Domestic terrorism is a very real and growing threat in the US. Those that think otherwise should read the book "Bring the War Home" by the fascinating University of Chicago professor Kathleen Belew. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36228413-bring-the-war-h...
Infiltrating easily does not negate the fact that domestic terrorism is growing.
"In 2019, the FBI revealed that it has arrested or disrupted more domestic terrorism suspects than international terrorism suspects “in recent years,” indicating the growing threat of domestic terrorism and the corresponding shift in law enforcement resources.
Moreover, the bulk of the domestic terrorism cases investigated by the FBI in recent years are linked to “racially motivated violent extremism,” and of those cases, white supremacy represents the greatest share."
"The
FBI and
Department of Homeland Security are doing more at home. Senior officials highlighted the danger of white supremacist and anti-government violence, suggesting they are increasing resources against these threats."
It doesn't exactly say that. It talks about the shift in percentage between international and local. Which makes sense considering the height of terrorism internationally has been dropping since Osama was caught.
Why is it even necessary in this day and age to meet in person to begin with? Our government should trying to make things more accessible. I would advocate for an entirely digitized White House. Anyone who's dealt with Robert's Rules of Order knows that most of the "rules" in that book could definitively be programmatically enforced. A faster government is a more efficient one.
There's a lot of value in meeting in person. For one thing, it demonstrates that you literally have skin in the game, which in matters of governance is very important, especially at the national level. There's a reason that peace treaties are signed in person after all.
Agreed - however I think the meeting in person should be among the representatives and their constituents, not each other.
Ideally AOC, for example, would be in a convenient location in her district and meet with members of her district who want to watch her represent them. The other advantage of this is when there's a lull (due to the boring procedural bits of governance) they might ask her to bring something up that's relevant to the current discourse.
I'd put equal importance on both their meeting constituents and attending Congress in person. Representing constituents shouldn't be a just in time operation, so I don't think there should be a realtime channel to the representative.
But either way, in normal times, it's not like there are a lot of constraints on them spending lots of time in person in both places.
There were in fact rule change proposals last year to allow Congress to vote remotely! McConnell blocked them in the Senate, and Republican reps opposed them in the House (though Pelosi herself was never enthusiastic about it and there was some bipartisan support so it wasn't quite along party lines).
There's a lot of talk about decentralization these days.
Decentralize this, and that, and a lot of it is silly and excessive. Example: centralizing twitter seems so far to be good for twitter (they're doing very well, much better than mastodon).
I however believe that decentralizing the government, even a little, would have tons of positive impact. The govermnent is the apex example of "too much centralization and bureaucrazy kills any kind of efficiency".
Because digitizing all the things has been wonderous for the human condition. Sky rocketing cases of anxiety, depression and mental illness in the days of hyper digital connectivity. Let's double down some more.
Also, take some lessons from history. Republics and Democracies are slow by design. The idea being, an educated public is able to route a renegade government body. Dictatorships are world renown for their speed and efficiency... not so much for their human rights advocacy. Even Bush Jr made the joke back in the day that passing laws would be a whole hell of a lot easier if the US was a dictatorship.
Dont bitch you dont have a voice in the current system when you cant even be bothered to try.
I prefer arguing that a politician is an asshole rather than trying to convince people that the all mighty algorithm is flawed. Content creators are already fighting back against the tyranny of algorithms, you think a gov based one is going to solve anything?
The founders argued against standing armies less powerful than modern police, and also declared that government should be afraid of the people (to paraphrase Jefferson).
How do these bedrock laws and founding ideals square with your scenario?
Just FYI no death has been officially linked to a "rioter", no firearms have been found in connection with it. Sites like ZH are tracking all this, because to many it smells like yet another staging of political capital.
> “No firearms have been found in connection with it”
This takes moments to search, skipping all the news sites, fake or otherwise, and going to sources:
“Grand Jury ... Indictment ... Count One: On or about Jan 6 2021, within the District of Columbia, Christopher Alberts did carry and have readily accessible, a firearm, that is, a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun, on the US Capitol Grounds and in any of the Capitol Buildings.”
Also had a “large capacity ammunition feeding device”.
Separately, the police officer who died is now suspected to be linked to a particular assailant, but through bear spray not fire extinguisher:
“The F.B.I. has pinpointed an assailant in its investigation into the death of Brian D. Sicknick, a Capitol Police officer who was injured while fending off the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol last month and later died, according to two law enforcement officials briefed on the inquiry.”
“The F.B.I. opened a homicide investigation into Officer Sicknick’s death soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Investigators initially struggled to determine what had happened as he fought assailants. They soon began to suspect his death was related to an irritant, like mace or bear spray, that he had inhaled during the riot. Both officers and rioters were armed with such irritants during the attack.”
