Hacker News Reader

Comment by goostavos | Hacker News Reader

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

I disagree with the characterization of this user's comment as unsubstantive.

Same

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

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...

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.

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?

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...

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?

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...

> 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...

Interesting read, thanks. It thoroughly discredits lokar's claim.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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

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

Wonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.

What are you implying with this comment?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Huh?

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.

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-...

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.

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...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com