I agree with those who say that there is no need for another bill that grants sweeping new powers to law enforcement. They need only use the laws already on the books. There is plenty more that law enforcement could have done the other day, and plenty more they can still do. Passing another bill has no bearing on that.
This kind of terrorism is mostly caused by people that wrote these bills and it slowly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It is not due to some post on Twitter. Just a very old stupidity rehashed...
Existing laws already make certain acts a crime, but that isn't what the new legislation is trying to do. Rather, it is trying to signal that certain acts, such as the storming of the Capitol by Trump associates, are objectionable to those proposing the new legislation. That's a political statement - not a legal necessity, as you point out.
The risk of making a political statement via legislation is that it can backfire when the shoe is on the other foot, which is what the ACLU is warning against.
Clearly demonstrated this summer, when these people  were charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment. One of their charges had a 45 year mandatory minimum sentence. What sense does it make to create more Draconian laws? According to a former AUSA, "It's batshit... and I'm a pretty law-and-order guy."
But yes, I agree.
People are cheering on the bans and new laws without thinking further of the massive negative consequences the slippery slope will likely lead to.
Glenn Greenwald did an excellent interview yesterday where he explained exactly why acting hastily after traumatic events while in rage is so damn short sighted:
I'd also like to highlight this comment, the content of which is so damn important to think about:
Rage is never a good long-term solution.
Greenwald really reported what a lot of other journalists should have reported too. Especially those that call themselves independent.
When half the country are feeling discriminated for just expressing their views you've gone too far. Twitter could just have enacted manual approval of Trump tweets instead of banning him for absurd reasons , and there would be far less hate all around.
 The reasons stated for banned him was his two latest benign tweets that 1. his voters would have a voice and 2. that he would not attend Biden's inauguration. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
That depends entirely on the view they’re expressing, doesn’t it?
Inciting a riot or storming the Capitol has always been disallowed/illegal, but now it's used as an argument to enact laws/policies to punish unrelated actions/tweets. We're in a situation where stating that you're not attending Biden's inauguration is branded as "inciting violence", and way too few reasonable people are speaking out about it.
The right screams bloody murder about it of course, but we don't listen to them any more. They don't listen to us lefties when we have reasonable things to say. We're quickly decending into a non-functioning society, and both sides are to blame.
That wasn't what he got banned for at all.
> On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump tweeted:
> “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
> Shortly thereafter, the President tweeted:
> “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
> We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy
> As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021
It's almost impressive how they manage to read things from his two tweets that the tweets didn't include.
He has been using rhetoric of the kind they have accuse him of for a long time now but is always careful to never directly call for violence.
Doublespeak is part of his grifting strategy after all. You would need to see how the extreme groups reacted to those tweets. If they used similar verbiage to what Twitter says I think at this point holding Trump to that as proof of bad enough speaking is fine.
Honestly the reality is his tweet history earned him the ban but pointing to one set of tweets is easier PR.
You should reflect on what that really means. You're segregating the population into 2 segments, which furthers the current problems the US is facing. Each side ostracizing the other.
This is the first time in more than a century and a half that a transition hasn't been peaceful. Fort Sumter all over again.
No one should be forced to give him a megaphone for any reason, especially if they think he’s spreading dangerous lies or inciting violence.
There might be horrible consequences but they are a direct result of the lies he’s been feeding his base this whole time. Not a result of the people who finally said enough is enough. If anything, they share blame for allowing it for so long.
In what way are your thoughts being censored when it is Donald Trump who was removed from Twitter and Facebook?
What paved the way for this week's lunacy was a concerted effort to cast doubt on the entire democratic process by lying about it, spread by grifters and fed to rubes. Blaming "violent leftists" for what happened this week is just encouraging the actual bad actors to avoid responsibility for their own actions (yet again).
Hacker news is not your political soap box, please stay on topic to the comment and thread you are replying to.
The comment you are replying to is requesting a title change based on existing hacker news norms by the mod team because the article can be confused (given current events) with a recently released response to recently introduced legislation to congress, which this is not.
edit: I don't see why I'm being downvoted, the article seems to be written when the BLM riots were relevant.
