5 ms·

This is an overreaction because, as the OP mentions, legislatures around the world are often not heavily secured. Protestors forcing themselves into legislative

This is an overreaction because, as the OP mentions, legislatures around the world are often not heavily secured. Protestors forcing themselves into legislative buildings is pretty common worldwide even in stable countries, for example Taiwan and Germany recently, and there are no longterm consequences at all for rule of law. There was meaningful security in place last night in Washington DC: the legislators were evacuated to a heavily secured facility nearby.

_trampeltier 6y ago
Even in Switzerland was a shooting some years ago (a man shot 15 people in the parlament of Zug). Things just can happen fast und just by surprise. For me it was more surprising how long it took to get more police force to the place, I mean, it can happen suddenly are a lot of people there, but it took hours for the police. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The context is wildly different. One deranged man with a gun on a completely normal day can easily surprise security and cause surprising harm. A well known protest on a specific day, protesting a contentious issue, while all of the legislative branch is gathered together to confirm the results of the election, which the crowd believes was fraudulent, is an entirely different thing. Not to mention, the crowd was allowed on the steps near the entrance with no opposition, with reports of policemen taking selfies and even opening a door. Had this happened with the shooter in Zug, would the policeman doing so have been investigated? Would his superiors?
tsimionescu 6y ago
Is it common for that to happen while the legislative is meeting to confirm the next head of the executive? Were these protesters in Germany or Taiwan taking selfies with the police there? Were they also there with the expressed intent of convincing their legislature to overturn the results of the election? Context is important.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  The protesters in Germany actually didn’t enter the building and were just taking selfies outside the building.
fock 6y ago
Second that. Once was visiting the German parliament and just strolling around the waiting area. Suddenly a (unarmed) guard rushed from a hallway and asked for my ID. He seemed not too amused with me going through these automatically opening glass doors... As to the infosec problems: legislature is run (even more in the US) by mostly senile, corrupt lawmakers and a staff of technically inept party groupies (or so I guess, clicking random aides linkedin-profiles). I doubt that any nationstate actor needs a raid of their offices to get to their computers (and that's why these people probably get the real national-security stuff on paper...)
- gotorazor 6y ago
  That’s the problem. The “protestors” just stole a bunch of those papers.
addicted 6y ago
The difference is in this case the “attack” was announced and legislators had spoken to the police in advance and been told that they were prepared. The other difference is that not even a few months ago, police used massive shows of force against people who were unarmed (other than cameras for the reporters among them) and completely peaceful, in the same area.
cbmuser 6y ago
Protestors didn’t force themselves into the Reichstag in Germany. There were standing in front of it and were talking selfies. If you think those three police officers at the Reichstag would have stopped those protestors if they action had wanted to storm the building, you are delusional. Oh, and not too long before that Greenpeace members actually climbed the Reichstag and unrolled an anti-coal banner. Just that the media didn’t frame this into “an attack on democracy”.
- phalangion 6y ago
  To attack democracy is precisely the goal of this protest, though. The democratic election is complete, the results didn’t go their way, and in the midst of the final certification of results, these people broke into the Capitol to disrupt the process. That seems like an attack on democracy to me. If not that, what was their goal?
  - OJFord 6y ago
    Well to be fair, isn't it their apparent belief that the results did go their way, but <.. something conspiratorial..>? So they presumably at least notionally feel that the attack on democracy has already happened, and they are... I don't know, defending it?
    - phalangion 6y ago
      Perhaps, but to what end? So they breached the Capitol and disrupted Congress. Then what?
    - kordlessagain 6y ago
      They believe what they believe and they also hold the idea that if that belief is threatened by facts, there must ALWAYS be an alternate narrative that allows them to continue to believe what they believe. This is because Trump himself is strong in this means of building an internal fantasy reality and then presenting it to others (irrationally) which then either causes them to believe it or come to understand his ego is the issue here. If you listen to him, he's constantly negating what he just said, which comes across as open to interpretation (or completely insane). No one man or woman is above the law. Factual information is arrived at by consensus of people. That a certain group of people in this country refuse to accept or participate in the consensus mechanism (or threaten or dismiss that mechanism) then those people are against whatever it is that forms the consensus, such as the constitution, the US Govt., etc. This is how dictatorships are born and it would do these people well to understand that replacing their made up fears with a dictator is not going to help anyone.

