U.S. Justice Department forming unit to counter domestic terrorism
reuters.com
reuters.com
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?
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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_der...
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
/s
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’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.
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'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.
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.
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?
The Oklahoma City bombing took place on April 19, 1995.
I heard the government moves slow but that is crazy.
https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/feds...
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
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're joking, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Reliability
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.
Can you support this assertion?
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.
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.
Maybe you'd have a better time on Reddit?
Also the way I'm hearing "extremists" and "extremism" used feels like people drawing up lines for a 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
According to who? The polling companies that predicted a landslide for Hillary in '16?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
...
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.
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).
This new unit is just a way to flush out the straggler dissidents who will get in the way.
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,
>> 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-...
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...
To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created
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...
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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
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.
>'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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That leads to the situation where any violence is allowed, and I don't want to live in that society.
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.)
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?
This sounds like it's creating a central function instead of leaving it to regional JTTFs.
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.
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.
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?
The US military is forbidden from domestic enforcement action, except in certain circumstances. Google "posse commitatus" for details.
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.
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...
Terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
They were exactly terrorists. Also, insurrectionists...
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.