But there was another recent unrest in the summer, replete with a seditious autonomous zone and attacks on a federal building.
I want to be clear vigorous protest is a democratic right, including some civil disobedience, but you have to be prepared to accept the consequences and responsibility for your actions. I think the vast majority of the BLM protesters in the summer and the MAGA crowd on Wednesday were intent on peaceful demonstration. It’s the violent assholes on both sides that need reigning in.
Agreed. However, a lot of the aggressive, confrontational rhetoric on both the left and right implicitly pushed the more action-oriented folks into making bad choices. So many of the "peaceful" protestors and even folks at home ramp up the rhetoric to the point where some confrontation is almost inevitable. Trump's rhetoric is a great example, and obviously extremely influential on the right. But while they're not as individually influential as Trump, there are firebrands on the left who do the same (AOC, Maxine Waters, Rashida Tlaib, many more on the state and local level).
And then even partisans who weren't engaging in aggressive rhetoric often excused it as understandable, which creates a nice cover for the folks engaged in violence.
Legal responsibility, of course, ultimately rests with the rioters who did the deeds. But moral responsibility is more diffuse. Many, many more partisans need to examine the role that they've played in creating the conditions for conflict, on both the left and right.
An explosive device is found at the R.N.C., and the D.N.C. is evacuated.
An explosive device was found at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee in Washington and the nearby headquarters of the Democratic National Committee was evacuated after the discovery of a suspicious package on Wednesday, according to three people briefed on the discoveries.
The device that was found at the R.N.C. was a pipe bomb that was successfully destroyed by a bomb squad, according to an official for the R.N.C.
Both the RNC building and the DNC headquarters are a few blocks from the Capitol.
Information is still being uncovered and reported. Since I'd posted my comment above:
An Alabama man allegedly parked a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle and a handgun just two blocks form the United States Capitol Building, according to federal prosecutors.
Given conditions, volitility, and expressed intent, two blocks proximity to the US Capitol building, on the Capitol complex, and directly across from the Cannon House Office Building, the location is well within the security zone of concern for the Capitol and was clearly associated with the insurgents and rioters.
This event is serious. You owe it to yourself to be accurate and informed. You never know who is using you as their news source.
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. 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. At Banqiao in 1975. At Hiroshima in 1945. 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.
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.
Walling up the people's house this summer and violating the rights and bodies of peaceful protestors was rightly condemned, too.
- Exterior doors that can't be rammed open with portable fences
- Interior doors with shatterproof glass windows
- Facade walls that don't function as ladders 
It takes a large number of people to pull off what they pulled of on Tuesday.
And no need for tear gas unless and until an attack is mounted.
* “U.S. Capitol security needs a total overhaul. The physical breaching and desecration of our temple of democracy must never happen again,” Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, said on Twitter. The thing is, he is right, but physical security improvements alone will not protect the Capitol from another insurrection.*
So, how did the author make the leap that Senator Schatz meant physical security improvements?
I think alot of Senators are thinking more along the lines of this article:
How do they ensure law enforcement are not complicit in the coup?
I would argue that those trying to secure the structure against invasion by the People are the ones desecrating the Temple. Like it or not what many hear call an insurrection, I call an unequivocal vote of no confidence by the governed and a call to action aimed at Representatives. Not to hide away behind locked barriers, but to listen, and take to heart the fact that people are pissed enough to mobilize in the first place. A call and voice message to the Rep is one thing. Repeated letters another. Putting in a physical appearance at an office yet another.
Pushing your way into and disrupting Legislative business is an unmatched attention grabber, and to be frank, I'm not willing to deprive anyone willing to drive to D.C. of the opportunity to have an impact, nor am I willing to accept only the well heeled should be capable of regularly exercising the advantage of exploiting proximity to Federal Representatives.
A person exercising Liberty, especially to the disdain of the majority, is the quintessential act of American patriotism and civil spirit. That foreign actors may have made use of the chaos is regrettable, but nevertheless, this is American government by design. It doesn't exist and rule by it's own right or ability to trounce all comers. It exists and rules because we all let it. Something I think a lot of people do not quite grasp.