“In a significant breakthrough in the case, investigators have now pinpointed a person seen on video of the riot who attacked several officers with bear spray, including Officer Sicknick, according to the officials. And video evidence shows that the assailant discussed attacking officers with the bear spray beforehand, one of the officials said.”
It does not say it’s a rioter, exactly, only that the person was on video of the riot, and discussed attacking officers beforehand.
Hmm, one could also have a small or regular capacity ammunition feeding device?
But your point, I didn’t initially consider they would use that to mean magazine, I guessed they meant the gizmo one might use to feed ammo rapidly into a magazine without getting one’s thumb tired, sometimes called a speed loader.
Seems silly to call it something else, but perhaps they needed a term that was a superset of magazine and anything else someone might come up with to hold more than a regular mag.
> But according to the new filing, Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from within the Capitol building — apparently to ensure the Capitol Police couldn't use them on the insurrectionists — rather than bring them in when they initially breached the building.
<quote>
Before the 20th amendment of the US Constitution - adopted in 1933 - moved the swearing-in dates of the president and Congress to January, American leaders took office on 4 March.
That's why QAnon followers have latched on to this date to underpin their latest theory.
</quote>
“Law enforcement's insight into threats is "increasingly constrained" by the use of secure communications by extremists, according to the report.”, they said, stifling giggles.
> But according to the new filing, Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from within the Capitol building — apparently to ensure the Capitol Police couldn't use them on the insurrectionists — rather than bring them in when they initially breached the building.
I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just haven't read it. I don't read a lot of obviously left/right news, I try to divide my time equally, and to the best of my knowledge there was 1 deceased Capitol Police Officer. I don't know cause of death, I think I recall that they were investigating a singular individual -- but if you have a legitimate source, would love to read it.
The NYT wrongfully (perhaps wilfully) claimed a police officer was struck by a fire extinguisher while physically engaging with protesters. They then quietly retracted this claim, noting that investigators had found little evidence that he was struck by a fire extinguisher. The MSM has been gaslighting the American public by bombarding them with unsubstantiated propaganda.
The police officer who died is now suspected by FBI to be linked to a particular assailant, but through bear spray not fire extinguisher:
“The F.B.I. has pinpointed an assailant in its investigation into the death of Brian D. Sicknick, a Capitol Police officer who was injured while fending off the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol last month and later died, according to two law enforcement officials briefed on the inquiry.”
“The F.B.I. opened a homicide investigation into Officer Sicknick’s death soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Investigators initially struggled to determine what had happened as he fought assailants. They soon began to suspect his death was related to an irritant, like mace or bear spray, that he had inhaled during the riot. Both officers and rioters were armed with such irritants during the attack.”
“In a significant breakthrough in the case, investigators have now pinpointed a person seen on video of the riot who attacked several officers with bear spray, including Officer Sicknick, according to the officials. And video evidence shows that the assailant discussed attacking officers with the bear spray beforehand, one of the officials said.”
To be clear, FBI bases this on video.
While I won’t call it gaslighting, it seems disingenuous to cite an out of date wikipedia quote or “correct” someone for writing:
> ”a police officer died due to protestor actions”
Which sounds like a perfect characterization of the current FBI thinking.
Sorry, it was a rather long quote. Here’s the evidence bit:
> investigators have now pinpointed a person seen on video of the riot who attacked several officers with bear spray, including Officer Sicknick ... and video evidence shows that the assailant discussed attacking officers with the bear spray beforehand ... F.B.I. officials homed in on the potential role of an irritant as a primary factor in his death.
The full article discusses other pieces of evidence still needed to charge, and notes:
> Given the evidence available to investigators, prosecutors could be more likely to bring charges of assaulting an officer, rather than murder...
Whether the actions were assault or murder the original comment on correlation to actions of a protestor seems within line. The followup comment, to which you replied, reframed as:
> There was 1 deceased Capitol Police Officer ... don't know cause of death ... think I recall that they were investigating a singular individual
All of which sounds accurate as of what’s known at present. Again, seems off to call out the error on the fire extinguisher but not acknowledge the FBI has narrowed down to a suspect from video.
Why should the remarks on the 6th be relevant or considered separate?
Seems clear the President could have stayed back in the White House that day, as he’d made enough remarks for weeks and months to get folks to show up loaded for bear. It’s not like they went shopping after the speech started...
No idea why the remarks that day are seen as the thing as if in a vacuum.
Trump wasn't telling people to plant pipe bombs, at any stage, ever. It was organised and orchestrated solely by his supporters, in the same way that this 4th of March inauguration thing was invented and potentially to be orchestrated purely by his supporters.
Unless you have evidence contrary, we have no idea the ideological lean of whoever placed those bombs. They were planted at both the Democratic and Republican headquarters, remember?
Associating the act with the events on the day that followed is unsubstantiated.
