot of civilians had bags, some of which definitely contained firearms. I also heard some shouts about fetching guns from hotel rooms (we did not stay overnight in the city). A gun battle would have been catastrophic on both sides.
And repeated examples of disregard for collateral damage and proportionality during enforcement like: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ups-driver...
Protocol changes are made like ones with regards to high speed chases but often only after a lot of hubris in which police and/or bystanders die
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/woman-shot-killed-after-pro-trum...
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/ashli-babbitt-tweeted-qanon-...
But the systemic failure was the lack of support from the President himself and the deployment of the national guard.
You want cops to be more like stoic stormtroopers? If every cop out there took a selfie with rioters, it would have been easier to manage them by a degree. Imagine hundreds of selfies with cops were posted in right wing social media, how will that not make right wing protestors have a nicer attitude towards the cop in the future?
what's really the downside of letting this happen? Not focused on crowd control? This is also crowd control.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
But when the time came today, there were no tear gas or 40mm rounds, no LRAD. The security simply didn't show up when the expected crowd was percieved to be aligned with the police.
This is a consistent pattern throughout our law enforcement system.
If there had been a BLM rally instead of a MAGA rally on the steps of the capitol the day the election is certified, they would have been kept well away from the building with riot gear.
Living in Portland, I had this same thought. Random one way streets in downtown Portland get a much more violent, immediate, and overwhelming police response on a nightly basis than the Capitol building did when there was an obvious riot forming.
If it had been a BLM rally, the tear-gas would have started before any protester had made it up the steps, the same way it still happens in Portland. What a fucked up country I live in.
I think it is much more likely that this downsizing had everything to do with who the protestors were—i.e. their political views and skin color—in each case.
https://twitter.com/Tender_oni/status/1346916038269689862?s=...
https://twitter.com/theangiestanton/status/13469560673019412...
Edit: anyone want to respond about what's wrong with my comment rather than arbitrarily down voting?
However, your statement that the police are overwhelmingly Trump supporters seems weak and inflammatory and is what I suspect drove downvoting. There are several examples of individual police taking stands against the crowd. Directly linking police performance today to politics is also questionable. When dealing with rowdy crowds it may be best to take things easy and act to calm tensions. A large number of cops ended up behind the crowd surge where the best course of action becomes ambiguous.
And you posted irrelevant links as if they somehow support your argument.
"Alabama Police Captain Resigns After Saying Biden Voters Deserve a ‘Bullet in Their Skull’"
"Arkansas police chief resigns after threatening to abuse Democrats"
"Ex-Houston Police Officer Charged In Attack Over Bogus Election Fraud Plot"
"Officer suspended for blaring 'Trump 2020' from NYPD vehicle"
The mayor's request was basically that the Feds not unilaterally start escalating and militarizing police efforts in her jurisdiction without her involvement. In hindsight, that does seem to have been the correct strategy for her police department, because all the violence seems to have been concentrated within the jurisdiction of a different police department.
They could have easily guarded the building itself. Close the doors and post 30 guards at each entrance?
Based on the reports, some of the rioters were carrying blue lives matter flags. I would say it's pretty obvious there were shared sympathies between the mob and those protecting the Capitol.
Being overrun by attackers is one thing. Ignoring them would be dereliction of duty. But assisting and siding with them? I don't even know what you'd call that anymore.
Without the numbers and the right equipment for the situation, the mob was able to break through and then the priority had to become securing the congresspeople until sufficient force could arrive to help clear.
I should point out that the photo going around showing the difference between the BLM response and the response to this mob is of the DC national guard, not Capitol Police. The DC national guard was not mobilized when the rioting started yesterday. Apparently it was requested but the DoD had not approved it. You can bet there will be some investigations there, and people involved will try to hide themselves in the bureaucracy and pointing fingers.
My bet is that, in a year or two, we'll see some serious reforms in this area. Probably an expedited procedure for mobilizing the DC National Guard, or Congress will be so angry they will demand an expansion of the Capitol Police force, since that force works directly for them.
The idea that it's both sides and civil war is coming is certainly a claim of the militant right wing that seeks violence. Nobody else says it that I know of.
I'd say require the police line to wear body cams, have them on, and then require connecting a shot to a specific act. That would also serve as good Pavlovian training for people who think violence is ok as long as they personally think it's ok. The definition of what act can vary, but what I meant above is limited to this instant, targeted reaction - what I want to see is a specific "protester" throw a rock at police, or force entry, or set something on fire, and instantly gets shot; with camera evidence of both. Of course, I'd also accept arresting (and prosecuting with real punishment, not releasing after a few hours), but I don't believe it matters which one is used in the case of violent riots.
It matters a lot when you decide that rioting people can simply be shot. Because it means you've given them up as humans. One of our claims to civilization is that we handle violence sufficiently, not proportionally. And certainly not excessively.
That's incredibly scary you hold that view: You're suggesting massacring protesters who are only causing property damage. Tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray are the way to disperse mobs/protesters/rioters from causing excessive property damage.
Of course if some protesters started shooting people then obviously using lethal force might be required.
I mean, get real. You can't just shoot people for breaking windows or stealing. The fact that this is unclear to anyone is appalling.
In this case we are talking about trying to achieve political means via violence. The kind of people who do that outside of very extreme circumstances definitely renounce their moral value as human beings in my view. It's not that they /should/ be shot as a punishment or something; it's more like dealing with malarial mosquito - the evil is on the level where ends justify the means.
Your logic could be applied to any number of movements, including the Women's Suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Revolutionary War, and thousands more.
And I’m not sure if people are aware but the capitol is a public building. Meaning, on a normal day anyone can just go in there. There wouldn’t have been the physical intrusion everyone is catching the vapors over if they hadn’t put up barriers and shut down the whole city in the first place. You know, I’m actually starting to understand that whole argument about how preemptive shows of force by the police can actually escalate a situation...