DC Unrest Megathread

[Former President tack50]

This looks like a mix of Spain's 23F and Portugal's November 1975 Parliament siege.

Nonetheless, Trump needs to be criminally accused. This is the ultimate desperate act of Trumpists. ENOUGH!!

If shots have been fired inside the US Capitol building, look forward to those gunshot marks becoming a tourist attraciton, much like our 23F marks are one of the highlights of any Congress visit

But yeah this is a literal coup and Trump needs to get out fast.

[Former President tack50]

Plus no building is no important than the Capitol. That's just sacred. You don't touch that.

It's great when the neolibs' masks slip just enough that you can plainly see that their true fidelity is to mere physical presentations of state power (i.e., literal buildings) and other physical objects, lol.  Power resides in people, not building.  If the U.S. Capitol ever becomes a symbol of a system of civil government that does not serve the best interests of the people, then it will deserve to be burned to the ground.

Like I said, if Joe Biden had any balls (like I wish he did), he would be declaring provisional government and martial law tonight.  Would he, if successful, destory the system of government that keeps Republicans artifically in power?  Probably yes, but that's the price that has to be paid to reconstitute our belief in a government that works for "the majority" (defined however the mob wishes.)  This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a matter of renewing our right to self-determination and refreshing the civil state (which really hasn't been seriously updated since the New Deal/WWII.)     

I mean, if you want to be pedantic, you could argue that the power resides in the 535 Congressmen but the US Capitol is still THE symbol of the legislative power of the United States. It is not unheard of for the legislatures of countries in trouble to flee the capitol but when that happens things have gone horribly wrong and a coup or civil war has already happened.

Also are you literally asking for a Joe Biden led countercoup? LMAO

[Former President tack50]

IIRC, the most recent time an angry mob invaded a national legislature was in 2017 in Macedonia, when far-right groups violently entered the building in response to election of an ethnic Albanian as speaker.

So congratulations, oldest democracy in the world, today you're as democratic as a small, forgettable ex-Yugo country.

Wasn't the Armenian parliament invaded after the country surrendered during their recent war?

[Former President tack50]

Trump has been band by Facebook indefinitely. I imagine Twitter will follow their lead.

https://twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/1347209358531198979?s=20

Zuckerberg can eat sh**t. NOW is the time that it got too dangerous for democracy?

What about other countries where these strategies (some even worse) are constantly used by far-right leaders? Are they gonna do something about this too or is the special treatment just with US when they’re about to have a rupture with democracy?

Honestly, go f*** yourself Zucky. It’s not one miserable account that needs to be blocked, but YOUR entire sh**tty social media, which has been by far the worst of all when it comes to dealing with the spread of fake news and political radicalization. End Facebook immediately.

I think the real problem is that algorithms on these sites and many others support echo chambers. There isn’t a way to ban disinformation completely, but the algorithms of major social media sites seem to promote echo chambers which leads to a descent down the “pipeline” so to speak.
I get why they do this, it’s probably beneficial from a business perspective, but we are creating these negative externalities which simply are too dangerous to have. I would support forcing Facebook and YouTube to completely rewrite their algorithms to prevent these types of things.

Additional security measures to prevent spam new accounts from being created/having a large voice on the platforms should be considered as well.

Yeah, it is extremely easy to fall down the pipeline. I remember the other day I watched like 2-3 videos from some right wing comedy youtube channel that someone posted on Atlas. Next I know, I find like 5-6 right wing commentators on my recommendeds list.

I don't know if the government can force private companies to rewrite their algorithms though.

To be honest, social media; or arguably the entire internet was a mistake. When people had less ways to be informed in the 70s, 80s or even early 90s (newspapers, TV and radio and that was it) they were ironically better informed than in the modern day.

[Former President tack50]

Imagine thinking a block party is comparable to an attempted coup.

Imagine thinking a "block party" involves "four shootings, two deaths, arson, and several alleged sexual assaults."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/chop-chaz-cleared-violence-explained

Worth noting that despite the name "Capitol Hill"; the Washington state legislature and governor mansion are nowhere near CHAZ.

If the MAGA people had instead say, taken over some park or square in DC and started camping there, it would definitely be acceptable, at least for a week or 2.

Taking over the capitol is not comparable to CHAZ

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/bnonews/status/1347705860567523335?s=21

Most Android phones can easily be configured to install non Play Store apps, so while a blow, it is far from a death sentence. It's just a checkbox in the phone settings, I've even done it myself.