_trampeltier 6y ago

Even in Switzerland was a shooting some years ago (a man shot 15 people in the parlament of Zug). Things just can happen fast und just by surprise. For me it was more surprising how long it took to get more police force to the place, I mean, it can happen suddenly are a lot of people there, but it took hours for the police. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre

tsimionescu 6y ago
The context is wildly different. One deranged man with a gun on a completely normal day can easily surprise security and cause surprising harm. A well known protest on a specific day, protesting a contentious issue, while all of the legislative branch is gathered together to confirm the results of the election, which the crowd believes was fraudulent, is an entirely different thing. Not to mention, the crowd was allowed on the steps near the entrance with no opposition, with reports of policemen taking selfies and even opening a door. Had this happened with the shooter in Zug, would the policeman doing so have been investigated? Would his superiors?

tsimionescu 6y ago

Is it common for that to happen while the legislative is meeting to confirm the next head of the executive? Were these protesters in Germany or Taiwan taking selfies with the police there? Were they also there with the expressed intent of convincing their legislature to overturn the results of the election? Context is important.

cbmuser 6y ago
The protesters in Germany actually didn’t enter the building and were just taking selfies outside the building.

fock 6y ago

Second that. Once was visiting the German parliament and just strolling around the waiting area. Suddenly a (unarmed) guard rushed from a hallway and asked for my ID. He seemed not too amused with me going through these automatically opening glass doors... As to the infosec problems: legislature is run (even more in the US) by mostly senile, corrupt lawmakers and a staff of technically inept party groupies (or so I guess, clicking random aides linkedin-profiles). I doubt that any nationstate actor needs a raid of their offices to get to their computers (and that's why these people probably get the real national-security stuff on paper...)

gotorazor 6y ago
That’s the problem. The “protestors” just stole a bunch of those papers.

addicted 6y ago

The difference is in this case the “attack” was announced and legislators had spoken to the police in advance and been told that they were prepared. The other difference is that not even a few months ago, police used massive shows of force against people who were unarmed (other than cameras for the reporters among them) and completely peaceful, in the same area.

cbmuser 6y ago

Protestors didn’t force themselves into the Reichstag in Germany. There were standing in front of it and were talking selfies. If you think those three police officers at the Reichstag would have stopped those protestors if they action had wanted to storm the building, you are delusional. Oh, and not too long before that Greenpeace members actually climbed the Reichstag and unrolled an anti-coal banner. Just that the media didn’t frame this into “an attack on democracy”.

phalangion 6y ago
To attack democracy is precisely the goal of this protest, though. The democratic election is complete, the results didn’t go their way, and in the midst of the final certification of results, these people broke into the Capitol to disrupt the process. That seems like an attack on democracy to me. If not that, what was their goal?
- OJFord 6y ago
  Well to be fair, isn't it their apparent belief that the results did go their way, but <.. something conspiratorial..>? So they presumably at least notionally feel that the attack on democracy has already happened, and they are... I don't know, defending it?
  - phalangion 6y ago
    Perhaps, but to what end? So they breached the Capitol and disrupted Congress. Then what?
  - kordlessagain 6y ago
    They believe what they believe and they also hold the idea that if that belief is threatened by facts, there must ALWAYS be an alternate narrative that allows them to continue to believe what they believe. This is because Trump himself is strong in this means of building an internal fantasy reality and then presenting it to others (irrationally) which then either causes them to believe it or come to understand his ego is the issue here. If you listen to him, he's constantly negating what he just said, which comes across as open to interpretation (or completely insane). No one man or woman is above the law. Factual information is arrived at by consensus of people. That a certain group of people in this country refuse to accept or participate in the consensus mechanism (or threaten or dismiss that mechanism) then those people are against whatever it is that forms the consensus, such as the constitution, the US Govt., etc. This is how dictatorships are born and it would do these people well to understand that replacing their made up fears with a dictator is not going to help anyone.