ACLU Statement Opposing the 'Confronting the Threat of Domestic Terrorism Act' (2019)

It's almost impressive how they manage to read things from his two tweets that the tweets didn't include.

There were bombs very near, critically near, the Capitol itself.

There may plausibly have been explosives within the Capitol, a circumstance which is operationally significant if not precisely knowable.

Hairsplitting is pedantic.

1. I did not claim the bombs were in the Capitol building itself. You are arguing against a case I am not making. The snarky question you asked was clearly answered in the comment you replied to. The insinuation was gratuitous and unnecessary.

But wait, there's more.

2. I do cite and quote reputable sources noting that a) there were in fact multiple bombs, b) that we now know of, c) discovered to date, d) in very near proximity to the Capitol building, e) within the greater Capitol complex, f) posing threats to persons and assets g) with hostile intent.

3. The thousands of insurgents active with the attacks on the Capitol building and complex demonstrably included people carrying and placing bombs within at the very least two blocks of the Capitol building itself and on the same block as Capitol office buildings in which congressional members and staff were lkely present and/or sheltering.

4. There is much we simply don't know as those actually entering the Capitol building proper are not fully identified or known, were not arrested immediately, and certainly have not been fully checked, searched, or inventoried. One person of interest in the Senate Chamber was carrying zip ties and likely a firearm, dressed in paramilitary gear: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/crime/2021/01/08...

5. A false precision limited to proved facts and ignoring, dismissing, or petily hair-splitting distintions in an emergent situations is itself actively dangerous. This discussion is reminiscent of Chernobyl, "3.6 Roentgen, not great, not terrible", rejection of likely, and as it turned out, actual circumstances in the no-longer extant reactor core.[1] The failure in evidence was due to circumstances far beyond the capacities of existing reporting capacities. We face similar circumstances here.

Failure to maintain situational awareness, grasp magnitude, and remain ahead of developments is a common element of crises situations. At Chernobyl in 1986. In the Falklands crisis as the HMS Sheffield was attacked in 1982[2]. At Banqiao in 1975.[3] At Hiroshima in 1945.[4] The causes are multiple: failures of imagination, failures of understanding, incapacitation of observers, disruption, destruction, or overwhelming of sensors, communications, reporting and response systems.

For the moment, we cannot say with certainty that bombs were or were not actually in or on the Capitol building itself. Multiple bombs, possibly placed by multiple parties or units, acting either in concert or independently, were found in the immediate vicinity, close enough to be inside the Capitol within minutes or seconds. The possibility that explosives were inside the building is high, the evidence-based demonstration of this may be years away, possibly never established (though forensics detection may be able to establish likelihood more clearly soon). In terms of risk, post mortem assessment, and future preparedness, with furthe similar events likely within days, operating on the ASSUMPTION that explosives were or could be introduced to the Capitol building and environs is the right thing to do with absolute crystalline clarity.

No, I cannot say with reasonable certainty that there were. Nor have I.

You cannot say there were not.

The best that can be said is that there is as yet no immediate evidence, but a strong possibility, and s clearly demostrated material risk

This event is serious. You owe it to yourself to be realistic and reasonable.

Pedantry on this point goes beyond obtuseness.

________________________________

Notes:

1. https://youtube.com/watch?v=ocBVLMHK6c8

2. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2ab25z/on_disa...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

4. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wf9yc/on_disa...

It does fit FBI definition ( https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism ), but that definition is rather broad to begin with. To me attack suggests some level of planning, forethought, end game even it is just to terrorize. FBI definition also does not seem to indicate that terrorist attacks are typically directed towards civilians ( government buildings are not civilians ).

But if we accept FBI definition then what political end was achieved by this? Clearly not the intended one.

Again. I think this is just another Patriot Act moment. We can calm down or go down another rabbit hole. Only this time, we will have to TSA every time we want to talk to a government official.