Apple removing it from their store would do much more harm given jailbreaking your iPhone is much harder though. Also if I am not mistaken Apple holds a huge portion of the US market, certainly more than in most European countries; so Apple banning it would do a lot more

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/bnonews/status/1347705860567523335?s=21

Most Android phones can easily be configured to install non Play Store apps, so while a blow, it is far from a death sentence. It's just a checkbox in the phone settings, I've even done it myself.

Apple removing it from their store would do much more harm given jailbreaking your iPhone is much harder though. Also if I am not mistaken Apple holds a huge portion of the US market, certainly more than in most European countries; so Apple banning it would do a lot more

You think tech-illiterate boomers can do this? Although TBF they can just access Parler through the phone's browser, unless Parler's ISP stops carrying it.

I think some people underestimate the tech literacy rate of the average boomer. Remember the average QAnon cultist is a person probably in their 50s or 60s. That means they were born anywhere from 1952 to 1970. The younger group, especially those that are just a tiny bit younger than the ones I described, would have grown up in the 80s as kids.

Those "Younger QAnon" definitely used up a computer at school and later when they entered the job market. Computers that mind you, were a lot more user unfriendly than they are now.

I've certainly seen some takes that the group with "peak tech literacy" isn't actually the super young like you might expect, but rather the slightly older group of people who was born in the mid-late 80s and grew up in the late 90s, early 2000s. Young enough that computers were everywhere, old enough that tech still made you think a little

But for the illiterates yeah there is always the phone browser

[Former President tack50]

You didn't say those things from what I can tell. What you did say was an argument for appeasement. "If we punish the treason, they'll only get worse." We are past the point of appeasement being viable, which is why even NCY says we have to nip this in, not the bud, but the flower. No more seeds.

Tbh it is not hard to support lenient sentences for the mob, especially for the "foot soldiers".

It may not be the most relevant example, but when my country had a coup back in 1981; only the 3 main organizers (Tejero, Armada, Milans del Bosch) got heavy prison sentences (30 years)

Literally everyone under the rank of Lieutenant was outright not judged, and of the 30 people that went to jail for the coup attempt, only 10 had a prison sentence longer than 5 years*.

For the US I'd 100% support Trump going to jail for a long prison sentence of say, 10-15 years**. However, the average person who invaded the Capitol, with the exception of the one who killed a policeman if they can be found, only really deserves to get fined for trespassing, and possibly vandalism or destruction of public documents and similar stuff. Maybe a very short prison sentence of like 1-2 years but I don't know if the standard of evidence required would allow for that.

As for the Republican politicians, the thing is that no politician should ever be punished for expressing an opinion in Congress, they should definitely hold immunity. So it's kind of hard where would you separate their role as politicians from their role as the leaders of the rebellion. A much clearer case can be made for other high profile figures I suppose but again you end up with the problem of "what is a high profile figure"

After all, a picture at the Capitol really only makes you automatically guilty of Trespassing. Nothing else. (though the Capitol probably has plenty of security cameras so that should be easier than I am giving it credit).

<sup>*: Worth noting that the prison sentences were originally even more lenient, and were only made harsher after a judicial appeal. Also, the 3 leaders who got sentenced to 30 year terms? Well, one was outright pardoned by PM González in 1988, while the other 2 were released on parole in 1990 and 1993, so they didn't even fulfill half their intended sentence! A couple others were also eventually pardoned, their punishments commuted or released on parole early.

**: Worth noting that much like in our case, I can also see the case for President Biden to pardon Trump circa 2027 or so if he is reelected, on humanitarian and healthcare reasons since Trump will be super old and probably not super healthy at that time.</sup>

[Former President tack50]

Liberals would do well to reflect on this quote by Martin Luther King, there is a lot of truth to it with regard to how many Americans feel.

A riot is the language of the unheard - Martin Luther King

If there is one thing on God's green Earth that a trump supporter is not, it's unheard. You can't open a paper without reading yet another profile of one of their diners in the middle of nowhere. They are not an oppressed minority like African Americans in the civil rights era, they are a coddled, romanticized minority that uses violence and corruption to achieve their political goals and to stay in power despite almost always receiving less votes than the majority party.

Don't twist Dr. King's words to defend racists, neo-nazis and murderers. It's disgusting.

