It's an overreaction to a failed coup. The problem is the power itself, who can wield it or foresee the consequences?
As another poster says here. It's the design of these social platforms that pose risks and harm, both to individuals and society. After all, people become depressed and upset using social media. So something's amiss.
How was that a coup? It was a disorganized powerless group of people who happened to make it into the capitol because of lax security.
At best this is something like the Reichstagsbrand. Rationally a completely inconsequential event, but politically exploited for another round of increasing totalitarianism.
How convenient that you ignore what was happening the day of the coup: the confirmation of a new President.
There was literally a mass rally, hours before the event, where the President and his cronies whipped a mob into a frenzy with lies about fraudulent voting systems and conspiracies to steal the election as the culmination of MONTHS of similar disinformation. They encouraged supporters to take Congress via “trial by combat” in order to prevent the legally elected President from being confirmed.
An attempt to block the legal transfer of power in order to illegally maintain your own is clearly an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government: a coup.
People were clearly misled. So intention is on the leadership that misled them. That intent was to change the election outcome by means outside the constitution and Law, under coercion and threat of violence.
It's more in common with Guy Fawkes' attempt to blow up parliament, or the failed Beer Hall putsch in 1923. Both were attempted but poorly organized coups to overthrow the government of the day.
Yes it failed, yes it was poorly organized, but that doesn't matter. If I try to hold up a bank using a water pistol instead of a gun while dressed as a clown I'm still attempting a bank robbery.
The obituary would read "danjac, village idiot" rather than "danjac, bank robber". At some point, possibly the moment you draw the water pistol, you aren't making a serious go of it.
If the standard is that low then the US has coups semi-regularly. As in, maybe annually. It should realistically be more often than that, except most violent protesters protest government actions by targeting random businesses rather than the government (eg, Occupy Wall-street as opposed to Occupy the Offices of the People Handing Out The Bailouts).
Attempting to overthrow the government is probably at least an insurrection.
The fact that Trump told/signalled people to go to the US Capital building can be construed as giving direction, would be put it under the "self-coup" (autogolpe) category:
> Naunihal Singh of the U.S. Naval War College and author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, wrote that the attack on the Capitol was "an insurrection, a violent uprising against the government" and "sedition" but not a coup because Trump did not order the military "to seize power on his behalf".[461][462] The Coup D'état Project of the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Illinois, which tracks coups and coup attempts globally, classified the attack on the Capitol as an "attempted dissident coup" which the center defines as an unsuccessful coup attempt "initiated by a small group of discontents" such as "ex-military leaders, religious leaders, former government leaders, members of a legislature/parliament, and civilians" (but not police or the military). The Cline Center stated that the "organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition" by displacing Congress met this definition.[463][464] Some political scientists identified the attack as an attempted self-coup, in which the head of government attempts to strong-arm the other branches of government to entrench power.[465] Academic Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump's National Security Council, described the attack, and Trump's actions in the months leading up to it, as an attempted self-coup.[466]
"""Approximately two thousand Nazis marched on the [building] in the city centre, but were confronted by a police cordon, which resulted in the deaths of 16 Nazi Party members and four police officers."""
That’s a description of the Beer Hall Putsch, just for comparison to the events in Washington.
There is plenty of evidence that the people who invaded congress wanted to overthrow the election results and keep Trump as President, that many refused to believe that Trump had even lost, and some appeared to be “heavily armed” (though given America’s gun fetish, I don’t know what that means): https://apnews.com/article/us-capitol-trump-supporters-1806e...
None of those idiots had firearms. On American standards is this heavily armed? None brought cable ties with them but yeah that's harder for people to believe because they saw photos of a rioter idiot carrying them that he picked up from where the police left them unattended inside the Capitol building.
Who is more dangerous to freedom. Those rioting idiots who broke existing law and will all go to jail or those making far more of their threat then is remotely reasonable to change law and remove rights?
Heavily armed. I believed that in the aftermath too. Also believed weapons of mass destruction at the time. Pretty angry about both when the evidence came in and it turned out to be deliberate lies to sway public opinion to do unpopular and terrible things.
Not with-in the Capital building, but many were carrying outside (in violation of DC law AFAICT):
> Video footage reviewed by prosecutors also suggests Munchel and his mother carried weapons while in Washington, DC — despite the district's strict gun laws — and abandoned them only before they got into the building.
> "We're going straight to federal prison if we go in there with weapons," Eisenhart told Munchel before they entered the Capitol building, according to prosecutors.
> "We can put 'em in the backpacks," Eisenhart then said, before stashing "tactical bags" outside the building, according to prosecutors.