That Trump of all people is the one to bring all this out makes me want to vomit a bit, but it is what it is. So it goes.
"to call that a "quintessential act of American patriotism" is open advocacy for violence, and I don't think I can ethically participate in a forum which permits such a terrible thing."
Correct me if I am misreading this, but you are making this an ethical issue the same way your opponent does. Note that the comment you replied to appears to view his position the same way. He, apparently, sees it as not only ethical, but a mandatory subset of being an American; a virtue.
May I suggest that all of us participate freely in this exchange of ideas. You are free not to the same way he is free to. Ethics have little to do with this.
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.
Folks turned up the protest armed and carrying zip-tie cuffs. Improvised explosive devices were planted in multiple locations. There can be no argument that there wasn’t a segment of protestors that turned up to commit acts of terror.
okay, but you can say that about pretty much any sufficiently large protest. most people show up to be heard. a few arrive with bricks, molotovs, etc. it's always hard to tell whether the violent elements are aligned with the greater cause, false flags, or just people who saw an opportunity to create mayhem.
I do agree that we need to calm down rather than going down the rabbit hole of making 100% sure it can never happen again. But one of the critical ways in which a society calms down is by reinforcing its commitment to nonviolent norms of communication, and that involves a collective recognition that glorification of violence is incompatible with norms of kindness and respect. Reading a comment on how neat it was to watch people break into the Capitol is like reading someone's detailed story of how they'll kill burglars who break into their home - I get it, I really do, but it's incredibly poisonous to polite discourse.
"Complicit in the coup" makes it sound like they're on the side of the Trump morons. This is certainly possible, but does having comically understaffed security when it was extremely well known that there was going to be a huge crowd serve Donald Trump, or someone else? Like, when you turn on the news, or read forums, do you get a feeling that this is playing out in favour of Trump and his supporters?
I am going to be paying close attention to how this story is spun over the next few weeks, including the type of language they use, and we'll see if an investigation that can be taken seriously is ever performed. And going forward, how often this event is used as "proof" of how dangerous "right wing extremists" (or populists) are.
You’re not the first to make this comparison :)
This isn’t sophistry, it’s a vitally important point because the legitimacy and accountability of government are the individual responsibility of every citizen. You and I are responsible for complying with government because we consent to be ruled due to our recognition of its legitimacy. Equally, we are responsible when we vote in a leader or representative. The guy in Starship Troopers is right, a vote is an act of force.
I am not certain to overt separation of 'little people' and 'non-little peopple' is that good of an idea, overall.
Here's a BLM protest speaker definitely not "begging officials to acknowledge a perspective": "I'm at the point where I'm ready to put these police in a f***ing grave. I'm at the point where I want to burn the f***ing White House down. ... I wanna take the fight to them. And at the end of the day, if they ain't gonna hear us, we burn them the f**k down."
But they did exacrtly that during the BLM protests, where people had no weapons. They've even physically ejected disabled people from protesting at the Capitol.
So it seems they have no qualms about doing it to certain groups of people.
How many times have existing anti-terrorism laws been misused versus "well" used for the purpose they were intended?
So many people's objections are based on the particular example they can quote, or the very bad outcome case that sticks in your mind. Just like in dumb presidential debates you can line up specific example after example of someone who got left out of the healthcare system, etc (for either side's argument).
But laws are for dealing with hundreds or thousands of incidents, not optimizing for the 0.001% case.
ACLU says that existing laws have unfairly targeted <xyz>, etc. etc. How many times? Versus what positive things did it prevent?
The ACLU is an advocate -- it isn't required to weigh and balance both sides. Lawmakers should.
If you take speech (and thus diplomacy) out of your opponent toolbox to deal with you, what tool is left?
Big tech, with crowds cheering, is pushing these people toward the one that we are going to regret.
That, my friend, would be a senseless massacre. You find it odd that most Americans don’t spend their daily lives worrying about getting literally murdered by Republicans? Why? Should they?
if anything is odd, it's that konjin just made a case for why it would be rational for democrats to push gun control and disarmament of the police.
I’m aware of that, I was just going along with gp’s fantasies.