And not associating the act of placing pipe bombs with a riot that occurred the next day is naive.
Planting bombs at both political party headquarters sure seems like the action of someone that is disgruntled with the entire system. Perhaps someone that would go on to riot against the peaceful transfer of power within that system.
Good thing we're on HackerNews and not a court of law then. Cool air of superiority too.
Besides, who placed the bomb, again, does not influence the heinousness of the act. Placing pipe bombs at political party headquarters is an atrocious thing to do, and relevant agencies in DC are right to be on edge about this kind of behaviour. That is not "maximising", it is a prudent course of action.
First, don't ever minimize suicide.
Second, I was talking about the officer who died after being spread by an unknown chemical.
There was a second officer who died by suicide. Third, I don't think the fact the pipe bombs were planted the night before changes anything substantial.
> Brian David Sicknick (July 30, 1978 – January 7, 2021) was an American officer of the United States Capitol Police who died of an unknown cause a day after the 2021 storming of the Capitol.
> The day after the storming, anonymous Capitol police officers told The New York Times that Sicknick sustained his injuries by being struck by a fire extinguisher while physically engaging with protesters. However, no corroborating evidence of this has been discovered, and medical examiners found no signs of blunt force trauma. The New York Times published a correction retracting the previous claim, noting that investigators have found little evidence that he was struck by a fire extinguisher.
No police officer died. You’re being brain washed by going to the extremes.
You’re proving my point. There is ZERO reason to station thousands of soldiers and barb wire fence around the “people’s building” all at the behest of politics.
enkid said "due to these protests". The officer died from a stroke while in the hospital due to injuries received at the riot. That at least is very likely "due to these protests".
Which of those smiling grandmas planted the pipe bombs and ammunition caches? Brought along zip-ties to better facilitate hostage taking? Tore the panic buttons out of Congressional offices?
During the senate hearings an FBI official was asked by Senator Johnson how many firearms were seized from the Capital Insurrection - "To my knowledge, none."
Turns out "armed" doesn't mean firearms....
And the NYTimes has quietly updated their article on Officer Sicknik's death. Now it's "The circumstances surrounding Mr. Sicknick’s death were not immediately clear"... this is after claiming he was killed by rioters.
Once the hysteria faded the story started falling apart.
IMO the Capitol riot (and arguably some other aspects of Trump's movement) are symptoms of underlying problems in addition to being standalone events. So while I agree it's possible to make too much of the danger posed by specific events (no, there was never a serious chance for them to overthrow the government), I think the case is much stronger for the symptom-of-underlying-problem part and it makes some of the alarmism seem more reasonable in that context.
In this specific case, I think the major underlying thing is the narrative pushed by Trump that the Democrats have just overtly dumped millions of votes to steal the election, and the courts, the legislature, and even others in his own political faction have failed us (and so, democracy has just de-facto collapsed in the US).
Now, Trump says a lot of stuff, and almost no one takes everything he says seriously, so it's worth looking at the data. But polls indicate that about 12% of Trump voters see Biden as the legitimate winner, and 73% view the election as stolen [1], so it's taken pretty well (in fact, so well that other Republicans can't effectively push back on it without jeopardizing their own political survival, but their equivocation just reinforces the narrative and causes them to lose further ground to the Trump faction).
Of course, most people won't take any action even if they feel a sinister faction has undermined democracy is this country, but it wouldn't be totally surprising if a tiny percentage are thinking about it (which in this case could add up to a substantial number), so the idea that law enforcement is seeing info that leads them to be concerned seems at least plausible. I wouldn't automatically write it off as only political.
As an anecdote I have a close relative in the midwest who is so polarized that they openly express desire for a right wing dictatorship (and they don't even view the election as stolen). Just one data point so not worth much, but I guess it makes the idea that extreme feelings are increasing and could boil over for a few people already on the edge feel more plausible to me.
I don’t disagree with anyone who says “wow, this is not a good direction for the country”.
No matter what side you’re on, it’s important that people have confidence in our electoral system. Without that the system falls apart pretty quickly.
What I’m arguing against are the politicians fanning the flames because it’s politically expedient. They see an opportunity to gain political points or grab more power.
FWIW I'm also worried about politicians doing power grabs (more than lone extremists), and agree fear of extremism can end up being exploited as a political tool.
In the medium term I'm most worried about people losing faith in our institutions and their own party, and looking for one person to trust to reset the system unchecked by either of those. The inter-party power dynamics and confidence in institutions seems to have collapsed much more in one faction than the other, so I see the risks as asymmetric. I'm open to the idea that I'm thinking about this wrong though.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-security/u-s...
Edit to add: NY Times piece [1] mentions that vote on policing legislation brought foward to Wed night from Thursday because of cancellation.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/capitol-riot-...