All the major institutions, corporations, academia, media, the entertainment industry are opposed to Trump supporters who are ridiculed and often lose their jobs for the views, they are an oppressed group, they are oppressed by all of the major institutions and their voices are not listened to by any major institution in America except for now the WH.

Regarding this point, at least in terms of the entertainment industry, I wonder if it's simply a matter of money.

At least here Spanish artists tend to get lots of subsidies. These subsidies (like most) tend to be increased by left wing governments and decreased by right wing governments; so if you work in the Spanish film industry it is a no brainer to support left wing parties; in the same way that most government employees would support left wing parties.

Then again I doubt Hollywood is getting much taxpayer money at all so this probably doesn't apply in the US.

As for the other groups, I don't know what you mean by "major institutions", but if you mean government institutions; most government things are going to support left wing parties (no wonder government doesn't like the people who want government to be smaller!). Similar story with academia, since university research is often taxpayer paid, most academia will support left of centre parties.

I disagree with the point about the media, there are left wing channels and right wing channels, left wing newspapers and right wing newspapers, etc. It's one thing to want a conservative newspaper, but a Qanon cultist echochamber is a very different thing. Any serious conservative newspaper or news station would not spend time in conspiracy theories.

Corporations are a bad fit for the modern left wing but tbh I think it's a matter of marketing. Corporations have made the calculated decision that appearing #woke is good for their profits since they'll get good publicity, but I have absolutely 0 doubts that big corporations would prefer "Tax cuts, but woke" (and unfortunately Dems are trending in that direction but that's a separate debate)

TL;DR: It's the economy

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, regarding the "unheard and oppressed" argument; in my view sure, the average MAGA cultist is 100% not unheard and oppressed.

But in their own eyes, they feel unheard and oppressed despite not being so. That is a perception issue that needs to be adressed somehow.

You can go all Ben Shapiro and say "facts don't care about your feelings", but that isn't really a strategy that will make the average cultist more reasonable.

[Former President tack50]

Trespassing and disorderly conduct? Where are the real charges? He didn't find the taser and restraints in some closet in the Capitol - he brought them with him all the way from Tennessee to take prisoners in the Capitol.

Other than illegal gun ownership and maybe "attempted kidnapping" (is that a real crime definition?) what other crimes could you charge them with?

Like I've repeatedly said, trespassing (and I suppose disorderly conduct) are the only crimes where the people who got into the capitol are 99%+ likely to be convicted; but any other crimes have a very low chance of success.

Collective punishment I must imagine would be unconstitutional. And sedition is not generally a crime where "foot soldiers" get charged.

[Former President tack50]

snip

I mean, I am plenty familiar with what sedition is and is not; it's not like there wasn't a huge debate in Spain about that back in 2019 And let me tell you, while the crime rises to the level of sedition; like I've said tons of times before, you generally do not punish the "foot soldiers" for that.

Obviously I am not familiar with the exact US definitions but they don't seem too different from the Spanish ones, especially the one about sedition which I've pastebinned here. Also included the similar crime of rebellion since they both reference each other, as well as the crimes of "disobedience", and "Public disorders"" since I guess those 2 would be the ones that would apply if it happened here.

To be honest my reluctance to punish the MAGA rioters comes because, when we actually had a crime of sedition happening here in 2017, only the 10 people or so who were directly responsible for it were put behind bars, and even those people were only given senteces of 10-13 years for 1 count of sedition and 1 count of public funds misuse.

The punishments that Atlas red avatars seem to want to impose on the MAGA rioters would make any Spanish far rightist think they are way too excessive; not even the most visceral Spanish far rightist would have defended jailing everyone who went out in Catalonia in Autumn 2017!

As for the murder charge, like I said, collective punishment is probably unconstitutional? Like unless you can find the exact person (or people) who killed the policeman, I don't think anyone should be charged with that? How does that work; like if say, there is a huge fight with tons of people and the exact murderer can't be found among the crowd?

[Former President tack50]

That’s when a Common Law principle called Felony Murder comes into play. Basically, that if a group of people commit a felony in which physical violence can be expected or the possibility of the same is disregarded and a murder occurs in the course of it, everyone involved in the felony is also liable for the murder. The textbook example is three people rob a bank and one of the shoots and kills someone. All three can be charged with murder.
I’m not suggesting we charge everyone at the Capitol with murder, that would clearly be abuse, but the crowd pushing down that door absolutely should.