> Brock was arrested Sunday in Texas after being photographed on the Senate floor during the deadly riot wearing a helmet and heavy vest and carrying plastic zip-tie handcuffs. The 53-year-old is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
I think a lot of the mob were useful idiots and are being manipulated via populism by those with an actual clue. Georgia just passed the voter restrictions under the popular 'support' of these folks.
>> Brock was arrested Sunday in Texas after being photographed on the Senate floor during the deadly riot wearing a helmet and heavy vest and carrying plastic zip-tie handcuffs
That he did not bring to the riot. Zip ties he picked up when they were left unattended by police. Unattended. Really.
See how that fact, that reputable news sources have corrected, but very quietly, completely changes things? Came with intent to imprison vs well, not that. Possibly making sure they could not be used against fellow rioters? Totally different motive whatever it is. Vastly less organised and malevolent. Vastly lower fear. Vastly lower threat.
Yep and all the other Cherry picked info quoted shows they disarmed before mounting an "armed" insurrection. Yes they're idiots. On a grand scale. And they're going to jail for it. And Saddam also did not have weapons of mass destruction despite all those news reports claiming, confirming and reconfirming he was an imminent threat.
If you're thinking about going straight to prison for entering a building with weapons you clearly are not mounting an armed coup. (And yes, you're probably a monumental fool).
Never let a good crisis go to waste. Who is coming out ahead in power and money here? For good sake don't put on Republican vs Democrat blinders. Bush jr and Obama were indistinguishable on this kind of thing.
Start with: a scarier story gets more clicks and bigger ratings. Then go from there to see the effect of Law changes and who is getting more power in the fbi, cia, nsa etc. Is there something else going on that this needs to be a distraction? Maybe the wealth gain of Bezos & co in a massive crisis where many people are getting poorer? That's a huge story whatever you make of it. Massively bigger than some idiots who are going to jail for rioting in the Capitol. Are there others you can think of that are also bigger and more important?
I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points.
To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it" however, is a gross mischaracterization.
Here are some things that constitute WAY more than what you described:
- Planting of explosive devises
- Proud Boys in organized and coordinated groups with zip ties and walkie talkies (charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol)
- The general goal of preventing a democratic process from taking place in order to overturn an election
- 5 people dead including a police officer
- SEVERAL Secret‑level laptops were stolen
I don't think you are providing a good-faith interpretation of the events.
thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
An attempted coup would be to actually attempt at a coup with plans on how to seize power and hold it and ensure you had enough military power to hold down the fort.
To interfere with a procedure they didn't have any chance of interfering with isn't a coup no matter how much you would like to stretch the definition.
The intent, plan and execution was geared toward changing the official election outcome, using violence and force to disrupt the constitutional process.
Not really. I am actually accusing the previous President of the United States of criminal conduct and neglect (ref. the many cases against this person).
> Only the policeman and the shot women are indicative of anything coup-like.
We still don't know what was the Officer's cause of death. But after weeks of fake news stories about him being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, this probably doesn't matter.
Also that the "Proud boys organized and coordinated groups with zip ties" is an additional misleading point. Those arrested for possessing zip ties, didn't bring them to capitol hill, they picked them up there after the law enforcement dropped them, the prosecution has admitted this itself.
The organisation was abysmal, people were led astray and lied to. But the threat and originating intent to forcibly change the election outcome was real.
They did think they were affirming the correct outcome rather than changing it. Whatever else you can say, most of those people genuinely believed Trump won the election.
Yes, after months of grooming, even before the election was conducted.
If people knew there were problems beforehand, why did the people in charge fail to do preventative measures?
Merits of that leadership: Failing to improve the election process, even attempting sabotaging Postal Services, and then crying crocodile tears after grooming millions to a false attack.
Trump seemed fairly determined to change the election outcome, presumably by getting some votes overturned. The fact that the plan was kind of disorganised and hopeless doesn't mean it didn't exist.
>"The vice-president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter.
Sounded like he wanted to use the rally to pressure Pence to
"reject fraudulently chosen electors" and hence change the election outcome. Not sure if you call that a coup attempt or not but some people don't really buy the fraudulently chosen electors bit.
This has been going on all last year, much longer than the sixth.
Congress is just shaking down social media for lobbying bucks again. And the social media companies actually want the regulatory capture. It's all a show.
Eventually big social will write some legislation for congress to pass, congress-critters get paid and get to say they did something while big social media gets further entrenched.
Meanwhile, Biden's DHS announces that they will be working closely with technology and social media companies to preemptively snatch up potential "domestic terrorists". I think the consequences are clear. I think many people are in denial however.
As another poster says here. It's the design of these social platforms that pose risks and harm, both to individuals and society. After all, people become depressed and upset using social media. So something's amiss.