I think "terrorism" in general is a pretty shitty term that no criminal code should have. It's a political term to paint opponents in a certain light. — Benkei

Yes, the authorities can define anyone they want as a terrorist, from any side of politics, and therefore harass, convict them and remove them.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Why is the definition there if it's not part of an actual crime?

You're more qualified to answer that question than me. :wink:

Interestingly, a search of the entire chapter shows that the term "domestic terrorism" is only used in the definitions section. So they define it but never actually use it.

Compare with "international terrorism" which is used 14 times to establish actual crimes, e.g. providing financial support to a government that supports international terrorism.

The crime is ‘armed insurrection’ and ought to be dealt with accordingly. — Wayfarer

Potentially seditious conspiracy.

On the high end, charges of civil disorder, interfering with law enforcement, or inciting a riot could all be possible, up to seditious conspiracy — a federal charge punishable by up to 20 years in prison, he said.

That latter charge seemed most appealing to two professors of Western Michigan University’s Cooley Law School.

It reads:

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

The phrase “delay the execution of the law” is key, and what was seen from some of the Trump supporters Wednesday, said Devin Schindler, a law professor who once clerked for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“For at least some of these protesters, particularly the ones that broke into the Capitol, I think there's an extraordinarily strong case that they used force to delay, to hinder, the execution of our laws governing the election and how electoral votes are counted,” he said. “It seems fairly clear to me, based on what we're seeing, that folks are in fact, almost textbook violating this seditious conspiracy statute by using force to interfere with lawful government activity."

It's been a wild four years.

Season finale is good though.

I hear the sequel has been cancelled?

We get one of those rare spin-offs that's better than the original.

I think Agustino might need a welfare check. He MIA?

He MIA? — WhiskeyWhiskers

For a year now, although hasn't posted in two.

I'll message him. You think they get 5G in the bunker?

Let's not.

Iraq court issues arrest warrant against Trump for murder

↪Brett I don't actually know the specifics, but from all the news I've been seeing there seems to be a clear consensus that some crime was committed today, by the people storming the capitol. I would guess that at the very least bringing weapons into a government building like that is probably illegal, and even if not that, that there are restrictions on entry into at least some parts of that building if not the building as a whole, since I sincerely doubt it's lawful for just anyone to rummage through e.g. Pelosi's office

It certainly is a crime. When protesters “stormed” the senate building a couple years ago, 600 protesters and a Dem Congress-woman were arrested occupying the senate building. When people protested back in January about impeachment, 41 protesters were arrested doing the same shit. During the Kavanaugh hearing, even celebrities were arrested occupying the senate building. Just in June of last year, George Floyd riots ripped through Washington.

The only difference is how these people are being portrayed in the gutter press: one group as terrorists, a violent mob, and the rest as concerned protesters and activists. I do not remember congress or the senate saying it was an attack on democracy when protesters occupied, disrupted and sometimes accosted its members.

These fucking rats jumping the sinking ship just when it least affects them. Cowardly vermin.

President Donald Trump is now banned from Facebook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-twitter-ban/

Big Tech is censoring the president of the United States. Fuckerberg donated around $400 000 0000 to elections, some of which was spent on equipment that processed mail-in ballots, so it’s no wonder he suppresses dissent. Each day we become more and more like China.

Absolutely, though on the positive side, the ship is truly sunk. Trump couldn't have come up with a better way to humiliate, disgrace, and ultimately destroy himself. No 2024 run and probably jail. From that perspective, it's the best realistically possible outcome for the end of his presidency. It's just horrific 4 of his supporters had to die for it to happen. They really believed. And he doesn't give a fuck about them.