As to the rest of the post, I think two things are at play here. The first is that the American justice system in general and the federal system in particular is rather harsh in terms of sentencing. This isn’t by any stretch a good thing, but we are more comfortable with long sentences. The second is that this simply hasn’t happened here. No one, well no one with the capability to do so, has ever tried to use a mob to keep themselves in office by force. It’s simply not something that happens here and I’d like to clamp down as hard as possible to keep it that way.

Hmm, that principle kind of seems a bit abusive to me, I thought that the justice system generally leaned more on the principle of "it's best to leave a guilty man free, than to put in jail an innocent man". But I guess it makes sense if that is the law of the land

As for the rest, I agree on the point of long sentences being more common. I guess I just disagree on the fact that they need to be given harsh sentences "to make a point". At least here the common wisdom (on the left at least; conservatives did want to make them guilty of rebellion, which carried longer terms of up to 25 years) suggested that a harder sentence of rebellion was not justified and that the sentences needed to fall into the sweet spot where they would not be too harsh, but also not acquitals.

Though like I said, no one, not even the far right led prosecution, was advocating for jailing those citizens who say, were opening polling stations against court orders, or blocking the police from performing searches on certain buildings and what not. Had they done that, the number of people sent to jail would have gone from 12 to several thousand

Worth noting that the other similar-ish incident in Spain, the 1981 failed military coup, was also given very lenient sentences* so even while everyone on the left went out of their way to not call it a coup (conservatives did call that a coup) there was still a sort of precedent.

_{*: 30 people went to prison. However no one under the rank of Lieutanant was even indicted. Of the 30 people who went to prison, 20 went for less than 5 years. Only 3 people were given the maximum sentence allowed at the time of 30 years, and they didn't even serve half of that. 2 were released on parole after 10 and 15 years; and the remaing leader was outright pardoned after 8 years!}

[Former President tack50]

Biden indicating he still plans to follow through with plans for outdoor inauguration.

I respect his courage, but I do worry that he's putting himself at significant unnecessary risk.
The symbolism of a normal inauguration is important, but I think that the optics of an evacuation, or (God forbid) shots being fired towards the Capitol, are far worse.

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1348702776705114114

He'll be surrounded by the military, there's not a chance a gunman is getting near him.

Also, being outdoors is good because of covid.

Yeah it is almost impossible that anyone could shoot at Biden. Certainly impossible to get close enough to him to shoot him with a handgun or something.

I guess a gun with enough of a long range could make it, but you'd need to be a very good shooter and I am not familiar with DC's geography to say whether there is any building or anything where you'd have a line of sight to Biden as he swears in.

Any would-be presidential assassins wouldn't do it on the inauguration I imagine.

[Former President tack50]

If this isn’t white privilege, then I don’t know what is:

 https://twitter.com/melissablasius/status/1348805638525050880?s=21

In defence of the rioters (never thought I'd say that), I am pretty sure that muslim prisoners get halal food and jewish prisoners get Kosher food if they request it (to put just a few examples). How is that any different?

[Former President tack50]

If this isn’t white privilege, then I don’t know what is:

 https://twitter.com/melissablasius/status/1348805638525050880?s=21

In defence of the rioters (never thought I'd say that), I am pretty sure that muslim prisoners get halal food and jewish prisoners get Kosher food if they request it (to put just a few examples). How is that any different?

None of which should be happening. I'm a semi-observant Jew, and I believe that in prison, you should get whatever is served to everyone, unless there is a legitimate reason, like a food allergy.

Religion isn't a legitimate reason to treat any prisoner differently from any other prisoner.

If you're not allowing someone to observe their religious customs, that's a "cruel and unusal punishment"

Technically that guy is justifying the organic food thing based of some dumb neonazi pagan religion. So if you are going with a religious freedom argument, it would apply to him as well

[Former President tack50]

For what is worth, if a significant amount of Republicans go for impeaching Trump, they better make sure they get him convicted

The worst scenario as an R officeholder is voting for conviction, ending up something like 55-45 and then Trump supports a  crazy primary challenger to you. That would still happen if convicted but it would with Trump found guilty the votes aren't there for you to lose your primary to the crazies on treason

If you aim for the king, you better not miss

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1349174501745938433

Members can bring guns to Capitol grounds, but not the floor of the House. (and let's face it, the prohibition on the floor is more a matter of decorum than security)

I read up more on this, and it seems that the metal detectors were installed by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, and applies only when entering the House floor, not the Capitol buildings themselves. So basically, Republican members are being babies in a way, but I still don't see why the honor system cannot be used for members like it was in the past.

You seriously don't see a problem with letting members of Congress carry guns on the floor? Do you want a murder to happen?

To be honest, other than the police, no one should be carrying guns in the capitol at all

[Former President tack50]

This.

Parliamentary privilege isn't some airy fairy thing. It's an importany underpinning of our democracy. Indeed it was a vital part of ensuring the United Kingdom shifted to a democratic government.

From the Parliament of Canada:

Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.

Incidents involving physical assault or physical obstruction (such as traffic barriers, security cordons and demonstrations) have been interpreted as impeding members’ access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct.

Interfering with the right of our lawfully elected officials to take their seat in the legislature with impunity undermines this crucial right.

Except no one is stopping them from getting inside the chamber? Just don't bring anything illegal inside and you'll be fine.

I know Canadian rules wouldn't apply in the US, but it does not seem to me like a metal detector is an "undue obstruction" to voting in Congress.

Like I said before, unless you are one the police guarding the Capitol from intruders, why would you need a gun inside anyways? Especially if you are an elected official, why would you want to bring a gun or another dangerous metallic thing with you?

[Former President tack50]

You're framing the issue backwards, which gets to the root of what Averroes and that other poster were arguing about.

The discussion of "just don't bring X in" or "why do you need a gun anyways" is besides the point. The point of Parliamentary Privilege (among other things) is that elected officials don't need to justify themselves to anyone to take their seats the legislature. I can't vouch for the specifics of the American rules vs Canadian ones, but it predates the American Revolution going back to the 1600's in the British system, and therefore presumably carried over.

Further, holding up members of Congress has been justified on the grounds that certain (Republican) members of Congress themselves are security risks*. This is bad faith partisanship at it's worst. If members of Congress seriously have to fear for their safety, or god forbid, their lives, from other members of Congress, the House and Senate need to take steps far more serious than than this security theatre... but of course they aren't taking those steps, which suggests that the alleged threat is malarkey.

In short:

1) Obstructions to members taking their seats need to be justified to members, not the other way around.

2) Any reasonable justification for the metal detectors holding up those Representatives would also imply that said Representatives need to be expelled from the House/Senate and/or arrested.

3) Since we are not taking these steps, Congresspeople ought to be exempted from these security measures.

*I know you didn't argue this, but I was going to post about it anyway, so I included it here.

The thing is, guns inside the House chamber are already banned by the rules? It's not like Dems are making up a new rule, they are just enforcing a currently existing rule!

Parliamentary privilege, while definitely a big part of what makes countries democratic, is far from absolute though, and there are lots of rules that parliament members must follow. Somoene who isn't following the appropiate parliamentary decorum can and do indeed get removed from the chamber.

I actually can agree with the fact that the extra checks are partisanly motivated and it isn't done to improve security at the Capitol. Though I personally would be scared if I was a representative and people who weren't guards had guns with them, but that is why guns are banned inside the floor anyways.

In any case, the "don't have guns inside the floor" rule is not a new one, it just wasn't enforced. Republicans are free to make a case why the House rules should be reformed to allow carrying guns inside the chamber; possibly even change the appropiate law to allow it when they get a majority (or if enough Dems support such a change)

Or alternatively, I imagine that parliamentary privilege breaches might be a justiceable question, so the Republicans could just sue.

As for the 3 step process you describe:

1a) No one is stopping them from taking their seats though! I am pretty sure Boebert and what not have already sweared in as Representatives.

1b) Even if you mean the fact that they aren't being allowed to vote, if the US congress has remote voting or vote by proxy, then they can still easily vote. If it isn't allowed, then you could have a point but I don't view "don't have guns" as an undue burden. Like I said, parliamentary privilege, while wide ranging, is not absolute.

2) No it doesn't? To use a UK example, there is a very famous incident where an MP called then-Prime Minister Cameron "Dodgy Dave" refused to retire that and then was expelled from the House of Commons.

If a violation of parliamentary decorum even as small as that can get you removed from the chamber, how is "don't have guns" somehow such a bit offence?

3) I don't think Congressmen should be exempted from any security measures. Freely speaking your mind without fear of retribution is parliamentary immunity protected. Carrying guns is not.