The only difference is how these people are being portrayed in the gutter press: one group as terrorists, a violent mob, and the rest as concerned protesters and activists. I do not remember congress or the senate saying it was an attack on democracy when protesters occupied, disrupted and sometimes accosted its members. — NOS4A2

There is a difference between fighting, looting and rioting because of perceived social injustice (looting and rioting being criminal of course, do not get me wrong) and storming a government building with the aim of seizing power for your own preferred strong man. The first is civil disorder, the other an attempt at toppling the democratic state. The difference is that the legal order is shocked in the first instance, but not itself in danger, whereas in the second instance it is itself under threat.

In the same vein there is a difference between political protest and rioting at the Kavanaugh hearing, where the seats of power have not been breached and the storming of the capitol where they have been. The threat to the legal order is much larger where such actions succeed than where they do not and the shock to the legal order is consequently much more severe.

I know US criminal law is not used to thinking in terms of 'the legal order', it is a rather German / Dutch conception, but there must be something similar. The same rationale applies when terrorist intent is punished harsher than ordinary street crime, which holds under US criminal law. It is not 'the gutter press' just doing something, in reporting differently about these two instances. The difference is similar to the way attempted murder is reported and actual murder is. The second presenting the more severe shock to the legal order and therefore warranting much more coverage and indeed condemnation..

No, this was certainly not a terrorist. And quite frankly if people honestly believe the election was stolen, this reaction would be totally understandable. — Benkei

It was certainly a person using violence for political gain, aka a terrorist or if you prefer, an old style fascist. And of course it’s logical from their screwed-up POV. Mussolini was logical too, and his reactions perfectly understandable from a fascist perspective.

There is a difference between fighting, looting and rioting because of perceived social injustice (looting and rioting being criminal of course, do not get me wrong) and storming a government building with the aim of seizing power for your own preferred strong man. — Tobias

And, of course, everyone except a Trump troll would acknowledge this. Even Ted Cruz of all people has made an official statement calling these Trump supporters terrorists. I guess he's part of the leftie press too. :chin:



Moral of the story, Trump trolls will never concede even the most obvious facts and are not worth engaging.

It was certainly a person using violence for political gain, aka a terrorist or if you prefer, an old style fascist. And of course it’s logical from their screwed-up POV. Mussolini was logical too, and his reactions perfectly understandable from a fascist perspective. — Olivier5

I do not presume to talk for Benkei, but we do come from the same legal tradition and are surprisingly often in agreement about such matters so I will give it a shot. Not everyone who uses violence for political gain does it to the same measure and degree and therefore not everyone deserves the same punishment. If you are a street artist and you spray 'fuck the king' on a Dutch building you are committing the act of violence against goods, with a political motive. However it is hardly the same as planting a bomb in a crowded place in order to get the Dutch to withdraw from Afghanistan or wherever they might be. It has to do with the threat and shock to the legal order again. If you get swept away in a crowd with people who you agree with and in a frenzy of righteous fervor do something you really should not be doing, do you deserve to die? My feeling is no. Her death therefore is tragic. Could it be avoided and by who, that is the question of culpability for her death. The shooter might have acted in legitimate self defense or defense of others, but her death is tragic.

I’m not aware of anyone intent on seizing power, and find no rhetoric to that effect. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I was under the impression it was a protest.

s — NOS4A2

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

You didn’t get any impression of rioting?

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. The thing is there is no evidence of any “intent to seize power” outside of the fantasies of the gutter-press, who for months now have convinced themselves of an impending coup. It’s been a rally and a protest all along.

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning? — Tobias

You are familiar with the term "gaslighting" right? Well, I suspect some gaslighting here..

Don't waste your time on the Trumptard.

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. — NOS4A2

How did they occupy the senate building, using potentially lethal force or armed in a way that might enable them to do so or not?

You are familiar with the term "gaslighting" right? Well, I suspect some gaslighting here.. — schopenhauer1

Gaslighting as in making the other believe they are crazy? How do you mean this exactly? he crowd was gaslighted into thinking they are being oppressed by an unseen elite and the media, or gaslighting as in the media are making us believe we see something that is actually not there, i.e., a violent mob invading the Capitol?